Prayer Vigil, Discussions on Sabbath Look to Historic Session in the West
by AT News Team
A prayer vigil had participants in many places across the country, some starting on Friday night at sundown, as the Pacific Union Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination prepared for what may be an historic constituency meeting today (Sunday, August 19) at a hotel in the Los Angeles area. Several churches in California had gatherings of delegates and interested members on Sabbath afternoon to discuss the issues.
Perhaps the largest gathering had more than a thousand people at the Loma Linda University Church for a two-hour discussion of women’s ordination and related issues. The Southeastern California Conference has long been a leader on this topic, formally studying the issue beginning in 1989. In 2000 the conference instituted equality in ministry through its “commissioned-ordained” designation of both male and female ministers, and in March of this year it issued Ordained Minister Credentials to replace the commissioned-ordained credentials for all its ministers.
The conference organized the meeting to provide information to the delegates it is sending to the constituency session and to any interested member. It featured several speakers, all passionately in favor of extending ordination to women serving in pastoral ministry. One attendee asked why there were no anti-women’s ordination speakers present, with no good answer given. In fact, the meeting was not so much academic discussion as a pro-ordination rally. For example, Chris Oberg, senior pastor of the La Sierra University Church, along with Redlands Church senior pastor Zachary Thorp, moderated the meeting, and she got the first applause when she said, “In our conference your pastors are being treated with equality!”
Brad Newton, executive secretary of the Pacific Union Conference, provided an overview of the issue and, in later comments, declared how he will be voting. He addressed the issue of “harmony,” given that the Pacific Union constitution speaks of the union conference acting in harmony with the General Conference (GC). Harmony means a blending of various voices—not unison, said Newton.
Bert Haloviak, former director of the GC archives, shared a historical perspective. In the1890s Ellen White addressed whether God more directly led church leaders at Battle Creek where the GC office was at the time or in Australia, with her giving a non-hierarchical answer. He portrayed Ellen White as calling for equality of male and female “public laborers” who should generally be paid from tithe funds. More recently, in the later part of the last century, the Internal Revenue Service threatened to disallow ministerial standing to Licensed Ministers if they did not perform full ministerial functions, and Haloviak cited how rapid, unilateral actions were taken by leaders to thwart IRS threats.
John Brunt, senior pastor of the Azure Hills Church in Grand Terrace, spoke as a Biblical scholar. Many of the texts that are often applied to ordination are taken out of context and are irrelevant to the issue. In fact, ordination as such is not specifically mandated in the Bible, and this is true of many other necessary practices. Regardless, the Gospel is clear on one highly relevant matter: God is “no respecter of persons.” There is no “male or female, but all are one in Christ.” Brunt ended by appealing for delegates to the constituency meeting to vote for the gospel position.
Gerald Winslow, vice president for mission and culture at the Loma Linda University Medical Center, addressed the question of the relationship of ethics and policy. Integrity must triumph when ethics and policy differ. He cited Ellen White who called for following conscience when truth is at stake. Happily at the constituency meeting, delegates need not vote for principled integrity over church policy, as the church has no policy against the ordination of women to gospel ministry, said Winslow. He told the delegates that they stand at the crossroads of history and can vote for “fundamental fairness” in gospel ministry.
Mark Carr, professor of religion and ethics at Loma Linda University, spoke on concepts of unity and uniformity. He distinguished spiritual unity in the body of Christ as separate from structural uniformity. But more important than the content of the decision about ordaining women is the importance of maintaining a character of integrity.
After the presentations the crowd was permitted to ask questions and during this time a number of points were made, including:
–Around the world the Adventist faith is characterized by diverse practices on wedding bands, worship styles, Sabbath observance and a number of other things. Our unity is found in Christ, not uniform practices.
–For over 40 years church scholars have studied the ordination of women, and it is time to do the right thing in the Pacific Union Conference.
–Some Adventists have not learned from denominational history, as some members left the early church because the name “Seventh-day Adventist” is not “Biblical.” James White’s position was that policies should bear rational scrutiny and not be banned by Scripture. Haloviak curiously opined that he survived working at the GC for 35 years by “living in the 19th century.”
–The women’s ordination question is a non-issue with younger Adventists, and the church will lose further creditability if the Pacific Union constituency votes against equality.
–The gospel is incompatible with discrimination against women, but the Asian culture is traditionally hierarchical and sexist, said a Korean pastor. He encouraged American church members to take the “first step” and if it's the right direction, the Holy Spirit will lead.
Gerald Penick, conference president, introduced the meeting and it opened and closed with prayer. The large audience, only a fraction of whom were delegates, only occasionally expressed itself through polite applause. The size of the audience in response to the limited announcements of the meeting spoke loudly.
