Six Reasons Why I No Longer Trust the General Conference
by Harald Giesebrecht, July 10, 2015: Over the last five years I have observed and been part of the process leading up to this summer’s vote on women’s ordination. This process has unfortunately undermined some of my trust in the General Conference. Here is why.
- Our General Conference leadership is guilty of acting divisively.
The question of women’s ordination is in and by itself not a divisive issue for our world church. I don’t spend much energy worrying about who does what in Argentina. And my guess is that they don’t lose any sleep over who does what in Norway. And we all celebrate who does what in China. Different views on ordination of female elders and the commissioning of female pastors has not divided us. Neither will women’s ordination. Practical solutions and acceptable adaptions to working policy will be found. But some of our General Conference leaders have instead made it their mission to make this a potentially church-splitting issue by acting very much as if it is. This has not only cost millions of dollars and caused great harm to parts of our church-family. It has also seriously undermined the influence of the General Conference in parts of the world. What reasons can possibly justify such a great cost to our system of governance?
- Our General Conference leadership has refused to lead the church to a solution to the problem they have created.
The Annual Council was pressured by General Conference executives to submit the motion to the delegates with no recommendation, even though the same GC executives knew perfectly well that a yes vote would solve the problem, whereas a no-vote would solve nothing at all. One can only speculate about what ideological considerations can cause our world leaders to think it is worth it to cause so much damage. Two sentences from Ted Wilson could have changed the vote in favor of a livable solution. Instead the ironic cost of using “democracy” to coerce the West is a loss of influence over the unions in Europe and North-America.
- Our theologians have not been allowed to provide theological leadership in this process.
The TOSC was not composed to reflect what our theologians actually think or teach. Instead it was deliberately put together with 50% for and against women’s ordination, with many participants having minimal relevant theological training. The deceptive impression was given that our theologians are split right down the middle, and that Headship Theology is a viable option along with the other positions. Had instead every Adventist university sent their top New Testament scholars to TOSC, the outcome would have been very different. What is the point of having theologians if they are not allowed to provide theological leadership? Why all this theological training when the views of the untrained are made to count just as much?
- The General Conference is showing signs of becoming a threat to our Adventist heritage.
This may sound a bit far out at first, but hear me out. If our theologians are not allowed to provide theological leadership and our General Conference leaders are allowed to put whatever they want to a vote by the delegates, the prospects are frightening indeed.
Did the arguments actually made against women’s ordination in this process demonstrate an awareness of our Adventist theological heritage beyond finding suitable Ellen White quotes? Did, for example, the proponents of Headship Theology show any awareness that their theology presupposes a Calvinistic view of God that is totally alien to the very core of Adventist theology? To be able to tout Calvinistic headship theology and Roman Catholic views of ordination as “true Adventism” one must either be ignorant or dishonest. With an ever increasing percentage of our global membership being first-generation Adventists, we should however not be surprised if future decisions are not rooted in “the way God has led us in the past.” One can only speculate what would have happened if delegates in San Antonio had been asked whether the church should adopt headship theology: Yes or No?
Adventism was from its outset immersed in what George Knight calls “the spirit of Anabaptism.” There were other strands that influenced us deeply, but Anabaptism and Restorationism freed us to develop a theology apart from mainline Protestant and Catholic tradition. This has, for example, launched us into the project of creating a Christian theology free from a Platonist (dualist) worldview. And it has decidedly freed us from the tyranny of Calvin’s God. Instead our cosmic conflict perspective emphasizes the love of the Creator and the goodness, freedom and responsibility of creation. When I see all this threatened by a haphazard influx of foreign and incompatible strands of theology that our theologians are not even allowed to correct, I am frightened indeed. As a fourth-generation Adventist, I had never dreamt that I should ever perceive the General Conference as a possible threat to the core of Adventism. But the process on women’s ordination has left me worried.
- Our General Conference leadership is asking us to yield our conscience to ecclesiastical authority.
I grew up with the Great Controversy (my mother would read it to me), and it has in many ways shaped my conception of what Adventism is all about. One of my favorite parts was the story of Luther, standing up for the Bible against an overwhelming opposition. In this he was a hero, along with a host of others who had been faithful to their calling and their conscience and refused to bow to ecclesiastical authority. They taught us how we should act should we face similar pressure. But the message from San Antonio is that I should do the opposite. I should yield my convictions and my conscience.
When I speculate on why Ted Wilson refused to recommend the yes-vote, I can think of no other acceptable reason than strongly held biblical convictions. He has been willing to pay a high price for his convictions. With regard to Europe and North America, he has gambled with the influence of the General Conference. He is, in a way, acting like a true Adventist who will “stand for truth though the heavens fall.” And yet he is asking Adventists all over Europe and North America to give up their convictions and act against their conscience. He is asking us to continue to denigrate women in the name of Jesus, even if we believe Jesus calls us to actively reverse this curse. Had he wanted to, he could have created space for all of us to follow our conscience. Women’s ordination is, after all, not a fundamental belief. Instead, he is asking us to yield to him?
I am sorry. I have to choose my conscience. I am a good Adventist too. But growing up, I never imagined I would hear the General Conference president ask me to betray such a sacred Adventist virtue for the sake of uniformity.
- Our structures give far too much power to one man.
Over the last five years I have watched my church become more sectarian, more totalitarian, more polarized and more divided… This has happened in spite of many of the vice presidents whom we know as people who would mourn this development. Our president’s polarizing language has translated into polarizing actions and divisive votes. For some reason there seems to be nothing and no one in our system of governance that is able to balance his zeal. His personal opinions now dominate everything that proceeds from the GC. How can they ask us to believe that the General Conference is the steward of divine authority, when its decisions so clearly are seen to be the extension of one man’s personality? Didn’t Ellen White worry about a similar scenario a little over a century ago?
But of course … she was never ordained.
Pastor Harald Giesebrecht is a father, church-planter, writer and Adventist minister currently serving as a pastor in Oslo, Norway. He is also the academic dean for the Norwegian Bible Correspondence School. He was part of the Trans-European Division Biblical Research Committee set up to study Women’s Ordination.
“Over the last five years I have watched my church become more sectarian, more totalitarian, more polarized and more divided”
Many think those who support WO are pandering to culture. But with all respect, I wonder if the opposite is in fact true. It is an obvious fact that the majority in the West, with the same cultural and historical heritage as the Adventist pioneers, support WO. By contrast, those who oppose WO mostly come from mission fields in the Developing World. The Western missionaries have been very successful, which is why the Developing World now is in the majority. It is the same in most Christian denominations today.
I have heard it said, and I wonder this too, is the “no” vote simply reflects the “big chief” cultural inclinations of the Developing World. That seems to be why headship theology, alien to Adventist heritage, is now widely supported. And in that space President Wilson, as chief-in-general, in opposing WO, had enormous impact.
In other words, our Adventist pioneers never wanted a king. They came from a cultural and historical context that toppled kings. Even in the fledging Church, our guiding prophet wanted no kingly power. Yet it should not suprise us that with the Developing World in its ascendancy, Adventist ecclesiology now has – or is in the process of creating – kings and princes of the Church.
WO is arguably just a sympton of something much more concerning.
