Separate but Equal: A Pastor’s Reflections on the 2015 GC Session

by Errol Liverpool, August 27, 2015: It’s been approximately one month since the General Conference rejected the motion to allow divisions to make their own decisions as to whether or not to ordain women pastors. In retrospect, this outcome should not have surprised me, but it did.
In an effort to better understand the Bible’s teaching on ordination, the church established the Theology of Ordination Study Committee, a group of 106 Bible scholars, church administrators and others commonly referred to by church leaders as TOSC. While all 13 world divisions contributed to the study and were represented on the TOSC, it was not organized to be proportionately representative of the world church, but simply to carry out the two-year study. The TOSC came up with three positions, and three Way Forward Statements.
Position 1 emphasizes the biblical qualifications for ordination as found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, and the fact that never in the Bible were women ordained as priests, apostles or elders. Therefore, in summary, the Adventist Church has no biblical basis to ordain women.
Position 2 emphasizes the leadership roles of Old and New Testament women such as Deborah, Huldah, and Junia, and biblical passages in Genesis 1, 2 and Galatians 3:26-28 that stress all people are equal in God’s eyes. Therefore, in summary, the biblical principle of equality allows the Adventist Church to ordain women to positions of church leadership wherever possible.
Position 3 supports Position 1 in recognizing a biblical pattern of male leadership in Israel and the early Christian church. But it also emphasizes that God made exceptions, such as the case of granting Israel’s desire for a king. In summary, women’s ordination is a matter of church policy and not a moral imperative and, therefore, the Adventist Church should allow each field to decide whether or not to ordain women.
The motion defeated on Wednesday, July 8, 2015, said no (59/41%) to giving world divisions the authority to make the decision with regard to the ordaining of female pastors in their respective fields. According to The Way Forward Statement #1 of the TOSC, “Allowing regionally established beliefs or qualifications for ordination would fracture the church, create confusion and disunity, and set a dangerous precedent. It would remove an important protection from non-biblical cultural influences (see AA 95-96) and move the church toward becoming an association of national churches instead of a united world church.” They further added, “Global church unity can be preserved only by yielding to the “plain” and “obvious meaning” of Scripture (GC 268, 599, 521, 54), rejecting “higher criticism” (Ed 227) or other methods of Bible study that give the reader authority over the divinely inspired text (2 Tim 3:16; Luke 24:27).”
I find these arguments baseless. Firstly, the General Conference has already established precedence for divisions to make decisions with respect to the unique needs of a particular field, and rightly so!!! These include, but are not limited to, Regional Conferences in the North American Division (NAD), the use of the wedding band; allowing ordination of women as elders, and new female converts to remain in their polygamous marriages in cultures where polygamy is a way of life, just to name a few. Secondly, the church has not fractured, nor does it lack unity as a result of allowing these, or any other special provisions. The provisions surrounding the wedding band and polygamy show respect for the cultures of territories in the absence of plain and specific biblical instructions. This type of respect is sadly missing in the conduct of the upper administration of our church.
Moreover, the logic in the Way Forward Statement #1 is weak. Firstly, the pronouncement that the church can protect some cultures from “non-biblical cultural influences” is extremely condescending. What it suggests is that ecclesiastical dogma should dominate cultural practices that are thought to be negative by an ecclesiastical hierarchy. This is uniformity and not unity. Secondly, at issue is a case where there is no “plain and obvious” meaning of scripture. What is the plain and obvious meaning of scripture on the issues of slavery and polygamy, considering that the scripture does not plainly condemn those practices? Similarly, what is the “plain and obvious meaning of scripture” on the issue of ordination of women when it is not specifically condemned in scripture?
In addition, the fact that the 106 members of the TOSC could come up with three (3) different positions and three (3) different recommendations as a way forward is ample evidence that “plain and obvious meaning of Scripture” may not be so plain and obvious after all. “Plain and obvious” may mean different things to different people. Instead of sticking to Sola scriptura, the Bible and the Bible only, both those for and those against the ordination of female pastors have used the writings of E. G. White as a religious football in their attempts to bolster their arguments. Notwithstanding, since the Adventist church strongly affirms that the writings of E. G. White are God’s special message for its remnant church, and therefore are of specific value to such discussions, the use of her inspired writings should be subject to the same hermeneutical principles we apply to Scripture. Lifting a statement from the time, place and purpose for which it was written to make present-day application without giving serious consideration to present-day realities, may steer to incorrect and faulty conclusions and may lead to what sociologists call latent functions; unintended consequences.
The chief argument put forth by those against the ordination of women to the ministry is that Jesus called only men as leaders of the church, and therefore, we should follow His example. They see this as a clear prohibition against the ordination of women as pastors. The irony is that those who hold this position would not use the same logic as the Roman Catholic (RC) Church and say that ministers should not marry because Jesus was never married. They would hasten to apply hermeneutics, interpreting the RC church’s position as incorrect, reasoning that because Jesus knew his mission would have ended in his early death, marrying would all but guarantee leaving a widow, and possibly fatherless children.
If the argument against the ordination of women hinges on what Jesus did not do, then some may counter that the Adventist church is, at least, inconsistent with some of its practices. For example, Jesus never condemned the eating of meat. After His resurrection He even joined His disciples for breakfast, and fish was on the menu. While the Bible prohibits the consumption of unclean meats, the practice of forbidding the consumption of all meats in their churches and facilities gives the impression to many that Jesus declared all meats unclean, and therefore prohibited by Scripture. Let me be clear. This is not an argument against a vegan or vegetarian diet, for the health benefits are well documented. However, it is rather ironic to observe how Seventh-day Adventists consume ice cream and cake at their gatherings, in the very churches and facilities where meat is forbidden. Apparently, the health risks associated with the consumption of the combination of milk and sugar are not sufficient to prohibit their consumption in Adventist facilities.
Seventh-day Adventists have so elevated the prohibition of meat in their churches to the level of religious dogma that they would deny a grieving family the use of the facility if chicken is on the menu at the repast. Never mind if this is the only contact this distraught family from the community would have had with the church, and hence, the church’s only opportunity to witness about the love of God. Some may even proudly declare that they witnessed by upholding the church’s standards in denying the use of their facility to a family in mourning. Let me be clear. An organization (church) has the right to determine a meatless menu for any of its planned occasions, but to mandate a meatless menu for any other group using its facility violates the Christian spirit and places manmade laws above the Word of God. Individual members who bring their lunch to church either resort to their vehicles to eat or consume their flesh in hiding somewhere in the facility, so as not to be caught violating their church’s edict. As far as the Adventist church is concerned, the five barley loaves are welcomed to be blessed to feed the hungry, but the two fishes are definitely forbidden in their buildings. In fairness, it should be noted that not all Adventist congregations engage in this prohibitive practice. Some local congregations choose to follow the biblical instruction on the consumption of clean meats instead of manmade prohibitions. Those who equate unity with uniformity may find this most disturbing. The Adventist church’s argument against the ordination of female pastors predicated on the lack of biblical record of Jesus’s having done so is seriously flawed. For their stand of prohibiting meat in their facilities is one example of the Adventist church’s establishing a position when there is no record of Jesus’s having done so.
Several texts (Mark 3:14; Acts 1:21-26; 6:3; 1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Tim 2:13, 14; 1 Cor. 11:3, 8-9) are often cited as clear prohibitions against women as leaders. Let me be clear. These are not prohibitions. These are interpretations. There is no text from Genesis to Revelation that prohibits the ordination of women as pastors. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is a prohibition. “Thou shalt not kill” is a prohibition. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is a prohibition. “Thou shalt not steal” is a prohibition, (Exodus 20: 3, 13, 14, 15). And, the theologian would tell you that even prohibitions are subject to interpretation. For example, “Thou shalt not kill” is interpreted to mean thou shalt not commit murder, or else it would contradict the stoning (executing) of the condemned (see Deuteronomy 17:2–5).
Interpreting Scripture contextually is vital to living in accordance with God’s will. Leviticus 19:19 says, “Keep my decrees, do not mate different kinds of animals, do not plant your field with two kinds of seed, do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” Without the correct application of hermeneutical principles, many would be condemned for using a mule on their farm, their gardening practices, and their choice of fabrics.
It should be noted that by a two thirds majority vote the TOSC agreed that they could “Find no Biblical support for, or against, the ordination of women.” Yet, after failing to convince his fellow committee members that the Bible presents “clear teachings against the ordination of women as pastors,” a well-known Adventist TV preacher and teacher took to the video airwaves and tried to convince his viewers that a yes vote would spell the demise of the unity of the church, and would somehow promote same sex marriage and allow for homosexuals to be pastors in the Adventist church. Apart from lobbying and politicizing the process, this was a case of advancing what social scientists call illusionary correlations; making connections where there are none, or mistaking correlation for causation. For those who predict the demise of the church if divisions are allowed to make their own decisions on the question of the ordination of female pastors, one is left to wonder as to what it is that really unites us and holds the church together in the first place? Were one to believe the prognosticators of gloom and doom, one would have to conclude that the Adventist church is indeed most fragile, and that God is incapable of advancing His cause were women to be ordained as pastors.
In 2010, the Adventist denomination had 124 union conferences. We have since added 35 new union conferences, and the idea that our unity is threatened because some see the ordination of women as pastors as just, beckons us to reexamine the definition of unity. Maybe “an association of national churches” is already what we have in essence, and this may not be so bad after all. For those who think unity is uniformity, this may be a difficult concept to grasp. With three unions, (two in the US and one in Germany) having already ordained women as pastors, we may reasonably predict that more unions will follow their lead. There is no evidence, empirical or otherwise, that our church is experiencing “confusion or disunity,” which according to the rationale for the no vote, should be currently occurring in these unions. While the world church does not recognize the decisions of these three unions, it continues to benefit from all its unions, financially and otherwise, including these three.