As a lifelong Adventist nearing the onset of my seventh decade, I have often heard the view expressed among Adventists to the interior of the nation and north of California that "those Southern Californians" always have "problems." If not driving extremely fancy cars, women wearing gaudy and un-Ellenish glittery goo-gaws affixed to and around skin or fabric, and churches actually serving flavored refreshments after church!, it's always something. The presentiment is expressed among self-proclaimed conservative Adventists that in line with the Loma Linda weather, Southern Californian Adventists are being primed for an eternity in the heat! (Yes, Loma Linda is in southeastern California, but up here in Oregon, we fudge a bit and call everyone "Southern Californians" below Bakersfield.
To some, the recent rally at the Loma Linda Church will solidify the idea that women's ordination is somehow the product of a "liberal onslaught" against traditional Adventism. But this is far too simplistic a deduction.
It wasn't until I was a bit older, in my teens, that I began to cut through the opprobrium hurled so regularly at Southern California, and recognized that though "different" in many ways, without Loma Linda and its faithful tithe payers and movers and shakers, thousands of medical and dental school graduates, scores of missionaries and even mercenaries, questioners and book-writers, ethicists and theologians, Adventism might not have survived to where we are today. Culturally Loma Linda Adventism is very tolerant, allowing churches of vast range to coexist without hurling invective publically—it is also very culturally tolerant, unlike some areas of Adventism. Loma Linda absorbs a lot of "heat" but seems able to shake it off and carry on. And, yes, there are many conservatives in that region, some of whom are very supportive of the ordination of women, for very conservative reasons. Some have tried to make the women's ordination discussion a "them-and-us" proposition, and nothing I can write here will change that. But it's very interesting to me that the more I study the issue, the more nuanced I perceive the reasoning to be. That we have been studying this issue for decades makes it inevitable that the range of opinions, and reasons for those opinions, will be vast indeed, well worth at least one quaint and curious volume of contemporary lore. I look forward to a thoughtful, insightful, and edifying meeting this afternoon and AT’s role in providing a contemporary history of the proceedings.
"I look forward to a thoughtful, insightful, and edifying meeting this afternoon and AT’s role in providing a contemporary history of the proceedings."
Ed, And how can anyone who is even half way objective consider a meeting in which those opposed to WO were reportedly given no time to speak? How do you spin that? Thanks.
There were several speakers who were opposed to WO. Didn't you listen or read the live stream available?
Had they been given more time, do you honestly believe the vote would have been dramatically different? 79 to 21 would have been hard to change. It has been the tactic of some such meetings to continue to call for a vote if the first one is not found to be agreeable. Does anyone believe that prolonging the vote until midnight would have made a great change?
Some people cannot accept a fair vote; nevertheless, it represents the thinking of the majority of those delegates.
"It has been the tactic of some such meetings to continue to call for a vote if the first one is not found to be agreeable. Does anyone believe that prolonging the vote until midnight would have made a great change?"
I agree with your point here, Elaine (I must be a bit under the weather 😉 ). This is similiar to the tactic used by Al Gore after the 2000 election. They kept wanting to recount the votes over and over and over–even though each time they did so, Bush gained a few more votes (but maybe there might have been another hanging chad that could have gone his way . . . .)
Of course at the PUC meeting the deck was stacked against those who were against WO. If appeals by Wilson, Bohr, and Batchelor couldn't convince them, nothing would–sort of like when Jesus said that many wouldn't be convinced even if someone were raised from the dead.
And yet, as we all know, Al Gore received MANY more votes–just not enough in a few places in Florida to actually win the election.
"Of course at the PUC meeting the deck was stacked against those who were against WO."
In what sense? Because there were four delegates in favor of WO for everyone opposed? Or are you claiming that the vote was rigged by selecting delegates in favor?
Stacked? Are you accusing the PUC of selective choice of delegates? Unless you have evidence, you are making false accusations (See Decalogue #9).
Ed-
I would like to see a short response from you. In the meantime take a look at:
http://www.atsjats.org/publication.php?pub_id=390&journal=1&cmd=view&
Read the PDF. Good reading. Make sure you include the & which is part of the URL.
Canale is always interesting, and usually able to see where the heart of the matter lies. But he also works on assumptions that he doesn't alwasy make explicit. He does not deal with the central issue for his apporach: is the sanctuary doctrine both biblical and wel lunderstood? I am not sure what this has to do directly with this issue, is I won't respond to that. I do entriely agree with Canale that we have been too quick to adopt Evangelical ideas and practices without reflecting on them long enough to understand where they come from or how we can use them. But we also have not done enough reflecting on SDA doctrines to be able to accep them uncritically either.
Of course at the PUC meeting the deck was stacked against those who were against WO."
Spoken like a disgruntled player when things didn't go his way. This is very childish behavior and indicates a paucity of mature acceptance of a fair and equitable process. Maybe such persons should take their marbles and go home and consider whether accusations of "deck stacking" has even a slight resemblance to the truth but merely "sour grapes."
Must be Ed is out to a long lunch.