We talk about “those who support” and “those who don’t” but the majority of delegates are still men.
having read this article, I see prejudice and rebellion against the authority of the church. Mister Harald, did you want the delegates to be only American and Europeans ? what percentage of the church are represented by NAD & Europe? A minority thinks that women should be ordained, and you seems to want to force your ideology on the majority. Individuals can think for themselves. This is God’s church not America’s.I find your comments very disrespectful to DEVELOPING COUNTRIES and you have implied colonialist sentiments in your arguments.
I agree Liam i see much more of this rebellious attitude that smacks very much of what Lucifer did in heaven. The whole article says poor little me they didn’t agree with me. As a result i will no longer be having anything to do with this web page.
I can’t believe this kind of response–it is personal and insulting and judgmental.
It was after all the “NO” that won and forces it’s culture on others. And apparently they have no respect for the church’s theologians and major seminary. Isn’t that rebellious?
Why don’t you become catholic,you will have your earthly leader then
That would be especially true if the GC was heaven and Ted Wilson was god; which sometimes is how people behave.
This is distorted thinking. You all are angry and you are not expressing it appropriately much less like Christians. We need to pray to have the mind of Christ.
Although I disagree with the GC vote and have made it clear that I believe this to be a matter of cultural tradition rather than theology or doctrine, I must say that Liam makes a good point in that the majority of the church—from a cultural perspective—isn’t American, nor is it European (or Australian for that matter); nor any combination thereof.
The vote is representative and reflective of the demographic and cultural realities of the composition of the SDA church in 2015.
The vote wasnt yes/no on WO. It was a vote on allowing each division to make its own decision following the culture in each individual division. Thus the manority was not saying ‘no WO’ they were saying, we won’t allow your division (NAD Europe SPD) to make the appropriate decision in your regeon.
No, the vote wouldn’t allow Divisions to go of on a tangent. I wonder how much belly aching would have been done by the pro WO if the vote had gone their way. First WO, then what? Will you want to follow some European countries and allow practicing sinners [of ANY] sin to become baptized members? Where will it end. The GC was given final voice in EGW’s day, and she said herself it was to be the final authority. However, a very vocal minority seem to think they can attack and vilify it. I am done with this web page as well.
It seems to me that you have misunderstood Pastor Harald’s position. He does not advocate that North America and Europe dictate to Africa or any other part of the world how they should conduct their ordinations. The developing church has every right to decide this question for itself. There is no “thus saith the Lord” on this issue. North America and Europe among others are simiply asking that they be allowed to decide what will further God’s work in their areas. They strongly advocate that the church in Africa and eslewhere has every right to decide this issue for itself. I do not believe that the church outside of North America and Europe wants to use “imperial colonial” methods to force their will in other parts of the world. They know first hand what that is like.
So Andy, don’t you think we should work together as ONE world Church? Further more, we’ve seen the result of other churches that has ventured this path.
Liam, didn’t you read what we voted on at San Antonio? We voted on whether to allow divisions the freedom to decide on the ordination of women in their individual districts, according to conscience and culture. The yes vote is not the vote that would do the forcing. It was the no vote that violated freedom in Christ, forcing the world church to conform on a non-fundamental issue.
Ellen White has words for such action as we took at San Antonio:
“The connection of the branches with one another and with the Vine constitutes them a unity, but this does not mean uniformity in everything. Unity in diversity is a principle that pervades the whole creation. While there is an individuality and variety in nature, there is a oneness in their diversity; for all things receive their usefulness and beauty from the same Source.” – Ellen White, SDA Bible Commentary
“Those who do labor together should seek to be in perfect harmony. No one should feel that he cannot labor with those who do not see just as he sees, and who do not in their labors follow just his plans. If all manifest a humble, teachable spirit, there need be no difficulty. God has set in the church different gifts. These are precious in their proper places, and all may act a part in the work of preparing a people for Christ’s soon coming.”
– Ellen White, Gospel Workers 92
This is God’s church not America’s.I find your comments very disrespectful to DEVELOPING COUNTRIES and you have implied colonialist sentiments in your arguments.
If it is God’s Church, how come only Americans are elected president. It is in my opinion a replicate of the Vatican. Going this way, we do not have any hope of progress. And I don’t tell about the management of our tithes, they travel over the world like prime ministers to do what??? Learn to deleguate people to do the job. CG cannot control the world. Why do they have divisions?? Oh these people does the same travelling over the union and so and so. that’s where our money goes. Tell me how many missionaries they have sent abroad in the last two years.
I concur with much of Harald’s observations.
I simply want to add a couple of thoughts —-
First, the mention of kingly power in a derogatory sense prompts me to suggest that when EGW was speaking against it I have the strong impression that it was a case of queenly power (EGW) pitted against kingly power (the GC & RH at the time). That is, it was a good example of the pot calling the kettle black. Many still use queenly power when they foist EGW quotes on others rather than using scripture. So, what is worse —- kingly power or queenly power? I suggest both are as bad as each other.
Second, when highlighting the courage of Luther and other Protestants mentioned in GC it is worth mentioning the thousands of Roman Catholics who have also been true to their conscience. For example, those RC’s who were hung at Tyburn Gallows in the 16th and 17th centuries are important instances omitted from the very biased history in GC.
Let me use some “queenly power” on you 😉
“On entering a new place of labor, we should be careful not to create prejudice in the minds of the Catholics. The Lord has shown me that there are many among them who will be saved. God will just as surely test this people as he is testing us; and according to their willingness to accept the light he gives them, will be their standing before him.” RH, June 13, 1912.
Sorry, I missed one line: “or do anything to lead them [Catholics] to think us their enemies.” They are not our enemies, but brothers and sisters in Christ.
I want to express that I agree 100% with what my good neighbour and fellow pastor in Norway writes here. The GC has lost whatever was left of trust and credibility and is now totally irrelevant to our church and work in this part of the world.
YES
Generally agree! The tone’s a little rough.
Agree
With regard to point #6, leadership is able to function only when people are willing to follow, so if one person (or a like-minded core group of leaders) are able to exercise such power as is described it is because they have willing followers. People follow for basically one of two reasons: they believe in what the leadership is saying and doing, or in a religious application, they don’t know the basis of their faith enough to detect and resist when they are being led improperly or even being led astray. Because we are a religious organization we reflexively attribute positives to the leadership, discount the negatives and discourage or even condemn questioning of the leadership.
Lack of trust in leadership comes from typically from one or more of two primary sources: the leadership strays from basic principles (such as Liberals in America straying from the Constitution) or the membership not having a strong understanding of and commitment to principles. So, while it is easy to heap blame on the leadership, we need to also recognize that in the areas where the church is growing slowly or shrinking that they membership has lost touch with its spiritual foundations and we need to be returning to the study of scripture and connecting with the Holy Spirit as we are instructed to be doing.
Most Adventists believe Doug Batchelor has more credibility than any theologian and 3ABN is the official voice of the church. Why is anyone that Ted Wilson is in power?
Why is anyone *surprised* that Ted Wilson is in power?
Who controls the media, controls the world. I believed most of my life that the conservatives could not err. I was wrong.
