Pacific Union Conference Re-elects Officers; Encounters Women’s Ordination Friction
By Jiggs Gallagher, August 30, 2016 – Corrected: The 30th quinquennial session of the Adventist denomination’s Pacific Union Conference on Sunday and Monday (August 28 and 29) started out like most such gatherings, with music, worship, enthusiastic reports of progress on a number of fronts and many choruses of “Amen” from the assembled delegates. It convened in Paradise Valley, Arizona.
All the officers and top department heads, beginning with Pastor Ricardo Graham, the president, were re-elected by vast majorities of the 307 regular delegates and 81 delegates-at-large. All of the leadership team was elected by percentages in the upper 80s and 90s; an electronic voting system was used that by all accounts worked far better than the one at the General Conference (GC) in San Antonio (Texas) last summer.
However, underlying tensions over the issue of ordination for women in the clergy bubbled up just after the opening prayer, as Graham introduced the agenda and asked for a simple vote to approve it. Pastor Chris Buttery of the Sacramento Central Church rose to ask for a vote to add an item. He wanted delegates to consider rescinding the vote by a 2012 session that approved gender equality in ordination, calling it out of harmony with a 2015 vote at the GC session against allowing the world divisions of the GC deal with the issue. Graham noted that without advance notice of an agenda item before the meeting, adding an item would require a two-thirds majority under the rules. Graham then ruled the motion out of order, Buttery sat down, and the printed agenda was approved, 93 percent to 7 percent.
In his remarks Graham noted that after the departure of his predecessor, Pastor Tom Mostert, the union office staff in Westlake Village (California) was reduced from 101 to a current total of 33. The move was aimed at reducing duplicative services that were already ably provided at the local conference level. He added that monies saved were returned to the conferences and especially to local churches, “where the action is.”
The Sunday night reports proceeded at a dizzying pace, surveying programs over the past five years such as “Pathways to Health,” a medical outreach that has gone across North America but began as a joint effort between the Northern and Central California conferences. The most recent project was undertaken by the Southern California Conference in Los Angeles in April, and served about 8,500 people at the Los Angeles Convention Center. More than 4,000 volunteers participated, and so far 12 people contacted through the project have been baptized.
Other program reports featured revitalized literature evangelism; GLOW (Giving Light to Our World) with a goal of distributing one billion religious tracts during 2017; SOULS West, another literature effort that has graduated 300 young students; and SHARE, a total member involvement in “evangel-living” that will undertake a major training program in Ontario, California, in August of 2018.
Diversity was highlighted, with activities in African American, Hispanic and Asian communities. Within the five-state region there are Adventist ministries among 25 Asian language groups and a large effort has emerged in work with refugees. For example, the Arizona Conference serves a large group of Myanmar (formerly Burma) refugees in the Phoenix area. The conference has grown its Asian ministries from one to 12 congregations during the quinquennium.
Other reports highlighted the vibrant Adventist education program, both K-12 and two institutions of higher education, La Sierra University and Pacific Union College. Scholarship programs targeting eighth-grade Hispanic students from Adventist families in public schools are bringing those stude4nts into Adventist academies for the ninth grade.
Pastor Eddie Heinrich, youth director for the Northern California Conference and volunteer coordinator for the union conference, noted that more than 6,000 young people are just concluding the summer camp season. He said 200 of those youth were baptized at the camps this summer, and another 200 will be baptized this fall in their home churches because of decisions made at camp. He claimed that 2,000 of the 6,000 “gave their hearts to Jesus” in public declarations. Outreach to public high school students (coordinated by Pastor Scott Ward) and public college and university students (coordinated by Pastor Ron Pickell) showed progress in those areas.
Graham’s wife, Audrey, presented a heart-warming testimony about a friend at the public high school where she teaches. The friend, Helen Smith, is a substitute teacher. She asked Audrey if she were a Christian, because she sensed something different about her. Audrey said yes, and that she was a Seventh-day Adventist. Smith replied that she was a Baptist but that she wanted to become an Adventist. Their friendship grew, and Audrey invited Helen to church one week when she (Audrey) would be speaking for a women’s program. She arranged for friends near Helen’s home to give her Bible studies. One day two years ago Helen texted Audrey that she was to be baptized soon.
For all the reports of progress, including small increases in tithe and other donations, there were negative reports as well. Baptisms declined every one of the five years from 2011 to 2016. Though not large decreases, it was evident that leaders want to turn that trend around in the coming term.
The Monday morning session proceeded smoothly during the elections. Pastor Dan Jackson, president of the denomination’s North American Division, chaired the nominating committee. He and Dr. Heather Knight, president of Pacific Union College, the committee’s secretary, presented each nominee and offered opportunity for comments from the delegates on each person. There was no comment regarding anyone. Graham was re-elected president, so were Pastor Bradford C. Newton (executive secretary and ministerial association secretary), Pastor Tony Anobile (vice president), Theodore R. Benson (treasurer), Pastor Vic Louis Areola III (Asian Pacific ministries coordinator), Pastor Virgil S. Childs (African American ministries coordinator) and Pastor Jorge P. Soria (Hispanic ministries coordinator).