At this point, allow me to digress for a minute to cite a few observations about the General Conference session. If we truly want to be sensitive to culture in recognizing the diversity of the world church, we would realize that saying “amen” is not the only way of affirming God’s truth in the worship service. Some like to shout and clap their hands too, among other forms of expressions of praise. While the music was excellent, we should provide more than just Eurocentric songs at a gathering such as this one. Some enjoy Gospel songs, like “Every Praise” (Hezekiah Walker), and to not have the world-renowned Aeolians sing during Divine Hour on one of the two Sabbaths makes me wonder if we’re afraid of Negro spirituals. To be inclusive, we must do more than give lip service when we say that we value our youth, the Millennials, and that we want them involved. We need far more representation of youth in the delegates chosen. We need to see more of our youth featured in Sabbath services. One demographic stood out as we witnessed those leading out in the various services – old men and women (50 years+)!!!! Let me be clear. It is not my belief that intentionality was at play here. I understand that culture is ingrained and may even be so institutionalized that the norm may be to verbally speak of diversity and inclusivity and use jargons like “world church,” while not seeing our behaviors as lacking diversity or inclusivity. I feel that the structure of the liturgy during the session is evidence of the disregard for the cultural diversity of our church. Hence, we are afraid to allow divisions to make decisions about non-biblical issues. These issues are connected.
To continue to advance the argument that women should not be ordained as pastors is to fail to give serious weight to the place of culture in the interpretation of Scripture. Jesus performed His first miracle, turning water into wine, because He understood the importance of the cultural expectations of the wedding guests. This does not mean that one should take the position that the Bible is subject to cultural norms, no matter what they are. A close friend reminded me recently that “In all cultures we may find what is constructive, destructive and neutral.” I would add that culture may also be instructive. We can certainly emulate from other cultures how to better fulfill the will of God in our lives. As a church, we have a responsibility to reach all peoples and to work to ease the suffering and injustices of God’s children, wherever they may be found. While we are not to force our culture down the proverbial throats of others, neither are we to continue treating our female pastors as second-class ministers. To accept women in our seminaries, have them complete all degree requirements, give them graduation certificates, hire them as pastors, but then deny them all the rights and privileges of their male classmates because they are women is the very definition of sexism. However, we do recognize that while women gained suffrage in the US in 1920 and have come a long way since, we also recognize that the US must be sensitive to the cultural realities of other fields. Therefore, on the question of the ordination of female pastors, each division deciding for itself is a viable way forward.
As I listened to the debate at GC, I did not hear anyone suggesting that women are intellectually or spiritually inferior to men. Neither did I hear anyone say that God’s truth only flows through men. What I heard is that while in Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female….,” (Galatians 3: 28), only men should be ordained as pastors. That is, when it comes to the ordination of women, academic preparation, ability, commitment, spiritual gifts, moral living, and God’s calling – none of these matter. Being born female is the only disqualifier. For centuries, well-intentioned men used the Bible to support racism. Being born of a particular race or caste was all that mattered. Today, some are using the Bible to support sexism. What do race and sex have in common? They are both (ascribed statuses) formed in the womb, and thus choice is not a factor in the equation. In other words, like race, we are using sex to disqualify God’s children from what He has called and equipped them to do. The church has an opportunity to act in accordance with what social psychologists call, Moral Integrity; that is, doing something because it is the right thing to do. We live in a world that frequently operates from Self-Interest and Moral Hypocrisy, where the respective questions are what’s in it for me? and how would I be perceived? What is right (Moral Integrity) should guide our decisions, both personally and corporately.
It is incredible, but true. In order to justify their position of not ordaining women as pastors, here is a recommendation for a way forward by TOSC. “#1, (5) Return to the biblical practice of electing and ordaining only men to the office of local elder throughout the world church, while providing for women to serve as un-ordained church leaders under certain circumstances.” It should be noted that un-ordained church leaders cannot officiate at Communion services in the Adventist church. Notice, they did not suggest what local churches are to do with the women who are already ordained as elders, and what would happen to the female-populated congregations where there is a paucity of male leaders.
Even more incredible is Way Forward Statement “#1, (2) Provide enhanced access to educational opportunities for women in gospel work and ensure fair and just treatment upon their placement in ministry.” Someone said a long time ago, “Insistence upon the obvious is sometimes more important than clarification of the obscure.” Here I am propelled to ask the obvious: How can a group of people recommend “fair and just treatment” of female pastors, and at the same time deny them the right of ordination!!!? Sounds like another, “Separate, but equal” policy!
For those who are afraid of the disintegration of the church, the ordination of women as pastors should not be their worry. We need to be more concerned about our apparent lack of involvement and presence in the Fergusons, Staten Islands, and Charlestons of our world. When Boca Haram and ISIS are slaughtering God’s children we need not stand on the sidelines. For those who say we should not get involved in fighting injustices, I am glad that Luther, Jerome and Huss were not afraid to challenge the power structure of their day. I am glad that Dr. King got involved in his fight for fairness and equal treatment of all of God’s children. I am glad that if I ride at the back of the bus today, it is by choice. Let us not stand on the sidelines while our female pastors are left to ride at the back of the ministerial bus. For those who say that the vote was taken and the outcome is God’s will, let me remind you that it wasn’t God’s will for Israel to wander in the wilderness for forty years. Things could have been a lot different had it not been for their stubbornness. In 1948, an overwhelming majority of white Americans, and even a greater number of white enlisted men opposed the integration of the Armed Forces. I am glad that President Harry S. Truman was not swayed by the majority. History is replete with majority decisions that were clearly wrong. One wonders if the outcome of the vote would have been different had the GC leadership had the courage to experience a Trumanesque moment.
After the debate, it became agonizingly clear that once entrenched, some people will never be persuaded by facts, let alone reason or logical argument. Nonetheless, I trust that others would see that sexism by any other name is still sexism and allow no one to take away what God has given to all; conscience. Let us not stand on the sidelines of apathy while our colleagues in ministry are denied fair and equal treatment. Separate, but equal is man’s way of soothing the conscience while fervently supporting the unfair treatment of the women God has called as pastors.
Dr. Errol Liverpool is a pastor in the Lake Region Conference in the United States. He did undergraduate studies at Northern Caribbean University and the University of Southern Caribbean and a graduate degree at Andrews University before earning a PhD in clinical psychology at Wayne State University in Detroit. He has served as a pastor in Guyana and in Canada.
Very well said and adds to the increasing evidence that the women’s ordination issue is in fact a cultural one, not biblical. The church by allowing women to be ordained as local elders has become a proverbial fly in the ointment on this issue of female ordination of pastors. Especially is this egregious in the fact that we encourage, support, train, allow women to become pastors but in the end they aren’t full fledged ministers due to their gender. I hope we can work on the Working Policy so that it becomes something that actually works for this particular issue.
“I hope we can work on the Working Policy …”
Not under this administration – ever! Now their marching orders are to bombard every single front where WO can still be an issue popping up for discussion. Look what happened to the NPUC last week!
If the vote in SA/2015 had passed, we would be on our way to more peace, respect, and calm in churches around the world. Everyone minding their own business according to their cultures. More Unity for sure. But this administration supported the other way, and now they have to get radical about their position – which certainly increased the odds of a split since not everyone is willing to bow down to dictatorship like this!
I would agree, George, that working on the Working Policy probably won’t happen under the current leadership, but leaving it in its current state shouldn’t be an option, either. The GC is holding to two male gender words and the force of their “authority” to maintain the male only pastoral ordination. They are going to find that their tactics won’t hold up.
Thanks NA for your insightful observation
Great article, well written, full of logic and truth.
“Here I am propelled to ask the obvious: How can a group of people recommend “fair and just treatment” of female pastors, and at the same time deny them the right of ordination!!!? Sounds like another, “Separate, but equal” policy!”
The more an institution insists in implementing this kind of ir-rationale, the more it will acquire cultic characteristics. Preaching fairness and practicing the opposite (in this case, discrimination of women) will certainly be recognized as blatant hypocrisy – but probably only by those who are not hypocrites!
George,
All I can say is, “ouch”
Well done from my home Union Conference, Elder Liverpool. Be brave and carry on!
The matter of Women’s Ordination is a matter that can, perhaps only, be settled by the leadership of a GC President acting as James acted in Acts 15. It is clear that we have another five years to wait for that possibility in the normal course of things.
In the meantime, should the GC ‘withdraw membership status’ for a Union who continues to ordain women to the ministry, the schism resulting will be at the feet of the GC President, because there is no possibility that this would happen without his approval, indeed very likely instigation.
There are some issues deserving of schism-causing status, though deviating from an interpretation of a working policy is not on that list or surely should not be.
When the only interpretation allowed is that of a very few men, one in reality, in Maryland, there is no escaping the realization that kingly power seeking is alive today, a century after Union Conferences were created to put an end to kingly power, as Ellen White was want to use the term.
If we want to observe the Holy Spirit, we do so in the lives of members. Always. Let’s all keep looking. And following. Enlivened with what truly endures, Faith and Trust (the meaning of Hope as the KJV translators understood) and Love.
Bill, it certainly appears as “kingly powers” indeed.
Thanks
Porqué tu dices 5 años de espera, lo aras esperar a Dios,si el gobierno de la iglesia es de abajo , allí hay que educar e instruir, Hoy la inmensa mayoría de los hermanos no saben nada del tema y no se los motiva sino al diezmo y la ofrenda ( saca tus conclusiones ), hacia donde nos llevan…El daño que con ese voto costara muchas vidas.. se quedara quieto Dios.
“The chief argument put forth by those against the ordination of women to the ministry is that Jesus called only men as leaders of the church, and therefore, we should follow His example.”
This is not the “chief” argument by any stretch. It is simply a supporting argument. You look for any misrepresentation to build your opposition on. The chief argument is the whole bible and the affirmation of Paul and other bible writers. As well as EGW affirmation of male headship from the beginning.
You will only convince those who already believe your view. But it may well be this applies to both sides. In which case, all you can do is get massive affirmation from those who agree with you. But don’t build your opposition on a false basis. Such as, “The chief argument put forth by those against the ordination of women to the ministry is that Jesus called only men as leaders of the church, and therefore, we should follow His example.”
Find bible affirmation for you position that is clear. You can’t do this, so you resort to a cheap shot at those who build their position on clear bible affirmation and EGW support.
” Satan’s dominion was that wrested from Adam, but Adam was the vicegerent of the Creator. His was not an independent rule. The earth is God’s, and He has committed all things to His Son. Adam was to reign subject to Christ. When Adam betrayed his sovereignty into Satan’s hands, Christ still remained the rightful King.” DA 129
My Dear brother Bill Sorensen, I can certainly accept disagreement, but please see if you could find it in your heart to accept that I did not take a “cheap shot” at anyone. Let’s agree to disagree on the matter of “clear bible affirmation and EGW support”
“Let’s agree to disagree on the matter of “clear bible affirmation and EGW support”
We won’t agree to disagree because it is a salvational issue and demands a clear scriptural mandate of what is true, and what is false. And “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” is very relevant to this issue. The answer is an obvious, “NO”.