I still respect many of them, but they can err!
Dear Sam Millen, when people state that “Most Adventists believe this…” or “Most Adventists believe that…” we venture onto shaky ground. Conscience is not determined by statistics. To make such claims not only increases a state of polarity it also weakens the veracity of the claimant.
William,
I might add a third reason. There are many people’s livelihoods and career advancements tied to maintaining allegiance with those in power. This includes those who work for the denomination’s official communication channels.
Every issue of Adventist World I receive has well-groomed articles with a common topical thread that loosely ties articles together. Each issue always include a multi page article from President Wilson.
Impressively, he was able to lead the entire organization to support initiatives that were personally important to him: Worldwide distribution of The Great Controversy; Outreach to NYC; and making theological changes to the denomination’s FBs.
He is a strong leader. However, that one person has the ability to garner the resources of the organization towards his own goals means that there are not enough checks and balances in place to temper his positional power. Luckily, he means well even if his enthusiasm is misdirected and his theology a little off.
Respectfully,
Patrick
Patrick,
That is an excellent observation. I was trying to stay focused on the nature of leadership while you are raising points about bureaucracy that really are inseparable. Typically, the longer a bureaucracy exists, the less responsive it becomes to it’s constituency and the larger it becomes without suffering a serious economic threat, the greater the loyalty of the employees. Add that the number one priority of a bureaucracy is self-preservation and that the older generation providing the greatest portion of income to the church in North America is slipping into the grave, I wonder how long it will be until a financial crisis causes major changes in how the church operates.
Yes. If people were not so concerned about keeping their jobs, the system would work.
I definitely think culture is the main reason for the division along with a lack of good leadership at home and abroad. We know we have differing worldviews concerning groups and gender. There is the influence of Roman Catholicism in many countries concerning women in ministry; there is a preponderance of Muslims in other places; there is the problem of tribalism in others (look at Rwanda). We are afraid to say it, but the society that one rubs shoulders with every day is definitely going to have an influence on any church or organization within its boundaries.
Yes, it is in the western world as well (which at present seems to be thrown under the bus by this vote). The west is less denominational, religious, and more individualistic free thinkers. There are pros and cons in both, but we need freedom to decide out outreach and spiritual destiny.
Harald, spoken like a true Norwegian! Your ideas in your article and your candor are to be commended. It all makes me want to travel to Norway and experience the culture and people of a great nation. These are my six points about Norway!
1. The national anthem affirms a love for the land and the importance of the home as symbols of nationhood.
2. Festive days in this home-centered society often feature a public celebration followed by gatherings of families and relatives in people’s homes.
3. Entertaining is done at home, not at restaurants or bars. 4. Homes are comfortable refuges and are decorated to express the identity of the family.
5. Because there is less geographic mobility than is the case in some other countries, family members and relatives tend to live in the same region over a number of generations and identify with the local area.
6. This attachment to place is also apparent in people’s relationship to nature. Half the nation’s families have access to nearby ski huts, cabins, or boats, and virtually everyone engages in outdoor pursuits such as skiing, hiking, and boating. In a variety of ways, Norwegians aim to preserve rather than transform the local natural landscape. At the same time, they attempt to preserve the cultural traditions of the locality through numerous folk museums and other specialized heritage organizations.
Perhaps the GC ought to consider moving to Norway, so as to begin to understand how real people live and think.
Sam Geli. You would have been right if you seaid this 30 years ago. The values you are describing are fading in our (The Norwegian) society like any other socitey on Earth.
Moving the CG to Norway would achive nothing. It would only reproduce the problems allready inherent in the present US location.
In my view (As a Norwegian Anarchist) the debate should revolve about how to construct a democratic church rather than shuffling people about in a power structure that suffers from a lack of democracy.
Pastor Giesebrecht,
What a brilliant essay! I agree fully.
I also admire several Division Presidents and General Vice Presidents at the GC, however they are indeed powerless to do anything.
The reason is the “ideological wave” that Ted Wilson is riding cannot be stopped.
A majority of Adventists agree with him and believe in him. He is a terrible politician, but that doesn’t matter. His ideology is shared by the majority.
We have to recognize that there are multiple versions of Adventism and you and I are in the minority.
I wish Ted Wilson would fulfill his role as GC President and bring all sides together for the sake of mission, but he has chosen to take one side and there is nothing we can do about it. He has the backing he needs.
“He [TW] has the backing he needs.”
Exactly. And I wish he would also moved the GC’s headquarters to one of those territories that are backing him up. Then they could send money to support our ministries, and missionaries to work here in the US, in Europe, and Australia as well…
After all, wouldn’t that be great?
You mean, move the GC close to the Michigan Conference office? 😉
Exactly! The only downside is that he will never be able to listen to the La Sierra University Choir in Michigan. Remember the fiasco when the Michigan Conference Prez (forgot his name now) prohibited them for perform religious music in his territory?
Well, maybe it’s better to take the GC to some place in Africa after all…
In Africa we already have enough problems to worry about. We do not want that chaos you have over there, keep the GC HQ please.
I have two disagreements with his analysis: 1. TW is a shrewd well groomed politician and has courted the growing Third World base very well. He was carried into another 5 years due to the political ability. 2. The majority of SDA’s are Third World based so in that it is correct, but it isn’t true in the developed world. His leadership has been problematic to them since 2010, one of the reasons four unions decided to go forward with WO. They saw the handwriting on the wall concerning that issue.
But he still can’t force the Unions (although he can intimidate them). We must support our Unions in every way possible!
Nothing needs to be added to this excellent analysis of a major problem that needs to be addressed by all Adventists of good will. The question is: What do we do now?
For many of us this lack of trust began with the deceptive report on Glacier View. But this is much worse: Expecting members to cede their conscience to one individual. This was what the Pope expected of Luther, Copernicus and Galileo. What will be the result of this audacious desire for power?
Amen!
Ervin,
You are right!
What can we do?
1. Pay closer attention to what our pastors do and say. We need more accountability.
2. Expand outreach of Adventist Today
3. Insist on peer review in our pastors work
4. Shift focus to local church
5. Educate, educate, educate
6. Express your views
7. Pray more
And, chill! God is in charge!
Why not suggest that the GC move out of the “negative” environment of NAD and relocate to Sudan, Chad, Paris, anywhere outside of USA!
To your list I add: 8) communicate frequently with your local conference leaders to let them know you are concerned about the impacts of their decisions. 9) Show-up at your next conference constituency meeting to call for changes where you think they are needed. DO NOT rubber-stamp the report from the Nominating Committee if they are not demonstrating real leadership.
Agree.
Write a letter to each of your Union leaders recommending they move forward on WO. Include the names of all the wonderful and long suffering female pastors in your Union and state that you feel they deserve to be ordained. And have all your likeminded friends do the same. I hope many Unions start WO. Then we’ll see how much power a dictator has.
RH I am greatly saddened to hear you make comments so but every man has to an account before God, may I remind you not even in UK parliament WOULD ACCEPT YOU COMMENTS PLEASE RETRACT. Express you feelings but in a corrosive way
Finally Dathan,Abi-ram & Korah rebelled against Moses, what I am saying no matter who is leadership the devil always tempts us to pull them down, they are human and make mistakes, this is Gods church not mine or yours he will not let it fall, brethren as my Father used to say to us straighten up and fly right so e must do the same … stop chasing the Devils Rabbits and go and proclaim the word where you are.