However, when Knight presented a roster of conference candidates for the executive committee, a number of delegates, particularly from the La Sierra University church, asked about the diversity of the group and how it could be increased in the next round in 2021. Jackson responded that procedures should be put in place to encourage more input through publishing names and contact information for the nominating committee members early enough to facilitate the gathering of suggestions.
Another questioner suggested term limits for officers, suggesting that most delegates don’t want to vote against an incumbent who is working hard and effectively, but if term limits were in place there would be new blood as a matter of course. Jackson noted that other union conferences have already implemented term limits and the Pacific Union Conference could certainly consider that change.
The orderly procedure of the morning’s activities began to disintegrate when the bylaws committee made its report. What began as a rather routine number of cosmetic editorial changes were read and approved without controversy. But when the committee chair read the change proposed for Article 14, which concerned making amendments to the bylaws in concert with the Model Union Conference Constitution and Bylaws voted by the GC executive committee, it unleashed a torrent of comments from the floor.
First Pastor Chris Oberg, senior pastor of the La Sierra University church, stated, “I want to speak to the tension in the room,” referencing the vote of the 2012 special session. She felt the change in language proposed for Article 14 would open the door to moving backwards on women’s ordination in order to supposedly comply with GC policy. A pastor from San Jose rose to call women’s ordination “the elephant in the room.” He urged defeat of the change.
The bylaws committee had been allotted 15 minutes on the agenda, from 9:30 to 9:45 am to present its entire report and take the vote. The comments, arguments and repeated votes (at least six) stretched the discussion to more than two hours and 20 minutes, ending at nearly noon. Graham noted that there were numerous other reports to follow, some involving necessary votes. A buffet luncheon for the delegates, was not served until after 1 pm.
In the end, Article 14 was approved with one new sentence but retaining the language that the committee had proposed to drop. Amazingly, Pastor Buttery of Sacramento came back to the microphone to try to re-impose consideration of striking the 2012 vote on gender neutrality in ordination. There was a distinct buzz of annoyance from the hungry crowd. However, Graham acceded to an electronic vote, which was defeated by 24 percent yes to 76 percent no.
The arcana of parliamentary procedure, including Roberts’ Rules of Order, tended at times to confuse delegates during the chaotic bylaws discussion. There were repeated requests to re-read the language of proposals so that delegates could understand what exactly they were voting on. Graham twice interjected requests to stop everything and offer prayer at particularly contentious points. At the end of the segment, Graham said he felt it was productive and that difficult issues require time and careful thought to work through them.
When this reporter entered the meeting on Sunday night, he was greeted by a lady (appropriately) named Joy. She was welcoming people, and she offered to pray with each one, as she moved around the lobby. That was just one indication that this was not the run-of-the-mill corporate gathering. The family feeling of church permeated all of the proceedings, even if there was evidence of some dysfunction in the family.
Jiggs Gallagher is a senior editor for Adventist Today and teaches journalism at California State University. The featured photo with this story shows the Pacific Union Conference office in Westlake Village, California. The other photos were taken during the meeting.
Really interesting, Jiggs. Thank you very much for condensing what was obviously a complex and contentious meeting into a very lively, informative narrative. But I’m not quite clear. What language did the committee propose to drop from Article 14? You reported that the proposal was to “change” the language of Article 14. Then you said Article 14 was approved with just one new sentence.
I infer from the report that the end result leaves unfettered autonomy with the Union over its own bylaws. Could you clarify? Is the “new sentence” substantive – or simply cosmetic?
Nathan, I was trying to telescope a long and confusing two-plus hours of discussion on Article 14. The committee’s suggested language, in its original presentation, was as follows (first capped language was the committee’s new addition; second capped sentence was a suggested removal):
“The Bylaws of this Union, which are essential to the unity of the church worldwide, may be amended, revised, or repealed from time to time in order to comport with the spirit of the Model Union Constitution and Bylaws as voted by the General Conference Executive Committee [OR TO ADVANCE THE MISSION OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IN TEH PACIFIC UNION.] Such amendments or revisions shall be approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the delegates present and voting at any duly called Constituency Sessions of the Union. [THE BYLAWS MAY BE AMENDED, REVISED, OR REPEALED, PROVIDED SUCH CHANGES ARE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE MODEL UNION CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS.] Notice of any proposed changes to the Bylaws of this Union shall be given specifically in conjunction with the publication of notice for the Constituency Session. The Constituency Session or the Union Executive Committee may recommend to the General Conference through the North American Division of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists amendments to the Model Union Constitution and Bylaws.”