My dear Brother Sorensen, then can we agree that what may be clear to one, may not be so clear to another!!! Many years ago I insisted that the color of a particular suit I liked was light brown. My wife nicely tried to tell me that it was grey. I so wanted to be right that whenever I wore the suit, I would make it a point of duty to ask others what color of suit I was wearing. To my surprise, most told me it was grey. Nonetheless, I clung to the few who agreed with me. I finally gave in when I discovered that while most men are born with 3 color receptors, many women have 4 or 5. (Now, please resist the temptation to deem this not a matter of salvation).
You try to make the discussion irrelevant by useing a trivial illustration about a matter of extreme importance.
I ain’t “buying” your way of down playing the intensity of the issue.
Brother Errol I applaud your attempt to reach those so steeped in their arrogance they will not see another way. There are none so blind as those who will not see. This gentleman that you are debating with will not hear your words or see your points as relevant, only God can move such hearts and minds… But nice try though…
Neither Scripture nor EGW confirm any male headship outside of the marriage relationship. TOSC #1 is Calvinism, not Adventism.
TOSC #1 is Biblical Christianity virtually undisputed for nearly 2000 years.
The Doctrine of Equality is unbiblical.
If our church were to be sued in a court of law for discrimination on the basis of sex/gender, the report of TOSC would be very useful for the prosecution. It would be interesting to hear our defense in a legal setting. While I am not wishing it, I would not be surprised if in the near future our church in the US would have to defend itself against just such a lawsuit. If a committee of committed, godly men and women could not agree on this issue how can we claim that the vote to not allow Divisions to decide what happens within their territory would lead to church unity. Are we confusing unity with uniformity? On the issue of the ordination of women, the church is not united and never will be nor is our policy uniform. In the light of the GC decisions to ordain women as elders, the biblical arguments against the ordination of women as pastors is indefensible and inconsistent. In other words, the decision to ordain women as elders us unbiblical and the GC is violating the Word of God according to those who support TOSC proposition #1.
Obviously the majority of the delegates at the two GC sessions that voted that it was okay to ordain women as elders did not accept the Biblical arguments against the ordination of women. Given the current position on ordination of women as elders and the practice of commissioning women pastors, the question we should be asking should be is, “Is the practice of denying women pastors ordination moral, legal, just or ethical?
Those Adventists long used to dictatorships in their native country may like to have an authority telling them what to do. But the western countries who fought and gained their independence, some hundreds of years ago, will not accept religious dictatorship. After all, this is the power of the beast which is so often derided in the Adventist pulpits and publications.
You comment reminds me the ElectronicVotingGate at the GC, when certain delegates boycotted the system. They sure wanted to follow their leaders and vote in block.
Good point!
Elaine,
A good point, Elaine. We claim no infallible pope. Yet we have the church authority beast system that makes rules based on the traditions of a majority.
Chief Argument aside, why is there any dispute about something so simple to understand and accept? Women deserve to be treated as men are treated. At the foot of the cross there is only level ground. Before women got the right to vote some of the same inane points were raised in opposition and several in the SDA church, at that time, used this fear of women being allowed to vote as a sure sign of impending doom. It was silly then it is absurd now! Male-headship has no place in our theology. Read Foundamental Belief #13 which the church accepted years ago overwhelmingly. We are all created equal!
“why is there any dispute about something so simple to understand and accept? “
Sam,
Elaine said it all above, for those who are used to dictatorship it is not easy to switch to a more civilized system of social interaction based on equality and freedom of speech/action.
This issue has nothing spiritual in essence, it is not a religious matter. It’s all related to the human male psychology in regard to discrimination of women for purpose of maintaining power & control. It can actually be helped (even cured!) with proper psychotherapy.
“Position 1 emphasizes the biblical qualifications for ordination as found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, and the fact that never in the Bible were women ordained as priests, apostles or elders. Therefore, in summary, the Adventist Church has no biblical basis to ordain women.”
Dr. Liverpool, this option goes even further in that it also included the intention to roll back commissioning of women pastors and the ordinations of women elders around the world. This option is totally contrary to policies that have been in place for decades.
For another 5 years forget any progress toward eliminating discrimination of women in our Denomination. We are still going to see much worse things happening. First the Unions, then the SECC (a woman Prez), then the Universities. And who knows what/who else will be targeted.
This disaster can be reversed only by voting Ted Wilson out. So, hold your breath for another 5 years… at least!
George, we can only hope that a brave union and division president will no longer hold their collective breaths and be willing to ordain a woman, or women in their territory.
As the Working Policy made no changes previous to S.A., it still applies that unions have the ultimate authority to ordain, and NOT the G.C. nor is the G.C. approval needed, as it has never been necessary before.
Elaine, “stay tuned”… 🙂 There is more coming soon from the “guys upstairs in black suits.” Or did you think that the whole action would comprise only a “memo” sent to the NPUC ordaining not to discuss ordination of women?
The attack just started, and it’s going to be ferocious!
It will take someone with huge personal clout to introduce a vote to demote Ted Wilson. Someone who doesn’t fear his/her own personal standing in the church organization. Because it will certainly bring about a schism in the organization.
Perhaps it’s better to “let the wheat and tares grow together till the harvest,” and let God take care of the members of His church. Who knows? Whatever happens will happen; but I for one will never allow a “top-down” decision contrary to the fair decision of my own church, my own conference, or my own union conference. Even if this should cause my (nominal) excommunication.
God knows the heart.
There is another way in which this disaster can be reversed and settled for all times. If the church is successfully challenged in a US court of law, the unjust practice would have to be reversed. I believe our leaders need to consider this possibility and correct the injustice and not risk having to spend millions of dollars in defense costs and possible fines, not to mention the damage to our reputation as a church.
Elder Liverpool,
A brilliant, highly persuasive, extremely eloquent, articulate, lucid, and elaborate treatise on the subject. I cannot perceive how anyone reading your arguments, can fail to be persuaded that women’s ordination, in those cultural milieus which choose it, should be allowed to proceed.
BRAVO and KUDOS,
My Brother Robin, thank you for your kind words.
Yes Pastor Liverpool, great job, excellent reflections. I do not know you personally but it is pastors and thinkers like you that still keep the light of hope shining in our Church.
Without a doubt, George, he will get massive doses of affirmation on this forum. I could wonder how well he would do on forums like ADvindicate?
All we can affirm by way of all the disagreement in the church, is there will be no agreement and no unity. You equate male headship with slavery of women. In which case, there is no way anyone could convince you that male headship is biblical.
Others do not agree with your evaluation. So the split is beyond reconciliation and church members will at some time be forced to make a personal decision on their own account, and not wait for the church to tell them what to believe.
I think more and more people are beginning to see this fact. In which case, unless there is some unknown factor, the church will and must separate. With this in mind, individuals will see the importance of making a decision that will affect their eternal destiny. Both sides must conclude this reality.
Thank you George for the encouragement. Our God 1s big enough to accommodate the cursing, unlearned, betraying fisherman and the brilliant Paul. I am contented in just being a “door Keeper in the house of the Lord”
I was reading this article and noticed that the basis of this discussion is that cultures have changed even the former GC president mentioned it before. To equate “not ordaining” with suppression of women is not correct. Freedom of expression and God’s work are two different things. World positions and spiritual positions are not the same thing. A woman can be a president of America but not GC. If the other denominations had not ordained women we wouldnt be discussing it because we are NOT originals on the issue but other churches. We are asked by other churches why we do not ordain our women.Instead of giving them Biblical answers we turn around and want to impose the same pressure on the church in the name of equality. We can not let the world change us. We dont need to be “liked for conforming with the world” God did not count women, was He wrong? Is he not the creator. The supreme court passed a law, that a man can marry a man, American culture changed,so is the world culture. Years from now it will accepted as normal. Are we then going to debate about ordaining “them”? We get so used to culture changes and we forget our calling parameters. Leave all cultures out and start on what God said. The writer of this article was strong but off the point.
“God did not count women…”
——————
What do you mean by that?
Jerry said,
” Leave all cultures out and start on what God said. The writer of this article was strong but off the point.”
Exactly. The bible is not ambiguous on this issue. Many hope to show that it is simply a cultural issue and not a moral issue. Christians always have to deal with heathen cultures and Paul is no exception. But when he makes his case for male headship, he does not appeal to culture, but the historical event in the process of sin. Namely, Eve was first in sin.
Are we to assume sin does not exist anymore, or that we need no longer follow the mandate given by God because of sin? Or, assume the gospel has negated this mandate? I think not.
Let me clear. My argument for the ordination of female pastors in the SDA church is a moral one.
“Let me clear. My argument for the ordination of female pastors in the SDA church is a moral one.”
Yes, I understand. And this is why there will be no solution to “agree to disagree”, anymore than we can “agree to disagree” with Sunday keepers about moral mandates.
But since Sunday keepers are not members of the SDA church, we need not demand they keep the Sabbath as we do a SDA. None the less, within the SDA church, we demand moral accountability to be loyal to scripture on any given issue facing the church.
We ask our leaders to “lead” and not play politics with the hope to hold the church together on some phony “unity” that ignores moral mandates.
They made a big mistake years ago, and now don’t know what to do about it. They hope to push it under the rug with the hope that maybe it will go away. It won’t. Many on both sides know this. And the more both sides agitate, it will force the issue to come to a head and can’t be ignored, but must be dealt with.
Not a pretty sight, but a necessary one.
Please explain the moral part of it. Do not put culture in it.
The question of motal is refereed to Pastor Liverpool.
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines moral as, “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.”
Culture aside, the current practice within our church of allowing women to be ordained as elders while denying them ordination, but choosing instead to commission them as pastors solely because of their gender is unfair, unjust, discrimination on the basis of gender (which for your information is illegal under the US constitution and a violation of fair labor standards). A practice that is unfair, unjust and illegal under morality as measured by Biblical standards and by universally accepted standards of morality is not moral or immoral. Please note that I am not affirming or denying any of the Biblical arguments put for by either side on the issue of the ordination of women, I am judging the practice in the light of two GC decisions allowing the ordination of women as elders and current working policy which permits women to be employed as pastors, but forbids their ordination thereby preventing them from performing all the functions that a male, ordained minister can or from ever becoming a conference, union, division or GC president. I think that if you explain this practice in clear and simple terms to an eight year old child, they would conclude that it is wrong.