Leave the decisions to the leaders they too ill give an account to the chief steward.
PS comments earlier on Norway is nice too but every where is problematic I recall Bretvik who shot all the children so lets stop playing games this world is sinful I want heaven
Clem UK
OOOPS Error in my last blog SHOULD READ do not express your feelings in a corrosive way
its not what you say but its how you say it. the motives are not pleasant asking for open rebellion sounds like hmmmm better not say it started in heaven and the ideas was booted out along with the author you and I have BEEN WARNED REV 12
Just a brief comment from a Norwegian 🙂 The man’s name is Breivik and he took away our (Norway’s) innocence with his act. However I’m quite proud of how the nation reacted. Young and old embraced peace, love and caring for each other.
I’m proved to be Norwegian, to have Harald as my pastor and I would hope that we could be a congregation with enough head room to allow for differences where applicable (practically and admistrative issues – different practice with WO) and a common belief when it comes to theological questions. After all the latter is the important part (the picture and the frame, let’s not make the frame the most noticeable).
Sam,to your last point: God is not in charge, but human beeings, historically conditioned and situated in space and time.
Unfortunately, you are right!
I love reading your comments, but you lost me when you stated that God is not in charge…please elaborate…
The way I read it was that he’s saying people are not following God’s lead anymore. Of course God is ultimately in control of all things, however, He did give us free will… and well there are those who have chosen not to submit their wills to Him.
He can correct me if I’ve read that wrong. 🙂
“Paris?” ???? I hope you are not thinking of Perris, CA. 🙂 This would be too close to Loma Linda and La Sierra. Thanks, but no thanks!!!!
And I don’t think that the French deserve it either…
“1. Our General Conference leadership is guilty of acting divisively.”
—-
Point one is not quite correct in that it has been the insubordination of some Union Conferences and its leadership that has instigated, propagated and incited divisiveness – not the GC.
Problems with words here, Trevor.
Insubordination is not divisive, it is withdrawal. Pitting church member against church member by taking votes of any and every kind is divisive.
There is a profound reason that Acts 15 records no vote of any kind. It is the perfect pattern of uniting leadership in accommodating circumcision as an option, rather than a requirement.
Could you possibly have expected Paul, when reading his treatise opposing required circumcision in Acts 15, to be putting the knife to Timothy such a few weeks later, with a copy of James promulgation making circumcision optional for the church in his portfolio? This is how leadership accommodates the Holy Spirit.
So, how do you answer Erv’s question, Where do we go from here? Divide? Unify?
If you were General Conference president, what would be your action in the coming weeks?
Experience has demonstrated itself repeatedly…If you continue to be insubordinate, they will ask you to withdraw for the sake of unity.
No, Trevor, the reality is that two Unions have had the courage to let their constituencies decide if this issue is appropriate for them, knowing that it would never pass the world field under current leadership. Even within those two Unions (Pacific, and Columbia) each conference is free to decide for themselves, as is each church and each member. Nothing is forced and nothing would have been forced with a “Yes” vote. The “No” vote is what is creating force…and resistance, which I am proud to be part of!
Union Conferences, as has been noted in multiple write-ups, have never been historically bound to GC directives on the “how-to” of mission in their own territories. I feel the vote, in its entirety, was an overstep of their jurisdiction. If you review the formation of Unions in 1903, the very system we are still using, this is clear enough to see. We are not supposed to be top-down, where Unions would be seen as “undermining” the GC. If the GC tries to tell unions what to do, they are the ones that are being undermining.
“…some Union Conferences and its leadership that has instigated, propagated and incited divisiveness…”
When the constituents vote on something it can’t be qualified by the words you used. At least the Unions have constituents. What does the GC (and the Divisions) have???
Quite the contrary. Spiritual revival and growth in the church comes not from the top downward, but when those at the bottom are seeking God and working in His power. Good things do not happen when leaders call for it, but when the people are following the guidance of the Holy Spirit and leaders are forced to follow or become irrelevant.
What a great article! One of the best expressing what is going on in our Church.
Yes, with this leadership it seems that the Church is getting everything needed to be classified as “decadent.”
For those who are still sad and discouraged, with the PGCS (Post GC Syndrome) I would say only one thing: Try to refocus! We have been focusing way too much on the GC, which is actually an irrelevant and completely worthless Department. What else other than politics do they do there? Can anyone tell me one, just one benefit that any local church gets from the existence of the GC? If the GC disappeared today, what would change at a local level? Anything?
Therefore, let’s focus on our local Churches and support our pastors. Who cares about the politics at the GC level? It is NOT going to ever change anyway. We belong to local Churches, not to that irrelevant political department.
At the end, if the GC keeps messing things up, they will bring “GC” (“grave consequences”) upon the Denomination. But we can be safe if we focus on our local churches!
Iff each Pastor was able to speak as freely as the author of this article it would be a new day for all. We need more men to be like Esther!
“2. Our General Conference leadership has refused to lead the church to a solution to the problem they have created.”
—–
Wrong again, it is the NAD that has fallen for the seductive influences of secular humanist gender bender ideals, such as that of feminists, that has created this mess.
It can be denied that “this mess” was created by men who are discriminators of women. This is not an issue about women pastors, or a spiritual matter. It’s all about women discrimination and male power & control in the church.
All other issues are mere distractions. Discrimination is the core problem.
“It can be denied ”
Correction:
Please read, “It can’t be denied”
The problem is not who in the church may been influenced by local culture, the problem is that the GC has fallen for the trap of Kingly Power.
Trevor-
You have expressed the matter succinctly and correctly.
Too bad so many commenting support insubordination.
“3. Our theologians have not been allowed to provide theological leadership in this process.”
——-
If sheer numbers of theologians from academic institutions were to be the deciding authority on how we read the Bible then we’d all be keeping Sunday and be celebrating Darwin’s day with homosexual church members who just got married. TOSC has shown that theologians alone cannot be trusted. Good doctor bad doctor comes to mind.
So you don’t trust theologians. You don’t trust a majority where you are the minority. You don’t trust the bible. It appears you are left with trusting yourself, that some how you can make your own way to heaven. So why the interest in the Seventh-day Adventist church at all?
Where did you get the misconception that we don’t trust the Bible? AND each person makes their own way, with the help of God, not the Adventist church. The church is not a club that entitles one to heaven.
Lonnie, that response was directed at Trevor Hammond’s rhetoric. I too question why, with his dismissive views, he’s even taking part in this discussion?
Your charges against our best theologians are strong, but I see no substantiation for them. I know many of them closely, and these charges simply aren’t true. They come close to slander. If you have a question about the identity of a plant in your backyard, do you consult a garbage collector or a trained botanist? If you have appendicitis, do you go to the nearest herbalist or consult the best surgeon you can find? If you have a toothache, do you wrap a string around the tooth and ask your teenager to yank it out, or do you consult a well-trained dentist? Why is it that in every other field, we want an expert and recognize that solid training will give him/her an edge over our friendly neighbor in giving us a solution, yet when it comes to serious biblical issues, we denigrate our own scholars who are highly trained in long-held proper techniques for interpreting the Bible, who know its original languages and its history, who are loyal long-time members of this church, who in most cases have opted for sacrificial salaries and heavy criticisms from their brothers and sisters (and leaders) in order to work for the church and further its cause?