The six or seven votes (I lost count) included one to change the first word, “or,” to “and” in the first changed…
Sorry, I ran out of characters on the first reply. “or” to “and” in the first changed sentence (it failed). Another vote was to consider the Article 14 separately from the rest of the changes (it passed). Finally, the other changes were passed overwhelmingly, and the Article 14 vote (which added the first suggested sentence as is (with “or”) and ALSO kept the second sentence (which would have been dropped), by 68 percent (which was barely the two-thirds majority required.
Thanks Jiggs. Again, really fine job of a good story, with what I feel is a very good outcome.
This is a great report, very well and objectively written. Thank you.
I enjoyed reading it, especially because it is by far much better than what was reported on other sites, e.g., http://www.Fulcrum7.
If I understood well, nothing changed in the policy at PUC regarding ordination of women. WO remains supported in our Union, as it always was. And as it should be in every Union.
I hope the anti-discrimination-of-women movement will keep growing. The Unions are the only ones able to make it happen, since they are the ones (and only ones) that have the power to make decisions on ordination of ministers.
Yes, the GC wants to increase its power to interfere in the process, aiming to hijack the power that belongs only to the Unions. But now we can see, still better, the wisdom of those who created the Unions; it seems that they knew that the GC would one day adopt a dictatorial style of governance. So far the GC has been pretty much defeated in its endeavor.
Thank God for the Unions!!!
You are correct, George–nothing changed regarding the union’s stated policy in favor of the ordination of women.
Excellent report. This is the reason that Adventist Today exists — to report what really happens at these political gatherings. It is sometimes very difficult to do because of the tradition that “God is directing the [political] affairs of the church.” We seem to have moved beyond that quaint idea.
Thanks, Ervin! If I had been in my (sometimes) cynical/skeptical mood when I wrote the piece, I would have included the comment of one minister, telling of one exciting experience of a young female literature evangelist, who took tracts into a market. She was told to wait by the cheese counter, where an older man was serving customers. He steered customers to her, and she gave out dozens of tracts. When she talked to the owner of the market, upon leaving, she thanked him for teaming her up with the cheese clerk. The owner said, “there is no special worker in the cheese department.” The implication was that this was an angel who helped her. As much as one might want to believe such reports, one is hard pressed, in our world, to do so.
Thank you Jiggs for relating yet another classical “angel” story.
I would literally give a finder’s fee (amount to be negotiated) contingent upon tracing the story back to the source.
Can anyone provide specific contact information for the person that told the story that you related? On that basis, if we are able to obtain specific contact information for the entire line of communication back to the individual who was handing out the tracts, the person that assisted in tracing that line of communication back to the source would get the finder’s fee.
It would not make any difference what the original source related when contacted. The hypothesis is that either the line of communication of the story can not be found or when we get back to the source, he/she will say that what was related about happened was confused in the telling.
I understand that in the former “mission field” these kind of mythological stories are still being told! Why do they always seem to happen in places which would be very difficult to visit?
Is this being cynical or simply rational?
Here’s a first hand “miracle” story for you Erv: A young woman came to a Bible study group and reported that God had healed her of cancer. She had a large tumor in her brain that was inoperable and blinded her in one eye. Her breathing was compromised from metastasis. She recently had radiation therapy. Now I knew that radiation can shrink a tumor and that cancer sometimes goes into remission, aside from prayer of divine intervention; nevertheless, I wasn’t going to stand up in a group of several people and refute her story, crush her hope and optimism, so I said “Praise the Lord.”
A lot of people were praying for her. Do you want to tell a young woman and her husband that probably she will still die in a few months, when she believes she has been healed? Sadly, that is exactly what happened, she died, a few months after she had visited various venues and praised God for healing her from cancer.
There’s one miracle I rely on, the resurrection of Christ.
Luke 16:31
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
“I would have included the comment of one minister, telling of one exciting experience of a young female literature evangelist,”
Well Jiggs, thanks for not including the experience in your article. It would have decreased its quality – which is actually very good, excellent as it is…
🙂
Should skepticism prevail when a story is told which may well be Divine intervention? “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers…”
I wonder if “sufferingsunfish” would explain why all the “miracle stories” seem always to be far, far away from any place where it would be convenient to check up on them. Or does “sufferingsunfish” automatically believe in all of these stories. What would you call someone who does that?
Sufferingsunfish,
It is truly ironic that you would tell us of scoffers when that is how you regard the working of the Holy Spirit in increasing the diversity of people whom He calls to do the work others persist in doing poorly, or ignoring.
Regarding the cheese counter incident…I have heard some “testimonies” that were dubious, obviously designed to brag on the person even at the expense of others (who aren’t available to corroborate) relating supposed incident.
So now, depending on the story, or until I’m able to check the character of the person giving such “testimony”, as far as I’m concerned it never happened.
On the other hand a woman stood in front of the congregation crying her eyes out over a person who had just died that she had been helping. Yet the story was not for self-glorification, but heartfelt pain at the loss.