I simply cannot comprehend why it is so difficult for some to honor the concept of Individual Conscience with regard to the topic at hand. God created each being with a direct connection to Him through the power of the Holy Spirit. Are we so afraid of God that we must agree to be bludgeoned lock step into the kingdom? Is that not the very definition of fear? Attempting to coerce one to bow to the dictates of another is to deny the power of God and to negate the precious free gift of Salvation. That is nothing less than the doctrine of salvation by works that has separated so many from the love of God. He bids us “Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of My righteousness.” Isaiah 41:10
Patti, What you are saying is actually very inconvenient, and in the context of a Church, it is actually inappropriate! 😉
Many years ago I read (who knows were?) this definition of true religion, “Religion is what happens between us and God in our minds.”
Well, this definition is also inconvenient to organized religions. Because they rely on the false presumption that a church is always between the individual and the Divinity. Some denominations even say that they are God’s representatives on earth. What about some “GC in session” being the ultimate word of God on earth?
Those are all heresies that are used to exert power and control of the crowds, and to dominate people’s thinking.
I guess this can help to understand “why it is so difficult for some to honor the concept of Individual Conscience.”
BTW, good so meet you again. Always a pleasure reading your wise posts.
What an incredible well thought out article by pastor Liverpool. One group who would have been proud of the way things went at the GC session are followers of the Quran which doesn’t beat around the bush when it comes to women. Women are decidedly inferior to men with 10 rules to properly beat them when they get out of line. The resounding NO vote pricked the ascending balloon of Adventism and has staggered this body. It is more than political smarts and survival of the clever. It feels more like a grieving of the Holy Spirit in play. Heaven help our church from this year forward.
No wonder in some parts of the world the SDAs have a good relationship with Islam…
Continuing to expend major church resources on training women for a career in pastoral ministry, while denying them the prerogatives that come with that vocation, is trying to remain “half pregnant”. Sooner or later there will be:
1) an Abortion; or
2) a Stillbirth; or
3) a living child must emerge.
Those who say we should roll-back to pre-1970s practices (thou shalt not lay thy hands on a woman for any sacramental purpose), are calling for an Abortion.
Those who say we must forever close-off further discussion while continuing to equip women for a ministry we refuse to affirm, are calling for a Stillbirth.
I submit that long-term neither of the foregoing will be a viable option. It is only a matter of time. Every vote comes closer to the majority permitting permitting women to be ordained in those areas where it will further advance the cause of God.
What is the gestation period for this development? James White was an ordained minister of the Christian Connection. Reportedly this group began to ordain women as pastors in the 19th century. Had Ellen joined the Christian Connection I have no doubt she would have been ordained.
But the GC in its wisdom issued her the credentials of an Ordained Minister without committing the impropriety of laying hands upon her. The “contractions” began in the 1800s. We have been administering various “labor repressants” for over a century.
It would be very interesting to know the ages and genders of the 977 “spies” who voted YES, compared to the 1,381 “loyalists” who voted NO.
Many commenters have cynically decried the technological prowess of those who could not or would not push their electronic buttons to “test” the “secret” voting system. I suggest that more than likely there was another motive.
Assuming that virtually every delegate had used a cell phone or a computer, they understood that an electronic record of their votes would be captured. And they understood that “secret electronic records” is an oxymoron.
Since God only knows the answers to these questions, I can only take the liberty to speculate. Herewith my speculations:
1) Had the age and gender and ethnic demographics of those who voted, been truly representative of the demographics of the members of the SDA church worldwide, the final tally would have been rather different. As it was the opinions of Old Male Preachers carried the day.
2) In 10 more years many of said Old Male Preachers will no longer be delegates. In 20 years almost none of said Old Male Preachers will be delegates. Even Israel Leito who has finally surpassed A G Daniells’ record for GC longevity, will eventually retire or die in office.
(to be continued)
3) The Younger Male Preachers who will succeed said Old Male Preachers as GC delegates, will have been exposed to a lot more women in professional and leadership roles, if not in their home churches and home nations, then via the public media.
4) Once the Younger Male Preachers become the next generation of Old Male Preachers who by the apportionment rules, constitute a voting majority of GC delegates, the outcome of the vote will change.
I could cite many past precedents for these speculations. Adventist practices DO change over time and place. But they change over generations, and most of us live relatively short lives by comparison.
Regarding (3) – Consider that Brazil and Korea, major SDA powerhouses on their respective continents, currently have women as heads of state. And other South American nations have had women as heads of state. And all of the above were democratically elected. And I suspect that many younger SDAs may have voted for them.
You have to account for conservative revivalist movements like GYC.
There’s a subset of young people in transforming societies that still respond to archconservative rhetoric.
5) The current generation of Old Male Preachers who run the show, are well aware of (1) and (2) and (3) and desperately hope to avoid (4). Hence their increasing sense of urgency to forever foreclose further fanfare regarding such matters. For them this is their last chance. Time is not on their friend.
Aren’t you glad that we serve an eternal God, whose purposes know neither haste nor delay?
Jim Hamstra,
“It would be interesting to know the ages and genders of the voters”
Spectrum published the demographics of the delegates so we know they were overwhelmingly male and geriatric.
Exit polling would have been most profitable. What a shame that Spectrum and Adventist Today did not collaborate to “unmask” these perpetrators of “disunity”,
We intuitively know, those voting “.yes” were more educated, had more graduate degrees, and were less “third world”.
Brazil, Chile and Argentina, the three biggest South American countries all have women presidents, Yet I believe our South American brethren voted largely “no”
This tells me we are baptizing the less educated, more “blue collar” populations in those countries, not the social elites. Ditto, for the South Koreans who also have a woman president, and whose GC delegates voted “no”.
I do not mean to be derogatory by “blue collar”,
I come form such roots– my dad was a brick mason.
This ordination issue, in my view, is a social class one.
Those supporters of women’s subjugation have not risen above their blue collar roots despite their (suspect) college’degrees.
Thankfully, Adventism is renowned for its “upward mobility ” so the future holds promise.
When we allocate more women, more millenials, and fewer church employees (conflicted by job jeopardy) as delegates, we will have a more representative slate and a more equitable outcome.
IT BEHOOVES US TO DEMAND THIS!
What we “intuitively” know is often wrong. The published demographics do not give us any breakdown of how people voted. It was a truly secret ballot.
I think the delegates generally were well-educated. Most had graduate degrees. I do not regard their degrees as “suspect”. Denigrating the intelligence or education of those who differ with us is not helpful. Equally smart and well informed and well qualified people can be found with different opinions regarding this and most other issues.
I do not find in the Bible where we are told to DEMAND our “rights”. We are told to wait patiently for the Lord.
Jim,
I am well aware that the ballot was secret,
but Spectrum during their actual week’s coverage of the GC conference did publish a brilliant visual graphic of the delegate make up at the conference.
OT WAS OVERWHELMIMGLY MALE AND GERIATRIC.
So whether voters were naysayers or affirmative, I think we can know that few were millenials and that the majority were male.
I think it in no way inappropriate that our various constituencies, having input in the selection of future GC delegates, request that the slate be more representative of the larger church body, both as to gender and as to age.
Surely this is self evident in the twenty first century!
Furthermore, when the majority of church members are not church employees, then delegates should NOT be largely employed by the church.
This again is not a representative slate.
It also leads to the perception, that these employees, fearing reprisals and job jeopardy, even when the ballot is secret, may feel constrained to vote in the best interests of their further promotional prospects rather than their true views.
1) Demanding that the majority of the delegates be people who are unacquainted with the details of church operations, in my opinion, is likely to lead to more problems than it solves.
2) I do believe that the vote was a truly secret ballot, and that almost every voter voted according to their own best judgement.
Jim,
You state:
“I think the delegates generally were well educated
Most had graduate degrees”.
It would be informative if the GC would publish a full list of delegates, with their ages, their employment status, and their educational accomplishments.
While some might think this invasive of personal privacies, it would be commendable, admirable and exceedingly TRANSPARENT.
I agree that most of the delegates from North America, Australasia, and Europe were highly educated.
I was not at this auspicious gathering, but followed every day, the coverage on various media. There were many posts as to how some of the third world delegates were WOEFULLY IGNORANT of Roberts Rules of Order, and as a result, there were multiple inappropriate interactions with chairpersons.
Considerable time was wasted as a result. This makes me wonder how
sophisticated/educated some of the delegates were.
Furthermore, many had total inability to understand the electronic voting
devices, which had to be finally abandoned, at great financial cost.
In this day and age, would it be too much to ask that each delegate had at least a college degree and a basic understanding of convention/committee proceedings?
The Lord’s work is too important to be left to incompetents.
Over half a century I have chaired or participated in many deliberative bodies, both in industry and in voluntary organizations, and with representatives from all over the world. I have taught seminars on parliamentary procedure. For perhaps a dozen years I served as the de facto “parliamentarian” for a local conference (ie I was the person to whom various procedural, as opposed to policy, questions that arose within churches in the conference, were referred for advice and settlement).
I can tell you that third world citizens have no corner on ignorance about the finer points of parliamentary procedure. I can tell you in the pressure of a contentious debate, people who understand parliamentary procedure, often take recourse to procedurally improper actions.
I would speculate that a lot of the action at the “points of order” microphone, occurred because people quickly learnt that there was only a very short waiting list for that microphone, whereas there was a waiting list of hundreds for the other microphones.
Robin, I simply do not buy your elitist line of arguments. Most of the delegates from third world countries who spoke, understood the procedure and the rules at least as well as their Northern/Western counterparts.
Just because people do not agree with you or me on what is the best course of action in a difficult situation, does not mean they are ill-educated or ill-informed or ill-intentioned.
I totally disagree that many of the delegates misunderstood the electronic voting devices.
I think it was clear that they chose not to trust the devices, for reasons I describe elsewhere. If you were asked to make a contentious vote electronically, said vote conducted by people who have their own opinions on the matter and who know who you are, you might not be certain that your vote would truly remain secret.
I think that delegates who did not trust the electronic system quickly figured-out how to sabotage it. That is a sign of greater sophistication than you are willing to credit to them.
I often wonder what EGW would have said about the Civil Rights Movement.
I’m a direct beneficiary of Martin Luther King’s legacy so I certainly appreciate his impatience.