Well articulated, Madeline. But oh so frustrating that only a small fraction of the choir is engaged in this rehearsal…
Thank you Madeline for your input and thank you Harald Giesebrecht for this article. The Biblical truth and clarity of your message is refreshing. When people like you speak up it gives hope to the rest of us.
Because they don’t agree with each other. For this reason, you cannot leave Theological issues that determine the identity of the church in their hands alone. They need the wisdom of discerning and gifted leaders. God’s work, like salvation is not accomplished by good works, hard work, and higher education alone, but the grace of God and the moving of thd Holy Spirit.
Highly trained techniques in proper biblical interpretation? Proper techniques like, historical critical method? Higher critism and lower criticism? You seem to suggest that to understand the Bible demand a high level of college education. In every age the problems have always been with a highly educated clergy. Luther’s time, in the time of the Apostles, the Reformation, the Protestant Reformation, and during the time of the Millerites, it was the highly educated clergy that was in error with their highly developed techniques.
The first Adventists didn’t have much trust in the learned theologians. They followed after the singularly untrained William Miller.
They thought honest men and women could read the bible themselves and see the truth plainly.
He might have predated those first Adventists but he shared their spirit. William Tyndale told the Chancellor of Bristol who called him to account for his preaching: Tyndale said, “If God spare my life, ere long the plough boy will know more of scripture than you” I hardly think it is good technique to try and force the scripture to say it doesn’t say something it clearly does say. Man is the head of woman
But leave it to the trained theologians to try.
Theologians do not do what you are accusing them of doing. They don’t decide how we read the Bible. What are you talking about? Any real substance?
Who needs theologians? I know a number of theologians, both by professional training and the strength of their opinions on various scriptural topics. None of them is growing the church and some are destroying churches. So, why would I care about theologians when what we need is people who love God, who are willing to do His bidding and who are willing to be empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit.
Who needs theologians? Ummm how about the Apostle Paul who went for training for three years so that He could be taught to understand the scriptures? And I have to say yes on the divisive issue. If it were not divisive the speech at the conclusion of the vote would not have been so demeaning to those in the opposing camp. It would have been a speech of reconciliation. Something along the lines of “I know for five years we have discussed this issue, and there are a lot of deeply held positions on ech side by those who love Jesus. Over the coming weeks and months lets find ways we can talk with each other and try to better understand each other.” Rather than, Thats the vote be quiet on it, no more discussion.
William I AGREE 100%
Only good theologians PROVEN FAITHFUL ONES are required to take part in the debate as some SDA theologians even question the validity of the Sabbath day and was there even a flood, and some folks & theologians in the church feel same sex relationships jewellery wearing is okay.
Now all theologians are not wrong but caution must be addressed when saying he or she is a Theologian, they must be true to the core a true believer to spirit and truth not opinions. We must be sensibly and call the educated true theologians to look at this, not withstanding that I a simple man cannot understand scripture like a trained Theologian, if we rely on theologians and interpreting for the humble people, that is why God raised up faith people prophets ( who passed the test) who spoke with authority and the SOP lest not forget the inspired pen writer of SOP.
Remember not all Theologians in our church subscribe to E G White or some of the teachings- fundamentals to our church that God has shown us. So to this there is no denying that not theologians can be trusted as the same with pastors teachers and SDA Members.
Clem UK
It is an impossibility to find even two theologians who are 100% in agreement. Each increase changes that possibility exponential. Who will do the choosing and what kinds of tests and questionnaires will there be to determine 100% loyalty to the church?
“4. The General Conference is showing signs of becoming a threat to our Adventist heritage.”
——
A vast majority of the world Church would say that it is the NAD that is a threat to our heritage.
The assertion is about the General Conference leadership, and you are responding by suggesting that 9% of the world church, if measured by attendance perhaps 4% of the world church … the NAD … is a threat to Adventist heritage? Actually, the NAD is leading the revival of Adventist Heritage of you care to read the history of the early Seventh-day Adventists.
Really? Are you serious?
NAD is threatening Adventism and unity of the church. Division Presidents should *not* have been chosen en bloc at the recent GC Session. It would have been an opportunity to change NAD Presidency.
“5. Our General Conference leadership is asking us to yield our conscience to ecclesiastical authority.”
—–
Consciences have already been yielded to secular cultural political dictates and societal norms in defiance of biblical authority.
To whom to you yield your conscience? Man? or God?
Would you say that to them when they started baptizing women? Its funny the sign of the covenant was male only in the OT but in the NT God broadens the door making it truly equal with male and female both being able to participate. So Paul could say with verity, there is neither male nor female but all are the same in Christ. That’s an aweful broad assertion you make with little to no knowledge of those you make the assertion of. But of course we have become rich and in need of nothing.
Gen. 1:27 God created them male & female … Was Paul contradicting God’s word?
“6. Our structures give far too much power to one man.”
——–
I didn’t see one man voting the no in San Antonio; unless the “one man” here refers to Christ – then I would support this statement – but in the positive sense of Christ the “one man” being the epitome of male headship.
For you spiritual happiness I would simply suggest you stop reading Adventist Today and read only Adventist World. It will lower your blood pressure and save us time from responding to senseless gibberish. I stand with my conscience and the conscience of the 976 others.
So, take the blue pill and return to the matrix? 😉
Thank you, Marvin Wray.
So the people who voted no did not vote according to conscience? One thing the liberals in this Church has is confidence!
Love it
You conveniently overlooked the delegate who at the microphone argued, ‘We are God’s highest authority on earth. You cannot reduce the number of vice-presidents without our approval. I move we send the report back to committee.’ The report went back to committee, and returned with the same number of vice-presidents. Apparently the voted request did not alter the decision of Elder Wilson.
That is a minor illustration of too much power to one man. Very minor. Very illustrative.
You also overlook the reality that the president sits with the nominating committee and personally constitutes his associates, and in the above case, even a reduction in the number of his associates.
That is one man’s power. Repeated with every single nomination by the nominating committee after his own.
A different way may be to nominate one vice-president from each of the Divisions of the church, letting the Division representatives offer two names for each division. The Delegates would select the vice-presidents. And then vice-presidents would be sequestered and tasked with choosing among themselves who will be the General Conference president for the coming term. And if they preferred, they could draw lots for the position.
But this is way off base. Where do we go from here, Trevor? Erv’s question is still the one to respond to.
“Our General Conference leadership has refused to lead the church to a solution to the problem they have created.”
And this is the most serious of all the reasons given to have misgivings about their leadership.
They allowed WO a few decades ago, and now refuse to admit it was a terrible mistake. They hope to solve this moral dilemma by political agendas and refuse to admit the error in the beginning.
I assume none of us think leading a massive church community is a simple matter. It is a tremendous responsibility. None the less, if you accept the responsibility, then “man up” and do the job.