That I believe, and support.
Yes!
What was proposed for article 14 and what was finally approved?
Spectrum online has the specifics of Article 14.
See comments by Jiggs Gallagher about the proposed edits to Article 14 and the final vote.
What I haven’t seen anywhere are details about the debate on Article 16.
I was asked by a mutual friend of Ricardo Graham to correct that his wife’s friend, Helen, the substitute teacher, was baptized two years ago, not this year. Duly noted.
There seems to be a little confusion in this article about my intentions. Let me seek to clarify. According to one of the parliamentarians, my Sunday motion was out of order because when I moved to amend the agenda to include another item, I asked that we “reconsider” the vote taken in 2012 as opposed to “rescinding” the vote taken in 2012. Apparently, a new assembly of delegates cannot reconsider what a previous assembly of delegates voted on because they weren’t there. As far as when that motion was made; that was perfectly in order. I reluctantly sat down on Sunday when I was told my motion was out of order because I was confused. I had talked with one of the parliamentarians earlier that day and thought I had the right wording, so when he stood to defend the motion being out of order because of incorrect wording I was surprised and got a little discombobulated. Later, I realized I had given up the floor prematurely. Said parliamentarian was seeking to help me with the right words and at the time I didn’t understand what he was trying to do. When I talked with the parliamentarian the next morning after worship about making the motion again, he apologized for not fully understanding our prior conversation. He was very willing to talk to Elder Graham on my behalf to see if I could make the motion to add an agenda item, to which Elder Graham agreed. My intent was not to “re-impose” my motion, but to present it with the right wording so it could be voted on. I hope…
It seems to me that the proposed changes to Article 14 are helpful to the autonomy of Pacific Union Conference and the current policy of women’s ordination. Jiggs, can you explain why Chris Oberg expressed otherwise? If the proposed changes were not voted in their entirety by proponents of women’s ordination, then I would be fascinated to know the reason why.
I can’t speak for Chris. Maybe you should ask her!
Chris Oberg was not the first person to speak about article 14. Article 14 had several incarnations. Several times there was suggested changes and wording. Chris spoke to one of the wordings but was not the first person to speak about what the bylaws committee had presented. When article 14 was first presented the chair actually expressed how he wanted us to send it back to committee because the committee had decided the night before that the changes in wording needed tweaking. The second person Jiggs quoted spoke before Pastor Oberg and was trying to to get the bylaws chair to enlighten us/the delegates about why he was asking for it to be sent back to committee. He was wondering what had come up and been discussed at the bylaws pre meeting that caused this change of mind. The chair was rather reluctant to be specific and needed prodding. That is how I remember the event and I stand by my memory! 🙂
Typical of more “mass confusion” that suits the liberal agenda to a tee. You may control to a large degree, but not in the end.
The church will get a lot smaller before it can accomplish God’s will to communicate His message to the world. Male headship is so clearly God ordained in all the bible that people must at some point, deliberately refuse to see the truth to justify their own agenda.
After the early church changed the day of worship to Sunday, they baptized tens of thousands into the church. They no doubt considered this great success as certain evidence they had done God’s will.
Spiritual manifestations are not “proof” that you are in the will of God. So don’t be too over joyed by all the apparent “success” that attends the efforts.
What amazes me is that there are still some people fighting in favor of bringing back the (now old in our Union) discrimination of women in our Church.
This was, indeed, one of the big elephants in the room.
But it is obvious that the Constituents’ message was clear, that there is no longer room for such shameful practice in our Union.
I know that some defenders of a continued practice of discrimination of women in our Church may even become extremely angry and mad when things don’t go their way, when their retrograde ideas are rejected. But, if one’s dog is no longer hunting, well,…. please, get another dog!
One example of an angry person is the case of Ted Wilson becoming extremely mad when months ago in one meeting at the GC they considered the issue regarding the European Unions that had decided to stop all ordinations in general. It is said that when TW left the room, with both arms up, he angrily said, “I will close them all!” Only to be reminded by one of his VPs that he doesn’t have the power to do so.
Now, this info was a first-hand info told by a witness to the fact, who told it to a close friend of mine. Both are highly respectable people who served the Church for all their lives. So, if someone wants to dispute the credibility of this info, please contact TW directly and ask him to deny it if it is not true. Then we can go from there…
I don’t know what he could possibly have said or thought when the PUC stood again for what is…
George- you just don’t get it! The old saw about discrimination against women is as phony as a $3 bill. When people have convictions describing it to suit the liberal crowd is hardly compelling.
Well, I know you are “suffering,” but just check what the majority voted for in Arizona… Then tell me, again, that I am the one who doesn’t get it! 🙂
Cute quip, George. I have noticed that liberals call for church discipline for pride. How about for gossip(backbiting)? Spreading a story about TW when there is no proof. Obviously your suggestion to ask him is just a ploy. How many kooks write to a man who heads up a church with millions of members I wonder.