A well written and profound argument!!!
Thanks Donna.
Es exelente el trabajo.. gracias. lo imprimiré y lo compartiré.
Gracias Hector , por favor trasnslate y compartir
Having speculated about the human side of this, a hazardous venture, let me proceed to speculate about the Divine side which is arguably outright presumptuous.
It appears to me that our leaders and many of the people they represent, are not yet ready to proceed based upon the preponderance of our theologians and thought leaders, who have comprised the various well-qualified panels that have studied this question.
One must understand that the delegates were not asked to vote upon a theological proposition but a on a question of process. In their collective wisdom they concluded that voting YES would be more divisive than voting NO. There is a strong possibility that they may be right.
When this decision is reversed, and I believe that to be highly likely, I think it would be beneficial if it happens in a manner where the will of God and the power of the Holy Spirit are manifest in a manner that few among us will be able to deny.
This is in direct contradistinction to the manner in which both sides have approached the subject, with demands and threats and lobbying and accusations. How can we expect the Spirit of God to speak to us and through us when we harbor the kinds of feelings towards one another that were manifest even in the floor debate in San Antonio? There was ample evidence of another spirit animating much of what happened.
Whoever said, Education is more important when it comes to spiritual matters has misled many. Even Jesus was said to be not educated. The same educated people in the west voted for same sex marriage. The “uneducated did not ” demographic and Reginalism, should not come in spiritual matters. The idea of looking down other nations as uneducated is diabolical.world education has no place in heaven. The moment reason stops and name calling begins, it’s a sign of very serous spiritual ignorance.
“The same educated people in the west voted for same sex marriage.”
Where in the West did this happen? Almost every time this question has been put to a vote in a state referendum in the US of A, the majority have voted to preserve the traditional heterosexual definition of marriage. It has been the courts rather than the voters, that have instituted same sex marriage in the US of A.
Jim Hamstra on August 29, 2015 at 7:50 am said:
“It appears to me that our leaders and many of the people they represent, are not yet ready to proceed based upon the preponderance of our theologians and thought leaders…”
It is more than evident that “our leaders” have absolutely no interest in what the intellectuals in the Church think. The expert word does not make any case against the bureaucratic word of the administrators.
The real final goals of those two groups are different. And those who retain the power & control tools will always prevail. Even if it requires to use thretas like “grave consequences.”
Well George, we do see this situation rather differently.
I do not see this as an US (eg intellectuals?) vs THEM (eg less informed church leaders?) issue.
I do think the leaders of the SDA church from all over the world, care very much about the work of God in their respective domiciles. And they were being asked to make a judgement call regarding whether WO would be a net benefit or a net loss for the church.
People on this forum may debate the issue on theological or ethical or other intellectual premises. But most of the delegates in their day jobs are responsible for actually leading organizations with very pragmatic considerations. Your theology or your ethics or your intellectual concepts may shape your view of the pragmatics, but in the end most effective leaders learn to be very pragmatic.
You can view this as anti-intellectual if you choose, but do not underestimate the intelligence or the education or the sophistication of those being asked to vote. This was very much about organizational objectives and how best they might be served in the context of a contentious issue.
I believe the gentleman from IAD who was visibly upset and said he viewed this whole question as a distraction and hoped it would go away after the vote, was expressing a very common sentiment among a substantial number of the voters, especially from the older generation who predominate the delegate demographics.
It is absolutely amazing that the biblical method of handling disunity in the first church was NOT to enforce unity but to give each group the right and privilege of following their own consciences. The Jewish-Christians were prevented from enforcing their desires on the Gentile Christians.
Why could not this have been followed at S.A.? Allow those who wished to continue to obstruct WO and not force the Gentile Christians into conformity with the older practice of excluding women? Had this pattern, established from the beginning of the church been followed, no one could object when they were completely reminded of the NT controversy settled at Jerusalem.
Sister Elaine Nelson has it perfect when she reminds us that: (August 29, 2015 at 11:56 am)
“It is absolutely amazing that the biblical method of handling disunity in the first church was NOT to enforce unity but to give each group the right and privilege of following their own consciences”
The church, by its very nature as the body of Christ, calls its members to become healing communities. Despite the extent and complexity of the problems raised by the issue of ordaining women, the churches can make an effective healing witness towards those affected. The experience of love, acceptance and support within a community where God’s love is made manifest can be a powerful healing force. This means that the local church should not –marginalize or stigmatize those with a diversity of opinions and convictions on the WO issue. It is important to acknowledge that the localchurch is a communion of one body with many members, each distinct:
“But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honour to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another. (1 Cor. 12:24b-27).
When the local church properly responds to people with love and patience both ministering to them and learning from their ideas, its relationship to them will indeed make a difference. Elaine’s solution is the only right one and it is so simple. In the spirit of love and respect let each local church decideby following their…
conscience”
The blog correctly makes mention that TOSC was not a proportionately representative body yet it then uses the argument that because TOSC voted by a two thirds majority that they could “Find no Biblical support for, or against, the ordination of women” it is used as something credible. Get it?
The TOSC two thirds majority cannot be taken seriously because it (guess what?) – did not represent the world church proportionately. Now if the same question went to the GC for vote it would have been the other way round.
The San Antonio WO motion itself was very simplistic and was not well articulated in terms of dealing with the matter realistically once and for all, which I think was rather disrespectful of the position of the world church on this matter. The vote should have been about whether women should be allowed to serve as elders and pastors. Something was therefore amiss and the world church was short changed rather disingenuously in this discussion and the subsequent simplistic motion.
THE CITY IN RUINS
Today something different happened in our (LSU) church. The group doing the music, a group of six young former LSU students who still sign together (The Bandits) presented one extra music,” dedicated to Ted Wilson,” said the leader. I bet it was their own composition, and the main message said, “Our city is in ruins.” It was a clear, unequivocal verbalization of what the youth feel about what TW has done and keeps doing to the Church.
It was marvelous, and so truthful. I was also emotional to see the youth expressing their frustration and sadness with the failed leadership of the Church “upstairs.” It was a great song though.
Maybe they should have composed a new song entitled “The GC Papacy.” I’m afraid that is where we’re headed.
I think that another song will pop up soon, “The KGC in Action”…
The city is in ruins not because of San Antonio but because of Cultural Adventism gaining ground and the resulting departure from biblical truth. The young people are being misled and are therefore misguided in how they are handling the No in San Antonio. It is the leadership of the NAD, the renegade Union Conferences and its leaders, that have misled the people. They need to repent and come into line. The world church loves them and wishes that they do not depart from the faith and practice of our Pioneers which is in keeping in harmony with the Bible. Songs of protest against the church should find no place in the church, although, the group’s name “bandits” does epitomise the rebellion within our ranks.
The decisions of two GC Sessions to approve the ordination of women as elders while denying Unions the right to ordain them as pastors is the real issue. These decisions make the question of whether the Bible permits the ordination of women a mute point. Each time a commissioning service for a female pastor is conducted the issue is kept alive. In the US and in many other countries discrimination on the basis of sex/gender is illegal. Would our church be able to defend this practice in a court of law? This was the main consideration when the CUC voted to ordain women as pastors and I am certain this is a major concern of the NAD. As long as the two GC decisions remain in place, protest, rebellion and defiance against this unjust, illegal, inconsistent and unbiblical policy is warranted. The decision in San Antonio further complicates the issue and does nothing to resolve the real issue which cannot be swept under the rug. No amount of coercive tactics or appeals by the GC president will silence the voices of those who view the refusal to ordain women (in the light of past GC decisions and working policy) as discrimination on the basis of sex/gender and therefore morally, legally and biblically wrong.
Just I thought who ordained the apostles and when was Jesus ordained? Can one minister without an ordination? What does it mean when God says He will pour out His Spirit on all flesh? Can a woman be filled with the Holy Ghost like our inspired messenger and be instrumental in leading the church. I mean we do use and refer to her writings but no other woman can be ordained to be used of God? There are those who are appointed but not anointed. The text that is used for ordination is dealing with Bishop’s, Deacon’s and Elders, where is the ordination for the five ministries? He gave some apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors, and teachers but none of them are being mention for ordination?
So should we conclude that ordaining any of these five fold ministries has no biblical bases? If this is the conclusion then no male or female should be ordained as pastors bc there is no mention of it in the bible. Or is that to strict of an interpertation?
You raise a good point; but it should be noted that there is a marked difference between spiritual gifts, which both men and women receive from God through the Holy Spirit, and holding a church office such as that of an elder, for which a man is elected and set apart by ordination, by the authority of the Church. Female elder proponents conflate the two.
Trevor, my brother, your acknowledgement that Michael Washington “[raises] a good point” is the understatement of the year from my perspective.
The point is what is ordination other than an acknowledgement by the church of what God has done in someone’s life?
Is there any higher responsibility given to humans than that of speaking on God’s behalf, and to His people at that? Since Ellen White is presumed to have been given that exact responsibility for this last-day church; and as such, a prophetic spiritual gifting from God for the task, how can this male headship argument be made by Seventh-day Adventists (of all people), to deny the option of the Adventist church to acknowledge a pastoral spiritual calling?
This “authority of the Church” argument you make sounds straight RC to me; or at least that specific phrasing does. I know that you are wedded to your opposition to WO; but just because some proponents are in reality agnostic liberals with an agenda of undermining the authority of Scripture (at best), is not a reason to make arguments that don’t hold water.
And what was the result of this great pouring out of the SPIRIT in Acts 2:”17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:”
Who is missing? What do prophetic gifts and other gifts have in common; other than being from GOD? I thought CHRIST, in GOD, and through the Scripture was the Ultimate Authority. I see no water to hold within this argument.
Our pioneers flatly rejected the male headship theology. http://www.escogidasparaservir.com/headship-theology-what-our-pioneers-believed/ We should reject it, too. Certain televangelists claim that it’s the original doctrine. It’s actually a strange, new theology that is false and fictitious.
The correct word is not headship “theology,” but headship “heresy.”
Those intimating that the GC is likened to the papacy are departing from the Great Controversy narrative which specifically identifies the papacy as constituting Babylon. The GC is not identified with the fallen churches of Babylon since 1844 and is not by structure, administration or doctrinal affiliation a fair comparison. Those accusing the GC of being a papacy are therefore doing so out of rancour.