The church will split. Accept this as a matter of fact, and then carefully follow the biblical mandate that endorses male headship.
I think we assume Wilson opposes WO. But rather than man up and say something to this effect, “If you want me to lead, then this is what I believe, and where I will lead, and if not, get someone else.”
Rather, he plays politics and states he will support the vote no matter what it is. He is not qualified to lead, because he is willing to abandon his own moral convictions for the sake of unity.
We can see, is the problem is solvable in such a way to maintain unity in the church. Since that’s not possible, do what you think is right, and let the chips fall where they may.
You can not lead a global church based on particularistic, personal convictions! A leader is a representative of diversity and pluralism, and should not hijack the church based on personal convictions.
Is that right? So if the issue was Sabbath vs. Sunday, he should not man up and defend the Sabbath? He should just do whatever the majority votes?
Small wonder the church is in such mass confusion.
Sabbath vs. Sunday? Please tell me that modern Adventism is more mature than that. Sabbath rest is a great idea. So is Sunday rest for our Catholic and Protestant friends and Thursday rest for our Muslim friends. We need to realize that we live in the 21st Century not the 19th Century. Please, let’s put the emphasis on what really matters–things like justice, equity, and the real needs of real people.
Of course, Dr. Taylor, we wouldn’t expect any other response from you, and we know you represent a considerable membership in the SDA church. And growing I might add. You have just expressed the spirituality that has dominated the GC sessions.
And you mentioned how much you appreciate my straight forward presentations. Let me affirm that it is the same sentiment I feel toward your own.
If people don’t see the difference between the spirituality we present, they simply don’t want to. By the way, I know the spirituality you represent is winning by a land slide. The GC sessions have reflected it clearly.
Equity? An honest man! The doctrine of Equality is the uber-doctrine isn’t it, Ervin?
Equality is most important thing.
ABSOLUTELY… THAT’S THE TRUTH DR. Ervin Taylor
SUNDAY V SABBATH..One TRUE…One FALSE.
My point was that as a GC president you have to embrace the totality of the Church and not just identify with one interest group, even though they represent the majority. The attitude of “the winner takes is all” is representative, but not democratic. The great challenge for a global Church is to reflect an “overlapping consensus”, and that is a challenge for leadership. The “winner takes it all” opens the door to hijacking by one interest group.
Time to move forward. Both sides had the ability to present their view and the decision was voted on by over 2,000 church representatives.
Why would you put your trust in any man? The bible is littered with statements to this effect such as psalm 118:8.
The GC vote has happened and woman will continue to lead and support the church as they have done since the creation of man. If you are a paid representative of the church and are in a pastoral role – stop with the politics, respect your leaders and focus on bringing your fellow man to Christ.
AMEN
If I interpret correctly what TOSC voted, at least 2/3 believe in Headship Theology, even though the last 3rd still believed it’s ok to ordain women. Doesn’t that mean headship theology is here to stay?
This is not a salvation issues. With this article you are “beating a dead horse”. And with this article you continue to grow the seed of division yourself. but thats just my opinion.
I will say there is quite a bit of assumption and bias in this article here. One alternative viewpoint is that there was significant indications given by some that two or more world divisions would have split over this issue. So I don’t think it’s accurate or informed to say that simply voting yes, would have “solved” everything. Secondly, I really agree with the previous comment by “Vitaliy”; such articles are sure to create more discord and division rather than creating peace. Blessed are the peacemakers, right? The point is this was not, is not a vital issue ( which I think this article asserted ), and due to that I agree it really shouldn’t have been brought to such a forefront in the SDA church. But being as it may, let it die! What good can come of pressing forward with articles like this?? Should we all just start our own thing because we disagree with something the GC has done? What’s the point? –> reaching the lost, seeking Christ. Maybe we should invest more articles in that…
I’m not sure if I support your statements here. The words seem correct but, the meaning seems to confuse.
This is a divisive subject, but by articulating it in such a manner, Pastor H has said what many of us are still thinking. The subject won’t go away and perhaps more thought should be given to what, if anything, should be done about this.
Just calmly saying that it’s not a matter of Salvation is not wholly true. Neither is saying ‘reaching the lost’, ‘seeking Christ’. Some of those lost, seeking people are inside of the church walls! Just like the Egyptians who traveled with the Israelites out of Egypt, they weren’t all yet converted, but they were moved to learn more. What can they learn within a divided church?
Even if the GC as a political entity, is not the way, what is the church going to do about it? People are watching, waiting to see if the God the Adventists represent is truly as caring, inclusive and, as loving as Jesus says & shows Him to be.
It’s not just politics. It is also salvation to the onlooker, because we could be turning someone away from God through our handling of this issue.
Please don’t undermine this. Please work on a solution.
While I cannot find much with which to disagree in this blog, I do find #3 to be rather curious. I know of no evidence that trained theologians are necessarily well-equipped, much less necessarily more prone to be right, with reference to determining what spiritual principles are, and/or should be applied, to any particular Scriptural passages.
(Think of Jesus at the age of 12 in the temple as an example.)
I am thinking that Seventh-day Adventist conservatives have unwittingly done Seventh-day Adventism a grave disservice by putting male headship forward as a theological principle and doctrine when there is no Bible to support this doctrinally insofar as the Christian church is concerned.
We shouldn’t teach men’s traditions as doctrines.
Perhaps I should have said “cultural traditions…”
Dear Brother Stephen, the onus is therefore on you and proponents of WO to show a clear biblically based argument that would teach that WO is not something theological especially since the practice is in direct conflict with at least three of our fundamental beliefs:
1] The Doctrine on the Holy Scriptures – FB 01
2] The Doctrine of the Church – FB 12
3] The Doctrine of Unity in the Body of Christ – FB 14
It is also worth noting in this discussion that our pioneers did not ordain women to the office of elder or minister and they were very thorough in setting up a concrete biblical basis for our beliefs and practice. The surge of feminism in the West is largely responsible for the WO groupthink. There is a strong biblical basis that is not in support of WO, contrary to what you say. The Judeo-Christian Church in both the OT and NT and throughout its history, even during the time of our pioneers, and throughout much of our Adventist history, did not follow such a practice. It is therefore disingenuous for proponents to claim that the growth of feminist ideals has not largely influenced this move and that there has now materialised a biblical basis for WO when there is none.
You do realize that Headship theology in the Adventist church in the conversation of Women’s ordination is invalidated by our structure right? By that I mean authority is not in the pastorate it is in the committee.
So every conference executive committee that has a woman sitting on it, has a woman sitting in a position of authority over the male pastors. Those that voted for Female GC VP invalidated their position to stand against WO because they entrusted ecclesiastical authority to a woman over men.
And you do realize that the only basic difference between women pastors and male pastors in the realm of office is the issue of pay and positions they can hold. Commissioned ministers operate with the same basic authority as ordained ministers according to working Policy.
What special authority does a man receive at ordination that he did not have the day before? What exactly do you think happens in the ordination service?