Votes by a majority are often wrong and actually a vote in AZ is of no significance.
Mr sunfish I beg to differ. The Arizona vote was of great significance and sent a strong message that the Pacific Union will not be bullied into shunning 1/2 of God’s character! Why would God want us to discriminate against such a crowning part of His creation? I can’t imagine what the wives and daughters of male headship proponents say to themselves about their value.
Mr Tichy, I think you are the one that misunderstands. Others do not suffer or are suffering because of you, but for you. They Love you enough to stand up to you and for you. Did you really want to make others suffer? I am a child and understand these simple facts, when do we expect that from you?
In just simple statements, you stand for a failing and rebellious Union. Why? If the ideas and practices discussed have already been implemented and the Union is still failing, why do you continue to stand?
We have our GOD, our Savior, our salvation, our BIBLES, our Prophets, our Denomination and the multitudes provided and surrounding that Love us. What do you have to offer us in you or ideas? Do you want to make our heads so big they will not fit through the straight and narrow gate? Or make us so tall we will not fit through the eye of the needle? Where do you wish to lead us, since you seem to want to lead so much that you want to hurt and bully others? Make your sales pitch.
Cherry, my mom says that maybe teaching the Wisdom of the BIBLE might be better than teaching others about yourself? Teaching the young women to love their children and husbands, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed as commanded. She says she does not see much of that from you, but does sees the many problems you leave for others to fix. The problems that are left for my generation to fix.
Excellent thoughts, Whisper.
I agree the meeting should have been one of reports of evangelism and soul winning instead of the usual, political nonsense that seems to dominate gatherings of this type. There are some people who are so hung up on getting “my agenda” out in the open, that they forget the purpose of the church is to save souls, NOT to advance their agenda, i.e., the “elephant in the room”. But, sadly, this is not the case. God pity our souls!!!
“. There are some people who are so hung up on getting “my agenda” out in the open, that they forget the purpose of the church is to save souls, NOT to advance their agenda, …..”
Peter, I would say that most people like yourself who are the majority, see no big deal one way or the other. You do not consider it a “salvational issue”. And you by far the majority.
On the other hand, people like George Tichy consider the male headship agenda as men enslaving women for 6000 years, and now, at last, the world and the SDA church is bring this “slavery” to an end. In which case, it is a very “salvational issue” by his definition.
And those of us who are a minority and have no dynamic influence in our support of male headship, realize the gravity of the situation and know “the church” can not, and will not fulfill the God given commission to teach the 3 angels message to the world as long as the liberals hold the “bully pulpit” in the church.
The church has joined the world wide movement of one world religion based on a generic Christanity that has little or no definition. Some influencial leaders advocate that Allah is the same God that SDA’s worship. Hello??????? Small wonder the church is in massive confusion on every level. And some see the Catholic church as no threat to bible Christanity, even in the SDA church.
If you don’t get the picture, it may be that you are not looking……
Peter,
Given the way things have been going in recent years in terms of church growth, if the meeting had been focused on evangelism reports, I wonder just how short it would have been.
Bill, you indicate that you and your fundamentalist compatriots are a small minority. The only way to make your church much smaller as you’ve indicated is to form a new church, and take TW with you!!! But don’t desert Atoday. You could name it “Attempting to reach 144,000 SDA Church.
Why does AToday permit disparagement of TW? Spectrum once told its subscribers to knock it off when some were very discourteous in comments about TW. I suggest that the leaders of AToday establish some guidelines about comments with respect to church leaders.
Whoever you are hiding behind “Suffering sunfish,” would you abide by such a guideline in every instance, no matter what a denominational leader did or said?
You may have misunderstood my point, Monte. I’m not speaking about agreeing or disagreeing with TW I’m speaking about disparaging such persons as was done. I hope I have made myself clear.
” You could name it “Attempting to reach 144,000 SDA Church.”
Very clever, Earl. You may want to consider what happened to the boys who mocked Elisha in his day.
I am not worried about my own identity so much as some who may come here without a clear understanding of the goals of this forum. It is EGW and the bible that is being “mocked” continually but no one seems to have any fear of offending God for their bold and blatant attacks on His servant.
Of course, God does not send “she bears” to deal with the modern rebellion, but the end is the same at last. So, they mocked Noah, Elijah, all the prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, Luther and the Reformers and now EGW.
But as Paul said, we won’t save everyone, but we “will by all means, save some.” And as he said to Timothy, “Preach the truth for in so doing you will not only save others, but yourself as well.”
And this we will do, the Lord willing.
George Tichy
Thank you for sharing your comment about what happened in a meeting at the GC. I appreciate it that you shared it in a fair minded way, giving invitation for it to be refuted. The line of transmission is a very short one with just one person between you and the witness. It has credibility. (We need a second witness).