The decision of “my” church to continue a discriminatory practice, has caused me to rethink my support for a structure that is perpetuating a practice that is essentially sinful (if racism is a sin of the darkest die, then so is sexism). At a time when l expected “my” church to take a step forward and learn from its mistakes of the past, and right a grevious wrong, it continued a practice of “separate but equal” eloquently described by Dr. Liverpool in this article. I still believe in a “Day of Judgment” when leaders of organizations will be “brought to trial” for the hurts that they have caused the women in pastoral ministry in the SDA church.I just wonder how we could make the messages of gospel of Jesus of Nazareth of none effect. Pastor Liverpool, thanks for speaking to people like me who are still deciding how to proceed with all that we have learned and have been taught.
Luckily for the rest of us Judgement is not left to you. Luckily for us the worship of teaching for doctrine commandments of men is not required and actually defined as vain.
We understand that until the heavens and earth shall pass, one tittle of the law has changed. That keeping and teaching the Commandments makes the great in HEAVEN and failures of and teachings in such makes the least.
We all consider 1 Timothy 2 to be self explanatory, for even a child:
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
There are no excuses and I can guarantee HE will hold the last word. There is nothing in your opinions, ideologies or others that you listen to that will change that.
Luckily for the rest of us you are not in charge of imposing rules in the Church, otherwise it appears that we would have a clear decree from you that every member has to be a discriminator of women in order to be allowed to belong to the Church.
Then quit pushing your discriminatory ignorance down everyone’s throat; pusher.
Luckily for us HE is in charge and handles the children (and lawyers). We do not care for the vain teachings of the commandments of men.
If you think GOD discriminates take that up with him. If you think the gift (pay) is not equally applied or the privilege of service (job) of those hired by HIM do not meet your little personal ideologies; please do.
I will warn you, HE will have the last word. No chances to argue excuses, cross examination or technicalities.
The many and majority impose the rules. The vote has always and once again is “no”.
If you are unable to provide anything of value for the GIFT to start with; do you think HE will allow you to provide negative value for the FREE GIFT?
Trevor Hammond (22oct1844) on August 29, 2015 at 9:54 pm said:
“Songs of protest against the church should find no place in the church, although, the group’s name “bandits” does epitomise (sic) the rebellion within our ranks.”
“The Bandits” name have nothing to do with rebellion . It’s more related to “The Band it is.” They are a very nice group, doing great music, nothing extreme, just very pleasant music. Often arranging old traditional hymns that get a better taste in their hands.
The fact they presented that song yesterday has nothing to do with rebellion . This judgement is …, well,… just another failed and improper judgment. The song describes the misfortune of having out church immersed in the mess it is in now, and this because of the failed and cultic leadership of TW. It is a clear message that the youth would like to have a functional administration and an accepting church. But, unfortunately, they have to deal with a different, discouraging reality. Do wee blame them for desiring something better?
Why is it that when a different opinion is shared some people call it “rebellion?” Are they so obtuse that they can’t deal with diversity?
You and they are given the GREATEST GIFT and want more? Something better? They have nothing to offer of value for the FIRST GIFT. Do you wish to sacrifice for the second gift, whatever that is? CHRIST was already sacrificed once, I personally think that was enough.
Would you please rewrite your post so that it can make some sense?
Thanks.
Romans 16:”17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”
Is that better?
Much better!
Now it shows that people who create division in the Church should be dealt with. Discriminating others is certainly a bad thing, because
Discrimination = division, selective picking, diminishing other people’s value as human beings, denying equality, denying same rights, giving advantage to one group in detriment of another group, etc.
Eo you thing the Church will apply the rule to those discriminators that are causing division among us?
Discrimination (Webster) –
: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people
: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not
: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing
Again: listening to this continuing saga is the most discriminatory practice I have ever seen.
You discriminate against the Church, religion, the protections afforded others (within a different class) and the rest of the multitudes of adults who understand the vote was “no” (and has always been “no”).
Jim. i think those (as i) were not contesting the intellect or educational attainment, or acumen, or faith, of those voting “NO” in S A, but voted as it affected them culturally, without recognizing the vast impact that those in other parts of the world, of vast cultural differences, who rightly think the HOLY SPIRIT, is available to all who seek. i also believe that although some would perhaps raise
the question of racism, i think not, i believe most Christians are color blind. However the deep cultural differences are real. The HOLY SPIRIT speaks to those seekers, where they are, of knowledge specific to their journey in CHRIST JESUS. The messages may not always be the same message, at the time, for all. i agree with Stephen Foster, and Concerned Christian, above.
Correction: my last paragraph above should read,
“Do you think the Church will apply…”
It is not whether or not you believe women should be ordained or not – It is whether you love or not. Without the love of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, you can’t keep any law. I don’t know what “laws” the Samaritan held dear; I can only conjecture. But we see love (the law) in action when he treats the wounds of his cultural, racial and traditional enemy, at great personal risk, puts him on his donkey and continues to provide for his care, even after he leaves the scene. Christ did that for us, and He can reach others through us if we allow Him to recreate us in His image. God bless the women who minister to us in His name; whether or not they are recognized by men, or any organization – Jesus recognizes them, just as He recognized the despised Samaritan. The Holy Spirit is poured out on them, just as He was poured out on women in the upper room. The Father chose them, just as He chose Cornelius. With that in mind, I guess I am too stupid to know what “ordination” really means, but I am thankful that God works with stupid people like me. And one thing I have learned is that any biblical position not interpreted through the prism of God’s Love for all of us, is very shaky ground. Thanks Pastor Liverpool for your thought provoking article. May God continue to bless you as you love and feed the flock.
Dr. Bovell, thanks for reminding us so eloquently about what love demands; we should not allow our biases and prejudices to prevent us from treating all of God’s children as created in His image.
I was a president of a conference in Africa when in 1990 the General Conference voted to approve the ordination of women as elders. I believed that even though Africans were generally in disagreement with this new policy and practice, it was my duty as a leader to teach people what the official position of the church was and let them find better ways of working through it. As a result church members were very supportive of the new move. The condition was that the ordination would only be done when there was harmony and consensus in the local church.
I respect my colleague, Dr. Liverpool. However, I feel that while his article tries to address the problem of concerns and inconsistencies in the church, it is does not help solve the real issue that he is concerned about. Doing theology is a stewardship responsibility. This means that whatever I say or teach should be done in such a way that it protects those with a tender conscience. After reading his article, I came out with a great sense of despair. The kitchen-sink approach does not protect the very people we are ministering to. Theologians and administrators do not look at the problem the same way. Theologians tend to thrive on endless debates, irrespective of outcomes. Administrators generally are interested in decisions and functionality of those decisions. The two perspectives can very easily collide if improperly handled.
Dr. Liverpool’s article, while raising relevant issues, does not put a cooked…
Dr. Liverpool’s article, while raising relevant issues, does not put a cooked meal on the table for everybody to enjoy the fellowship. The article is still at the recipe collection stage. The article also muzzles other potential concerns that he forgot to discuss: marriage and divorce in the church; gender and sexuality; jewelry in its broader sense than the weeding ring, to name a few. If culture and scripture are throne into the debate, then these issues should not be treated as gas stations too far away from the highway.
We should not undermine the argument raised by those we disagree with. Our biggest challenge is our failure to listen and work together. Patience is not a short-term discipline – “We have been dealing with this issue too long; we can’t wait any longer.” For that reason some leaders have run ahead to manipulate the process and use the policy of psychological control – “act now and confess later.” That is not leadership. I have often asked myself, what will these leaders do when one day a local conference decides to keep the tithe to pay its pastors and not send anything to the next higher level? What happens to the definition of unity at that point? Does the need to balance the budget trump the need for unity? What if the local conference requests to be allowed to determine its own tithe percentage to be passed on to the next higher level? Would these same impatient leaders say about unity? Every decision has a consequence.
In summary,…
ZEBRON NCUBE,
Your comments about donations to the church are very relevant.
Which Bible text requires me to give money to the Adventist church, or more specifically to the GC?
While the bulk of my church giving is to Adventism, I have this year given substantial amounts to a local Presbyterian and Methodist church for worthy causes. Will God fault me for this?
Will God find my gifts to Doctors without Borders (one of the most humanitarian organizations on the planet) suspect, because I did not give to ADRA?
One of my favorite charities is Amnesty International, forefront in their work for
Human Rights and combatting torture (which I abhor).
I find it highly conflictual, to be donating for human rights causes and simultaneously giving to an organization demeaning, discriminating, and hurtful to women and gays — the SDA GC.
Accordingly, , for years, I have constructed my giving so that my hard earned money does not reach the GC. I find NO Biblical condemnation for this .
I would hope that every self-respecting high earning SDA professional woman, every father who loves and values his professional daughters (I have three) and every husband who respects his spouse, would stop contributing to an entity which demeans women.
I have been a generous cheerful giver and know that EVERY PENNY I give to feed the homeless, renovate my church pipe organ, save the desperate migrant refugees and promote human rights, will be valued by my creator.
I regret that the example I used of tithe was understood as a comment. I was not addressing donations but Illustrating how other issues can arise as a result of our failure to follow the proper processes and agreed-upon decision making procedures. By the way tithing and its usage is biblical and doctrinal on one hand and structural and systemic on the other as far as the SDA church is concerned. That said, I refrain from sidetracking from the subject .
Dr. Ncube, thanks for your feedback. May God help those of us who are ordained to work together, so that our female colleagues in ministry may experience the same rights and privileges we enjoy. Sorry, but I did not address the scope of the concerns you expressed. I purposely delineated the article to address the issues on my heart. Again, thanks for your feedback my friend and brother.
Thank you my friend, Errol,
I wish to challenge your assertion that “… some leaders have run ahead to manipulate the process and use the policy of psychological control – ‘act now and confess later.’ That is not leadership.” If you are referring to the leaders of the CUC, I wish to say in their defense that, true leaders act on their conviction and give those who they lead the opportunity to freely discuss challenging issues and arrive at a decision without trying to suppress discussion. This is what the leaders of the CUC did and I commend them for their bold stand. History will either condemn or vindicate them, but at the end of the day, they followed their convictions and did what they felt was right. True leadership does not ‘kick the proverbial can down the road’ and delay making a decision, try to suppress discussion on the issue and deprive the proper entities (Unions) from deciding on an issue (ordination) that is their right to decide.