Do you realize that in Acts of the Apostles,it says that when Paul and Barnabas were sent out on their first missionary journey, the church (The entire body) laid hands and invested in them full ecclesiastical authority. But we do not do that. We do not ordain even our male missionaries, so we have a flawed practice. The TOSC was organized done and the report was ignored and we are left where we were 5 years ago, no clear theology of what ordination means, yet people argue who can and who cant have it, with out even understanding the…
Please do not faint. I agree with you. Good point. Though I do not think the action was “unwitting.” Rather, I think it was simply a convenient “theology” invented and adopted because they had run out of other arguments.
I am so glad for the divisions which stand up and tell ther will not support the GC divisions on WO. I encourage each Conference to do the same. It is so important to do so. For your men, women and children. The opposite is so degrading, and not to claim pride over by putting a God word or two prior to. Why? it is in the same cathegory as denying women work, own economy, justice and safety. For the 54 % of the SDA church worldwide, this would be fair to stand up for. Start ordaining. See, what comes from it is a step towards completeness and acceptance of our own human body. Such steps are mandate to take for both women and men in leading positons.
Since the beginning of TW’s administration we have seen an increase of the “thirst for more power.” Even trying to determine what books we should read or not (“denominational literature” only…).
It is unfortunate that the world church, especially the 3rd world, supported this authoritarian style by reelecting the man. This reelection will have “grave consequences” for the Church, because now he feels that it is OK to seek an increase of power at the GC level, that what he has been doing should continue and even “improved.”
I hope more leaders with backbone will say NO to this tendency for abuse of power.
Continue the blame the third World agenda, it is probably helping many people cope with with what they consider is a defeat. But it is a strategy that is hopeless.
GC decision.
Not only have I lost any trust I might have had in the General Conference leadership. I’m also quite embarrassed. This kind of leadership is not christlike. This global church organisation has become what the Advent movement originally criticised and warned against.
The best solution would be to dissolve the GC, keeping just the Divisions independent from each other.
What is the GC good for anyways? Can anyone come up with one, just one, benefit that the local churches get from the existence of the GC? What would change at the local church level if the GC just disappeared right now? (Other than having more resources for local projects of course…)
The funny part about disolving the GC comes up now after the GC session and the results of women ordination. Why was it not said before. suppose the ordination was accepted was the disolving of the GC going to be talked about.
Independent ministries left the church organization long back and were labeled offshoots and were hated for it. Is it now accepted to break away from the church structures because it’s now convinient for us and not Independent ministries?
Yes, it is curious how the tide has turned and some of the “offshoots” have become the “mainline” and trust in the GC leadership has come to be viewed as at-variance with the common concept of what the church should be. Though I have to give the GC credit for allowing the media ministries to return to their independent roots so they can be stronger instead of being strangled by GC controls.
Yes. But by the other side
“Why was it not said before”
I have been saying it on Spectrum for a long time (before the GC session).
But the questions remain:
1) What is one (at least one!) benefit for the Local Churches that is the result of the existence of the GC?
2) What would happen if the GC disappeared at this very moment?
Well, I know that I have given thought to the role of the GC long prior to the GC Session.
Why do we put so much money into administration, when the divisions could make much better decisions, and agree on how to aply things in different corners of the world.
Why do we spend tremendious amounts of money for initiatives that we just bin in our side of the world – because they would simply not work in the mentality of our culture? Okay we might not bin all of them, but some of them are. But ALL the work that has gone into creating this initiative is going to be done all over from scratch anyway, to make it fit our cultural context.
So seriously, the idea that posted earlier with division presidents and them choosing one among them as the chair would to me be a much more viable solution.
GC could be minimised to a much smaller centre that ressourced us with IT-infrastructure and other things that needn’t be culturally adapted. A much stonger focus on being a resource to divisions and unions are needed. Not that GC should come up with the ressources, but aid, and secure good cooperation. But on the other hand, divisions should be able to carry this responsibility just fine…
wow what are you saying this is GODS church if people tamper with the procedures it does not mean the structure is incorrect it means that the individuals are wrong not the procedures or structure
in essence Moses was the first GC President he was told to set up rulers Captains over 10,000s over 1000s over 100s over 50s etc. get the point so please do not join Korah Dathan Abi -ram numbers 16
I hope this answers you question what is the point of GC
CLEM UK
This whole “Ordination of Women” issue is being used by the forces of evil to distract our attention and waste God’s money that should be focused on introducing people to Christ and His saving grace.
This GC session, and all papers and meetings leading up to it, gave little of no attention to a fourth option which is the solution. Eliminate the Ritual of Ordination of all pastors.
Ordination creates a natural separation/schism within the church of clergy vs. laity. Ordination destroys one of the foundations of the protestant reformation, “The priesthood of all people”. This is why the reformers rejected the RC Ritual of Ordination. Ordination leads to the abuse of power common in most, if not all hierarchical organizations.
It appears V. Norskov Olsen’s 1990 book “Myth & Truth (about) Church, Priesthood and Ordination” has been, was and is being completely ignored.
Totally agree here…
(But doing away with Ordination as a whole, is probably not easy for those prominent pastors that have just come into power…)
That’s a solution, but I fear that that would only lead to a name change and not a process change.
And of course it would degrade into matters of pay and responsibility! ?
Unfortunately the root of all our problems is not being discussed. It is the belief that Christ came to earth with the nature of man after the fall. Which then forces the belief that man is not born in sin. Which in effect leads to a thinly veiled Righteousness by Works. I would suggest most of the leaders who are against WO in North America are of this belief. This false theology needs to be rooted out because it is the true cause of division along with the other extreme of Cheap grace. We can believe that Christ came in a physical body weakened by sin but as the second Adam prefall. His victory over sin gives us a free gift that’s gives power to overcome sin in our lives. It does not need to lead to cheap grace.
“Christ our Rightiousness” is THE truth that must be learned by every generation then faithfully passed on to the next generation
Agreed!
Ah, finally a liberal who has the guts to state the real agenda. The main issue has always been Salvation. Now that WO is out of the way let the real battle begin.
If we look at the work done on intercultural leadership by Hofstede and the GLOBE project it is clear that the people who make up a majority of the delegates by region are from countries that have a different concept of leadership. They see strong decisive and authoritarian as the ideal in spite of what our Western civilization believes about inclusive democratic participative leadership. We are reaping what we’ve sown as a missionary church that did not prepare our world leaders to lead according to scripture rather than culture. Kingly power has no place in the church. Matthew 20 makes this very clear. Biblical leadership is servant hood. Ministry is servant hood. We must return to the biblical model.
There is a strong cultural difference that I think is being overlooked in these discussions. Take, for example, the African cultures, which are patriarchal and have intense respect for the authority of the chiefs and elders ingrained in their society. Contrast that with the larger cultures of Europe where that hierarchy has been largely broken-down by industrialization and North America, which was settled by people who developed new cultures that were influenced by their hereditary cultures, but without a strong patriarchal hierarchy. Thus you have contrasting cultures that think differently and one for whom such a thing as the ordination of women is culturally unacceptable and the other where it is far less opposed. So expecting WO to pass in a vote where the majority of delegates were from hierarchical cultures was a foolish assumption. At the same time, in the spirit of letting God be our ultimate guide, it is incumbent on those cultures to allow God to work in different ways in different places as He wishes.