I have been raised to show respect to authority figures, including and even more so great respect for pastors and church leaders. I have worked with many conference leaders and found most (not all) to be Godly people. I have eaten lunch with TW and his wife and found them to be most kind and sincere people with a deep interest and passion for the work of God. Nancy referred to a chapter that Pastor Ted read aloud from Great Controversy recently Friday evening, and what it meant to her. She was very kind to me. (I sat next to her at the table).
My take away from this is that even the most dedicated can be blinded by their own agenda. TW is convinced that his position is right, of God, and blessed of Heaven. Does that make it so?
Allen,
Since you are so close to Ted Wilson, why don’t you give him a call and ask about it? Tell him that a weird guy is telling this and you just wanted his firsthand word for it. Then if he denies, maybe someone who was there would jump in…. who knows?
Do you have time to make such a phone call to a friend?
A few weeks after Pastor Falconberg was elected as GC President, his father was preaching at a camp meeting. I had opportunity to visit with him and his wife many times during that week. He noted it was amazing to him that his son went from being his son to being the GC President and with this change his son had become the source of wisdom and knowledge, the go to person for the church. His observation was telling to me. Position does not change our ability or wisdom. It does change our influence.
God is still God and He is the Source of all wisdom.
Is TW correct re his views on WO and headship? I don’t believe so. If Jan Paulson was still GC President would he be threatening to close down those unions that disagree with him on this issue?
It is amazing to me that any leader in the SDA Church let alone the GC President could be so confident in their position that they could think those who disagree with them are rebellious and apostate and should be closed down.
It is not a radical fringe group that believes God’s Word teaches the call of all, including women to serve including as Pastors. The list who have spoken in favor of WO include a GC President (retired), Union Presidents (retired and current), Review Editor for decades (retired), leaders in the USA and out side of the USA.
Does it really matter what those former officials think? Why are certain ones still smarting from the defeat at the GC Session with respect to WO? That is not the most important issue in the SDA church. Winning souls for salvation ranks far above all others.
Until now there has been no theological discussion conducted at a GC Session regarding male headship. The church has not taken a vote to affirm or deny a teaching regarding headship, yet it is held as sacred by some, including TW, and the practices of the church are being filtered by their understanding on that subject.
What we do know is that we have a disputable matter on our hands. A subject on which we do not have agreement. There are some things that each “man” must be fully persuaded about in their own minds and each is to decide based on their reading of the Word how they will live accordingly.
In NT times there were those who were so violently opposed to Paul’s understanding they wanted him shut down, and finally after repeated efforts what they could not do by persuasion they did by false accusations, and Paul at last lost his life, actually killed as a result of the Bible quoting, serious minded leaders of the church.
“I will close them all” is that a “Dove—Holy Spirit” driven statement? I don’t think so. It sounds more like a “Kingly Powers” statement.
I have marveled that the Lord allowed TW back in office, but He did. I reflect that the Lord let Israel have a king as well. Some times the Lord allows things so that we might learn from our mistakes…
I want to pray for TW (and each of us) that we will allow the Spirit of God to work in our lives, that we will set self aside and let the Spirit guide. When a leader feels that the church is his, belongs to him and is to be controlled and managed by him, a major departure from the will of God has set in. The same can be said for each of us who think it is “our way or the highway.”
If we are all open and honest and will allow the Holy Spirit to draw us to an understanding of the Word we will come together and solve what now is disputed. If we cherish our own views more than the Word of God we will feel justified in judging the people who oppose us. That should be a warning to both sides.
Bill Sorenson, we need more speakers and writers like you! May your tribe increase!
“Bill Sorenson (sic), we need more speakers and writers like you! May your tribe increase!”
Oh no Peter, please don’t ask for that. Bill is a very good, close, long term friend of mine, but believe me, ONE of his kind is more than enough around here… LOL
By the way, be warned that Bill hates people who misspell his name even one, even by mistake… He never forgives them, ever! … 🙂
The WO issue is a sad commentary on the church. The Bible does not say we must, nor does it forbid the practice. Seems than it is left to the membership to decide.
The real cause for sadness is that the division the issue has revealed. The PUC has voted, against a clear fair and open GC vote to do other than the parent body. Such division is characteristic of the Corinthian church Paul addressed and shows our lack of the HS. We should rather defer to one another in love. I have not seen so much of that on this thread.
“The PUC has voted, against a clear fair and open GC vote”
Allen, don’t ignore the fact that the Unions were created exactly for that, to prevent the GC from imposing its will on the Conferences and Churches. Someone saw ahead of time that the GC would try to manipulate the Conferences, and even to threaten opposition with “grave consequences” if they “dared” to affirm their established independence.
But the unions are indeed independent bodies, with their own Constituents. The GC does not “owe” the Unions – though I can see how frustrated this administration (i.e., Ted Wilson) has been because the Unions are exerting exactly the rights for which their were created and still exist. Can you imagine how chaotic the the situation would be if there were no Unions at a time like this??? God forbid!!!