Thanks for your well-reasoned and articulate commentary on the GC vote on the issue of women’s ordination in general. Your arguments are spot-on and I hope that those of us who share your views on this matter would not stand on the sidelines and accept this, inconsistent and unjust decision masquerading behind the mask of ‘church unity and Biblical confirmity’, as the ‘voice of God’, but speak up where appropriate. The glaring inequality and folly of my church’s policy on the matter of women’s ordination became obvious to me when I looked at the program for the ordination service that took place during the PA conference camp meeting this year. Two male pastors and one female pastor were listed in the program booklet, but a separate commissioning program was outlined for the female pastor. There was really no difference in the outline for the two services. I later asked my conference president about the need for two program outlines. I would not share his answer, but I left our conversation disturbed that there was something about this practice that is for want of a better word ‘wrong’. I was a delegate at the Columbia Union Session representing the PA Conference, when the vote was taken to ordain without regard to sex/gender. I believed then that it was the right decision and voted accordingly and I would hope that other conference administrators would follow the example of the leaders of Columbia Union Conference.
David, it’s young people like you that help people like me. Continue to be actively engaged. Someday, we shall overcome and our church would be better for it.
I am not that young anymore, but I do feel young. Thanks for sticking your neck out and writing this article. I am happy to learn that you are still pastoring. Remain faithful to your calling and do not be afraid to express your convictions.
Perhaps that conference president still believes in “separate but equal.” He is not the only one who has yet to join the 21st century. No one should expect growth in the NAD and first world divisions and also embrace this antiquated concept.
But it has been reported that this precedent was set by TW in Australia when he was on the platform when several males were ordained, but pointedly left when a woman was ordained–separately.
Raynold Lewis,
I endorse your perceptive comment:
“I still believe in the “Day of Judgement” when leaders of organizations “will be brought to trial” for hurts they have caused”.
Which raises the legitimate question: Which Bible writer has caused more MISERY than Hitler and Stalin combined? These despots only impacted their own generations.
In the two millennia since the Pauline epistles, millions of slaves, countless abused women, and a multitude of mistreated gays, can justifiably confront Paul demanding:
What provoked you to make such intemperate, despicable comments that condoned slavery?
What inner insecurities instigated your mean-spirited misogynist messages demeaning and denigrating women?
A senior women pastor whom I highly respect, proclaims wife beating is PERVASIVE in Adventist churches. Headship doctrine, Pauline based, and recently imported into Adventism from suspect Calvinist sources, is not only hurtful to women pastors but to trapped battered Adventist wives.
Some opine Paul was a self loathing closeted gay, which accounted for his misogyny and homophobic rhetoric. Be that as it may, his comments have caused UNTOLD MISERY and “gay bashing” to generations, and continue to cause hateful rejection of our gay Adventist offspring.
Apologists absolve Paul as being cultural for his time and place.
I AGREE– let us enter the 21st century!
Return SEPARATE BUT EQUAL to the ROMAN ERA!
Many of us are commanded to Love as CHRIST in providing for and protecting our families. Have you opened your eyes and looked around lately, it’s hard to protect anyone. You fail at your commanded duties and now you want another job? Do you think that this may be a failure by you and your senior women’s pastor to teach Titus 2? Would this not solve all of our problems to raise our children in CHRIST; but I am sorry, this is only GOD’s PLAN.
Maybe this is why 40% of the child abuse in this Country is caused or allowed by the mother now; more than twice any other category. Maybe this is why we have 680,000 more men than women physically assaulted by an intimate partner with an object or fist each year; and 4.8 million more men exposed to psychological aggression. Maybe this is why we have 25,000 more females entering the jail system over the last few years than before.
We are now not only obligated to protect and provide, and now support those impacted and build new jails; while you pursue ulterior motives? Do you think HE is going to allow you to continue and accost his Apostles for very long? I would suggest you find HIM; soon.
So are you trying to tell us that ordaining women pastors will make the problems of domestic violence committed by women worse, or better?
One could equally argue that since most rapes and murders are committed by men, and most prison inmates are men, therefore men should not be ordained as ministers.
I fail to see the connection here?
“Do you think HE is going to allow you to continue and accost his Apostles for very long?”
Who are these Apostles and who is accosting them?
I am saying they have a job to do, fail at it and you want to give them another job.
Rape is a discriminatory term now; sexual assault is replacement. Sexual assault of men by women is the largest (and very few) growing crime rates in the US. Go figure.
This was her comment, did you read it:
“Some opine Paul was a self loathing closeted gay, which accounted for his misogyny and homophobic rhetoric. Be that as it may, his comments have caused UNTOLD MISERY and “gay bashing” to generations, and continue to cause hateful rejection of our gay Adventist offspring.”
This is an Apostle; a friend to CHRIST. Why do you stick your head up? If you never read anything or acquire sufficient wisdom within knowledge; these things happen.
On your next post about Australia; people are scared to walk the streets. The Juvenal crime rate is growing rapidly; mainly female (and Sweden: SIAK Journal Juvenal Crime Rates in Sweden and Australia). The Countries had both asked for help; including from the Church. Go figure again.
If you are never involved, do not have to fight the problems or never there to help; why do you raise your head?
I am struggling to see how your reply relates to the topic of this web page?
You seem to have some very deep-seated fear and/or anger directed at women.
This kind of reminds me of those who claim that religion is the root of all evils? Only in your case it seems to be women? Or is it only religious women?
“When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”
Apparently accosting an Apostle who is showing partiality (ie discrimination) is not a sin?
If not outright discrimination, was not a GC President who refused to participate in the commissioning of a woman pastor in Australia, a practice specifically provided for in the GC policies, while at the same time participating in the ordination of men as pastors, publicly showing partiality based solely on gender?
Should a GC president while sojourning in Australia, be held to a lower standard of accountability than Peter while sojourning in Antioch?
The thread of comments to this perceptive article is diverse. When the subject of WO is examined with the context of WHAT IS RIGHT/LEGAL or what is ETHICAL a wider dimension has to be considered.
For our church there are examples of companies that took the high road, even when they had no legal obligation to do so,
For any law or policy, we can and should ask: Is it right? Is it fair? Is it just?
The ultimate standards for us as a church deciding what we ought to do are ethical, not just legal, ones. Sometimes we are not legally obligated to do what we ought to do. Our history of failing to recognize the inherent dignity of women, children, and African-Americans shows that the law sometimes gets it all wrong. There are churches that value doing the right thing rather than just what is merely legally required of them may not only endure, but prevail. The reason to do the right thing is simply because it is the right thing to do. Churches that take ethics seriously, however, often find themselves winning over religious skeptics and a skeptical media alike.
Why not do the ethical thing as well as the legally just thing and ordain women as we do men? Why do we discriminate and disrespect women?
Well stated!
Any religion that is unethical is unworthy of being given tax-free status. Ethics should be the most important belief and practice of any religion worthy of being founded by God who is no respecter of persons.
The BIBLE is our only Creed; that is explicit. The Ethics and protections afforded others are explicit; without privilege of individual interpretation.
We all have the right to religion; including the Church. The Church also holds responsibility of Stewardship and protecting the tax exempt status as a religion. The privilege of donor advised funds was removed a long time ago; moving even special projects or purposes into this global Stewardship. All of the Corporations and Unions are controlled by such.
In simple terms; all funds solicited and receipted must be used for purposes defined by the Body (and in Charitable purpose), otherwise you only deceive the donors.
The vote has always been and once again was “no”. Discrimination and unethical behavior is this constant and continuing chatter the rest of us have to listen to. The protections afforded others belongs to them, not some small cackling pool; that is absolute discrimination. To rely on Doctrine that has existed for millennia within the bounds of Religion is not discriminatory, it is Religion in following HIM; not in vain teaching the commandments of men.
The final pay is the same. No one is inhibited from doing their jobs. You cannot discriminatory force the Church to do anything. This continuation serves no purpose, breaches Doctrine and wisdom. The absolute question within such discrimination; why would the rest of us want you around our families and children?
Discrimination is not just about equal pay for equal work. It is also about equal advancement opportunities. For example, school that pays all janitors equally but refuses to hire women or persons of color as faculty, is certainly discriminating regarding employment opportunity.
Can you honestly say that a Commissioned Minister earns the same pay as a Conference President? I doubt it.
And even if you pay her the same, you are denying her the opportunity to be recognized as a Conference President. De facto and/or by policy that also denies her the opportunity to hold various Union Conference, Division and General Conference offices and ex officio board seats.
For example, the GC denied Sandra Roberts her ex officio status on the NAD Executive Committee. Presumably they would also deny her an ex officio seat on the boards of various PUC institutions if they could.
The discrimination obstacles would become even worse for a hypothetical woman who was elected President of a Union Conference. Presumably she would be denied ex officio status on the GC Executive Committee, the GC Session delegates, etc.
Most of us can recognize discrimination when we see it. Some of us appear to be in denial. And the latter category would appear to include some high officers of the GC itself. They appear determined to defend their Old Male Preachers club as long as they can.
The Church holds the absolute Civil Right of Religion to engage anyone they wish within mission. The BIBLE as the only Creed specifically stated the requirements for Bishop and Deacon millennia ago. Everyone within the Church holds not only such right as the Body; but also expectations and rights as individuals.
Discrimination is to force something down someones throat. GOD said he did not appreciate the vain teachings for doctrine the commandments of men; I wouldn’t try that very long.
You want to hire someone, pay their taxes and handle their retirement; have at it.
Actually I like the example of go create your own universe and minion, give them free will and you can let them engage who they wish to carry the mission.
“The Church holds the absolute Civil Right of Religion”
If by Civil Right of Religion you are referring to US law, then I hate to inform you that no right is absolute. For example if your religion demands human sacrifices, then you can be prosecuted for murder.
“Discrimination is to force something down someones throat.”
That is only one form of discrimination. Another form is to withhold something of value. Refusing to ordain women is in the latter category. Nobody is forcing you personally nor your congregation nor your conference, to ordain anyone they do not believe is qualified.
“GOD said he did not appreciate the vain teachings for doctrine the commandments of men”
I agree. And so-called “male headship” in the church is a commandment of men. And it is not a doctrine of the SDA church.
“I wouldn’t try that very long.”
I am glad to read that. When do you intend to stop?
“You want to hire someone, pay their taxes and handle their retirement”
As it happens I have actually done that.
“Actually I like the example of go create your own universe and minion, give them free will and you can let them engage who they wish to carry the mission.”