People in Europe must be really mean. Look how “rebellious” they have become…
George, everyone had a say at the GC. I am not sure what you are saying about the Unions and the GC, for the Divisions make up the GC and the Divisions are made up of the Unions. I don’t think the church sees the PUC as an independent entity that can do business on its own, and vote a policy that is not part of GC policy. As a pastor, if I was doing something against the policy of the Indiana conference, I could get hauled in, given a talking to, and eventually fired if necessary. Is there something here I don’t understand about the chain of command?
A Conference can disband a church, and it has been done. Unions have been created and “uncreated” by the GC as it sees fit, division as well. I think with a Union in rebellion, something will have to give.
And the European Unions look foolish. First they have to have WO, then, because they don’t get what that want, they don’t do any ordination at all. If WO were so important, why do away with ordination altogether? Looks silly, and like sour grapes.
Bill Sorensen, my apologies for misspelling your name!!!! I still agree with your written sentiments!!!
I TOTALLY agree with Allen Shepherd’s recent post…. Congregationalism is the dangerous slippery slope that we are looking at. The PUC and its leadership has absolutely no business leading God’s church in this union in that direction. The leaders know what they are doing and they will have a lot to answer for. Maybe politically this is expedient. But God doesn’t care about politics. The responsibility that they as leaders have before a holy God should make them shudder at the direction they are going….
Ultimately, God’s true church is going to triumph in spite of these leaders… I know, I have read the end of the book!! Disunity is not the answer. So much valuable time and effort, and who knows how many souls, have been lost keeping up this argument of WO. This is a rather foolish argument when the world is dying to be given the Bread of Life…. It is so sad that both laity and ordained ministers, who say that they love God, have allowed themselves to be caught up in this time-consuming argument. Oh, how the devil must rejoice watching Adventists getting so wrapped up in this. At least he can be satisfied that the work of the church has been negatively impacted while this nonsensical argument is continuing.
The ordained leaders of our church need to wake up and realize their part in failing to do the work they were elected to do.
“Bill Sorensen, my apologies for misspelling your name!!!! I still agree with your written sentiments!!!”
Peter, people have often misspelled my name for years. George must be kidding about that.
Anyway, thanks for the vote of confidence. I am the bad dog in the neighborhood.
Like “Water’s World” on Fox news.
Peter,
Congregationalism is “the dangerous slippery slope we’re on?” The last time I looked, it was the Biblical model for the church! Are you inferring that following the Bible puts us on a “slippery slope?”
William,
You can’t say that congregationalism is good even if it leads to division. I am sure that is not what you want!!! Remember Jesus asked that His followers be one.
The church was “one” until Protestantism. Since then, it has divided into thousands of different denominations. Should it have remained as one, all Christians today would be Roman Catholics. Adventists broke away from several different congregations to begin their own. So how can congregationalism that leads to division be something to avoid?
Petr,
What building a strong, centralized power structure in the church has done is produce mediocrity and the illusion that we’re achieving the mission Jesus gave us to do. In many parts of the world the focus on centralized human leadership rather than the Holy Spirit has rendered the church spiritually impotent, but where believers are looking to the Holy Spirit for guidance the church grows.
Yes, the early church had strong leaders, but they weren’t sitting in offices reading financial reports and creating evangelism plans because they were out raising-up churches under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who raises-up strong, Spirit-filled leaders and the pitiful, impotent state of the centralized church today shows how badly we need to be getting back to God’s model.
The fastest-growing churches I have seen are the ones focused on following the Holy Spirit instead of centralized structure.
William,
Congregationalism is indeed a very dangerous model because it does not leave room for any centralized power. Therefore, it’s also dangerous because it does not allow any flow of money going “upstairs” and the local churches can do much more than just paying unnecessary wages to people doing redundant work.
I bet that the biggest enemy of congregationalism is the GC? I wonder why….
George,
The “centralized power” that has guided God’s people since creation is the Holy Spirit. It was the guiding power of the Holy Spirit that drove the explosive growth of the early church without any human “centralized power.” It is the generalized disregard for the Holy Spirit in the church today that is causing it to grow slowly and even to shrink in some areas. With performance like that, why would you be looking for a human “centralized power” when you could have the power of God leading you?
Believe it or not, congregationalism is the Biblical model for the church.
William,
I always supported congregationalism, I think it’s the only model that can work keeping politic at a minimum level.
I wouldn’t have a problem with dismantling the GC and its Divisions, keeping just the Unions around the glove. And every 5 years or so having a MODEST meeting of the leaders to work on revisiting and refining the ultimate goal, the preaching of the Gospel.
I am not sure that the Conferences are actually needed.