You might want to consider embracing the LDS faith. Your views in this regard seem very similar to theirs.
” For example if your religion demands human sacrifices, then you can be prosecuted for murder.”
Then stop trying to sacrifice others; who have protections and assigned duties in the BIBLE.
“That is only one form of discrimination. Another form is to withhold something of value.”
Would this be like thinking you are going to take HIS greatest GIFT; without providing the works you were created for? A hand out?
“And so-called “male headship” in the church is a commandment of men”
1 Corinthians 11:”3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”
Sounds like a statement of absolutes from GOD; to me.
“You might want to consider embracing the LDS faith. Your views in this regard seem very similar to theirs.”
The vote was “no”. GOD, giving us the BIBLE, says “no”. Maybe you should go be one of the mainline protestant denominations; for as long as they last (they lost 5 million members over the last 7 years).
What is your problem? What iron do you have in this fire?
“What is your problem? What iron do you have in this fire?”
I have been a loyal member of the SDA Church for over 1/2 century. I still worship there, pay my tithes and offerings, serve my local congregation in various capacities. You seem to be assuming that anyone who differs with you cannot be a true and faithful SDA. In that case what would you say about over 40% of the delegates who voted YES. Should they all seek another church home in the “mainline protestant denominations” because they do not share your views on this issue?
“What is your problem? What iron do you have in this fire?”
You might also want to ask these questions of your own self?
Does the Bible support the ordination of women as elders? If the answer is no, then the current policy of ordaining women elders violates the Bible and if that is the case then we cannot claim that we are following the Bible when we deny Unions the right to ordain women as pastors. Are you aware of the fact that candidates for ordination as pastors must first be ordained as elders? So if a woman can be ordained as and elder, what is wrong about ordaining her as a pastor. The passages in the New Testament that speak about ordination relate to the positions of bishop, elder and deacon. Those of us, your brothers and sisters who believe the current practice (ordaining men and commissioning women for the same position (pastor) is discrimination base our conclusion on the current situation in our church. For us to support your position, the GC would have to rescind the decision to ordain women as elders and to use your expression, follow “the BIBLE (as) our only Creed”. Until this is done, saying no to the ordination of women as pastors and claiming Biblical support for it is delusive. If you cannot see the unfair discrimination inherent in this current practice of our church, I pray that your children will, when they grow up, and maybe their generation will be the one to correct the situation. I pray that it will not take that long for us to wake up. Your brother in Christ!
Obviously the majority of the delegates at the two GC sessions that voted that it was okay to ordain women as elders did not accept the Biblical arguments against the ordination of women. Given the current position on ordination of women as elders and the practice of commissioning women pastors, the question we should be asking is, “Is the practice of denying women pastors ordination moral, legal, just or ethical?
David Richmond on September 1, 2015 at 7:58 am said “Given the current position on ordination of women as elders and the practice of commissioning women pastors, the question we should be asking is, “Is the practice of denying women pastors ordination moral, legal, just or ethical?
You pose a very good questions for us as members of the SDA church> I firmly believe that the answer is very simple and is based on the need for us as individual SDA members and entity we belong to locally to take “effective moral action”.
“moral, > YES!
legal, > YES!
just > YES!
or ethical?” > YES!
The process that leads to effective moral action can be roughly divided into three components:
1 – Moral awareness: the process of identifying the ethical issues involved, the parties who have a stake in the action, what is at stake, and what the action options are.
2 – Moral judgment: the process of weighing the ethical considerations that bear on the situation and determining the moral course of action.
3 – Acting in accordance with moral judgment: deciding the right thing to do is not enough. One still needs to form the intention to do the moral thing and deal with practical obstacles in order to act effectively.
“Just do it!” Nike
moral > NO!
legal > NO!
Just > NO!
ethical > NO!
Sorry, GOD created the terms, definitions, implementation, execution and holds the final say. It’s a GOD thing; not a Sam thing.
If it is a God thing (which I agree with) why are MEN voting on the issue?
If the BIBLE provides the guidelines and reasons; why was there even a vote?
If you are judging by man’s standard you might be correct to a limited degree. However this decision must be based solely on scripture. In the NT church Mary the mother of Jesus was not chosen to replace Judas as the 12 apostle because Jesus knew that placing her in a position equal with the other apostles would lead to her being considered the Queen of Heaven, equal with Jesus, above Jesus, greater than Jesus.
Try reading Acts 1 where the replacement of Judas took place. The eleven apostles were in the upper room with about 120 others that made up the NT church, men and women that included mother Mary. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, all praying together, all of one accord…..and no mention is made by the Holy Spirit, Jesus, or the apostles that any woman should be considered in the replacement of Judas. No command, letter, or decesion was made that reveals women would be ordained as pastors in the NT church that was just established by God.
Don’t you think Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the apostles had a moral awareness of the role women should have in this new body? Did they lack the ability to made a proper moral judgment?
We are faced with the fact that your opinion theology teaches satan was fully in charge of the NT church from day one and it has been left to a few brave men and women to rise up against satan and correct this injustice that has been going on since Pentecost.
Does the LORD GOD discriminate, or is HE unethical?? NO way.
That would be unloving, and our GOD is LOVE. Is it discriminatory or unethical for women to be accepted as inferior, unequal, of lesser quality than the male species??
YES, YES, definitely YES. For 100 years the HOLY SPIRIT has been bringing to the attention of the SDA Church, the sin
of discrimination of “WOMEN”. It now includes three continents globally, that Christians following the input of the HOLY SPIRIT have been bringing to the “OLD BOYS CLUB”, but they turn a blind eye,and continue to follow tradition”
The HOLY SPIRIT won’t wait forever for the SDA HIERARCHY to
listen to the GODLY message of correcting this ages long
tradition of discrimination and unethical practices.
The discriminators of women will come up with whatever is needed to support their psychological need to exert power and retain the control of the Church. Yes, whatever is needed. They totally ignore the immorality that discrimination is. Their thirst for power & control supersedes any other issue.
OK George, lets run this through Theoretical Physiology in Societal impact and use endorphin balancing; so everyone can understand.
The world is alluring and the draw of causes is great; we now have assembled celebrating the execution of a police officer, who provided and protected with great GIFTS, as example (sound familiar). This is not neutral as peer pressure, this is now pushing the idea; by a few individuals, many outside the class of peers. Now this is rebellion against authority; the vote was no.
All of these create large amounts of endorphin’s; you and those like you are addicts.
Lets look at the alternates:
Many are commanded to protect their families and actually fear your intrusion and self assumed insertion. The vast majority of us knows what a Pastor, in doing his job as beacon, is exposed to from the world and associated risks. We know and understand the protections provided in 1 Timothy 2 that lead to the requirements of Offices in 1 Timothy 3. We, our wives and daughters want no part of what you are selling or removal of such protections. We do not want you creating stumbling blocks or teaching our children in such.
All of these create “fear”; not a high.
Who is going to Ordain? Are you going to force Pastors (1 Timothy 5:22) or allow those that have never done their jobs and lack the knowledge of the risks (whom I would just as soon not pay)?
How is this for a review of the major issues within Societal balance?
“……. what is the “plain and obvious meaning of scripture” on the issue of ordination of women when it is not specifically condemned in scripture?”
Elder Liverpool, I feel a “plain and obvious meaning of scripture” is provided in the following principle Jesus gave all of us about how to conduct ourself while living in the sinful world around us.
Lev. 18.:1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God.
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
The “plain and obvious meaning of scripture” is if other religions around you have women priests, don’t be like them. 24,000 men learned this lesson not long after this at Baalpaer where women ordained to Baal convinced these men to worship their way and they ended up dead with their heads hung out facing the Sun (their god). Just because others around are doing something doesn’t mean God wants us doing the same thing.
This principle of Lev. 18:3 is confirmed in the NT;
Romans 12:2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world,
John 15;9 As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
John 17:16,17 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Come out of her my people…….
“Do not conform to the world” is such a general statement that it is possible to be used to thousands of practices that cannot be condemened:
Driving cars, living in houses rather than tents (which men did for thousands of years, Israelites included. We would not have radio and TV ministry to mention all today’s conveniences.
Picking a few Bible texts to confirm one’s premise is ludicrous until such an individual is living in a tent and walking to whereever he goes.
It’s do not conform to the PATTERN of this world in regards to your moral values and how you worship. Some chose to dance around a golden calf that represented the Sun, while others did not.
The principle given in Lev. 18:3 dictates how you pattern your life and has nothing to do with whether or not you live in a tent. You dismiss scripture like its distasteful trash. You point might be valid if I had only posted the one verse, but the truth is I posted several verses and explained them.
You people who shout out scripture constantly are doing the
Christ Jesus no favors. You would scare off any poor soul seeking the Lord. It has nothing to do with salvation. Your knowledge has you hogtied and foaming at the mouth. No way you are being influenced by the Holy Spirit, by your continually rebuking your peers here on these blogs. Please look in your mirror and see the damage you are doing. You come across to those of us here as spiteful, angry, and saying you love us but your personality is fierce and a turnoff. We’ve had enough of your harangues.
My Dear Brother Earl and Sister Elaine, I am reposting the last paragraph of the article.
“After the debate, it became agonizingly clear that once entrenched, some people will never be persuaded by facts, let alone reason or logical argument. Nonetheless, I trust that others would see that sexism by any other name is still sexism and allow no one to take away what God has given to all; conscience.”
In 1966, U. S. Senator Robert Kennedy made an influential visit to South Africa. There he offered words of hope to opponents of apartheid in his famous “Ripple of Hope” speech at the University of Cape Town. In his speech, he declared, “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”
“There is,” said an Italian philosopher, “nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”
Do be disheartened, your voice is being heard loud and clear. It may take a while, but a new order of things will come. Truth and justice will always triumph.
Oops, “Do NOT be disheartened”
At the rate the church moves, we may all be in our graves before justice and equality is realized. So what difference will it make when all the thinking people, young and old who believe in the equality of all humans is finally recognized by the church? Who will be left to turn out the lights and lock the doors?
Haven’t women’s ordination been discussed since the late 19th century? How long, O Lord!
Your complaint seems to be that Jesus is not, nor has ever been in charge of this church because women haven’t been allowed to become ordained pastors. While all you “thinking people” are working to wrestle control of the church from satan so you can fix what you FEEL is wrong…….the rest of us will just have to struggle along on faith and our Bibles.