Many , possibly most…..SDA will wake up in the 2nd resurrection because they failed to graduate from the gospel of grace REHAB/thought replacement therapy program. (Rom 12:2)
The meek inherit the Earth. Those who stay NON meek will be eliminated from existence.
Carl Jung wrote:
“To think is difficult, this is why the majority of people prefer to judge.”
““To think is difficult, this is why the majority of people prefer to judge.”
Kind of a trite saying, isn’t it, George?
You can’t “judge” unless you “think.”
But the reality is this this, judging has many aspects so the basis of “judging” is the real issue, not judging itself.
Two people were discussing an issue with differences of opinion. One person says, “I think it is this way……..”
The other person says, “I don’t THINK……I know.” to affirm his position is non-negotiable.
And his friend says, “I don’t think you know, either.”
If you don’t get it, work on it. The human language is a real challenge on many levels. So, how we say, what we say, will often determine the meaning and this includes how we write what we write. EH?
Bill, you are indeed the best!
Right from the outset, WO has been driven by insolence. The forced election of a female elder before any form of authorisation or vote by the world Church was approved is how this insolence started and provides strong evidence of this not being based on any credible theology but clearly the outcome of feminist rebellion on the part of those mesmerised by dominant cultural trends that allowed this worldview to creep into the church. If it were not, then where is the biblical standpoint that was used when they elected the first elder without permission in their display of open rebellion? A theological basis for WO was merely an afterthought when all else had failed. By spinning WO as a biblical practice, proponents saw this as another avenue to force this upon the Church. This eventually led to the Church saying “no” in San Antonio – yet again. PUC under the auspices of the NAD continues to display the same pattern of insolence which was practiced right from the outset and remains at the forefront of their feminist agenda.
Trevor? Have you studied church history? One of the reasons why Unions etc were set up in 1901 was because the GC was micro-managing and the work was suffering because of it. This is precisely what TW is doing now. The independence of the Unions and Conferences has been slowly whittled away over the last 110 years plus. The problem is that TW seems to think that we should all jump at the same time. He does not seem to understand that the Holy Spirit moves differently in different parts of the world to accommodate different cultures and enable the same gospel message to be spread in the most efficient way within those different cultures. TWs son in law presented an excellent (no irony intended, it was excellent) evangelistic series in my home city last month. The majority population is white in that city but the non-SDAs attending the meetings included virtually no indigenous whites. Why? Most whites do not do that style of evangelism in 2016 and have not for over 30 years. That is why other denominations use other methods now but TW seems to think that because EGW recommended it, it is still the way to go.
Remember that Headship Theology is not SDA doctrine and was only invented recently by the Reformed churches. You don’t like WO? Fine. Just be careful of getting in the way of the Holy Spirit however.
PS Thanks for using a proper name.
“This transfer of responsibilities to laborers whose experience is more or less limited is attended with some dangers against which we need to guard. The world is filled with strife for the supremacy. The spirit of pulling away from fellow laborers, the spirit of disorganization, is in the very air we breathe. By some, all efforts to establish order are regarded as dangerous—as a restriction of personal liberty, and hence to be feared as popery. These deceived souls regard it a virtue to boast of their freedom to think and act independently. They declare that they will not take any man’s say-so, that they are amenable to no man. I have been instructed that it is Satan’s special effort to lead men to feel that God is pleased to have them choose their own course independent of the counsel of their brethren.” 9T 257
I am lost in your reasoning, please explain. Why is BIBLICAL or Prophetic voice so bad? Why is your voice so good? Why would we follow other failing denominations? How long has this anti-Headship Theology existed and when was “it” voted on? Why do you wish to represent our classification? What do other classifications have to do with that? What do you have to offer or why would you think we would want anything you have to offer? What happened to headship, from Genesis, to Abraham, to selection of leadership positions in the NT? Did you get with HIM to remove those also? Do you control the Spirit or does the Spirit control you? Just questions.
Here is some VERY wise counsel from Ellen White… So many people wonder what is happening to the church and is it going to stand till the end. No need to fear…. WO or other various “issues” that come up are NOT going to derail God’s plan for HIS church. “HIS” is the operative word. This is God’s church not ours to worry about. God will deal with the leaders in His own way, not ours!!
“God has a church upon the earth, who are His chosen people, who keep His commandments. He is leading, not stray offshoots, not one here and one there, but a people.
There is no need to doubt, to be fearful that the work will not succeed. God is at the head of the work, and He will set everything in order. If matters need adjusting at the head of the work, God will attend to that, and work to right every wrong. Let us have faith that God is going to carry the noble ship which bears the people of God safely into port.{Mar 129.3}
When you think that the work is in danger, pray, “Lord, stand at the wheel. Carry us through the perplexity. Bring us safely into port.” Have we not reason to believe that the Lord will bring us through triumphantly? …{Mar 129.6}”
HAPPY SABBATH!!!
This web site certainly has all the information I needed about
this subject and didn’t know who to ask.