This author says Mrs. White was not ordained. I recently saw a picture of her ordination certificate. Why is this not disclosed more in the discussion?
There are actually 6 (known) certificates of ordination that were issued to EGW, in six consecutive years. And she gladly accepted them!
This author said Ellen White was “not ordained” in a sarcastic tone, essentially mimicking those who have supported the NoWO position [“No” to Women’s Ordination], the NoVote at GC. In the many English-speaking countries, that would be called “tongue in cheek”–that is, you don’t really mean it.
That would create a “double negative,” which is in essence a positive.
I understand, though, that in some cultures a “double negative” is only just a stronger negative. That is not the meaning here in this essay.
Adventism has problems because it is an institution that wants to wrestle with problems which the Christian Churches must wrestle. However she refuses to place herself UNDER the guidance from Scripture ALONE which is an issue Christian churches have already settled. In doing so you lose the focus.
Call it building a church from the steeple down. When you do this you become distracted, going down many rabbit holes that otherwise would be matters which would be important but peripheral. By discussing them you give yourself the illusion you are dealing with what is central to the Gospel when you are not.
Before trying to work prepherial issues–
(i) fix your eyes on the centrality of Jesus Christ and His finished work on the Cross which fulfilled the Law and the Prophets rather than fixating on Law and Shabbat,
(ii) get grounded on the true nature of Jesus Christ who is fully God and fully Man and His role in the life of Believers
(iii) Begin the emphasis of Sola Scriputura and what it says is The Gospel while removing any authority that Ellen White and her Great Controversy Gospel has in your organization.
When you focus on Jesus who He is and what Scripture says He has successfully done for those who put their faith in Him. When you do that whatever your General Conference pontificates becomes irrelevant.
I understand what you’re saying when you say “from the steeple down” and I am in complete agreement with you about our need to focuse on sola scriptura and really knowing what the Bible actually teaches.
As a curious aside, did you know that church steeples are not scriptural. While Christian tradition claims that the steeple is to point our attention heavenward, the origin of the church steeple was the ancient pagan belief that it protected anyone gathered below it by spearing any demons falling from above to attack them. No sola scriptura in that point of architecture.
Don’t look too closely for pagan symbols in the church.
So many can be directly traced to earlier pagan sources that most folks would be shocked. After all, “pagan” is to differentiate all other beliefs for mine, which is the only true one!
Check out POCM on the internet to see where many Christian beliefs originated.
Over the past several years I’ve been serving on our church’s Architectural Team to plan for a major building program. Our architects have opened our eyes to the historic origins and symbolic meanings of a lot of traditional design elements. So I think you might be shocked to see how much historic paganism has been embraced by Christianity without giving any thought to the origins and meanings others attach to them.
One favorite of Christian worship services is the pipe organ, which I have heard a few people argue long and loud is essential for “true worship.” It originated with pagans blowing musical reeds into a box while they danced around it to scare-away demons. The way I’ve heard a few pipe organs played left me wondering if the organist wasn’t trying to attract a few of them back.
Often in Adventism we look for the “spooky” things. Its that somehow maybe an indication of Illuminati, Jesuit, or some other thing Agents Sculy or Mulder would make an X-File. This is perhaps why we are so diehard for a Prophetess and focus on decoding Daniel Revelation Apocalyptic writings over the plain and clear instruction of Galatians.
Folks my God is the God Almighty. If He wants to redeem a sinner like you and me He can certainly make a Christmas tree a reminder of His Son’s Birth, or if He chooses to make the Steeple remind us to look upwards to Heaven. He once used an ass to do His bidding so certainly He has ALL Authority to make anything HOLY or PAGAN glorify His Son. He is God!
We can spend the whole day discussing the results of the GC session. Prove from scripture and spirit of prophecy who was wrong and who was right. To defend positions using calture and times with no scriptural references is just a waste of time. You don’t have to be a theologian to be listened to. If you don’t follow what the scriptures say you are just miss leading people. To base our scriptural understanding on theologians is not biblical. Search the scriptures and the Holy spirit will explain. Ted Wilson did not vote himself to be the president. The delegates did. Don’t blame him. When people come to sessions they pray and ask for God’s guidance and that is what happened. Unless you are saying it’s only ND and few others who are led by. the spirit.
But the question remains, that even though the delegates prayed for God’s guidance, did they follow it? Or did they do what they wanted?
Prayer is a great and fundamental part of our faith, yet it is up to each person to submit to God, and really let him work in us. Who is to day whether anything that happens is God’s working, or man’s working. Because we see it through our own glasses.
Just because the delegates prayed, doesn’t neccesarily mean that what the delegated voted is God’s will – just my humble opinion…
“Just because the delegates prayed, doesn’t neccesarily mean that what the delegated voted is God’s will – just my humble opinion…”
And a good observation, Bob. Nobody “prays” more than the Catholic church. And excuse my crass response, but you can pray “until hell freezes over”, if you don’t go by the word of God, it is all vain and useless.
Our leaders have abandon the bible and now opt for “prayer” and spiritual manifestations as proof of any decision they make is in harmony with God’s will. So we end up seeking “unity” outside the biblical mandate. Prayer is a necessary and useful means of grace, but it never takes the place of clear biblical mandates. Male headship is clearly biblical and a non-negotiable objective given.
Prayer works when you are actually seeking the guidance of God instead of claiming a divine stamp of approval on what you think is a correct view that is exclusive and corrective of the experience of others who are obeying Jesus by following the Holy Spirit. The written word gives us a foundation, but in prayer the Holy Spirit takes us beyond the written word and illuminates us with God’s intimate guidance that is not available in the Bible alone.
“Male headship is clearly biblical and a non-negotiable objective given.”
I beg to disagree. But I think it depends on the way we read our Bible.
When I read my Bible, I don’t see God specifically regarding men higher than women, but God working within the fallen world, where men has taken a leading position. While this not being a Godly instituted leading position.
Pastor Giesebrecht,
I bet to differ on most of your arguments.
1. The discussion on WO is not about what is divisive or not, but rather what is biblical..
2. I believe that theological leadership is not necessary associated with “trained” or “schooled” persons except when one can prove to me that the Patriarch and Prophets, Priests, most bible writers, the Apostles, Ellen White, and most who we look up to for theological guidance were formally trained. The key is “persons inspired”, not necessarily “trained persons”! That’s what we have always needed as God’s people!
3. The real threat to “Adventist heritage” is the proposition for WO. At the GC in 1881 at Battle Creek, the leaders then (including Ellen White) rejected WO as not being biblical! Feeling discontented, the proponents have pushed for WO to be voted on at GC 1990 (Indianapolis), GC 1995 (Utrecht), and recently at San Antonio, which by God’s guidance have been rejected again and again to confirm what the founders of our church believed in.
Conclusion: The church needs inspired men, and these need not be trained theologians. If we believe God speaks at GCs and we also wish to follow in the church heritage, lets accept the outcome that WO is not biblical and move on..This will, as opposed to the author’s argument, foster unity of the church body around the world!
Not really getting your argument, but for the sake of unity – let it sail.
Sam, I don’t believe Ellen White was against ordaining women. In A Closer Look At Women’s Ordination, Ty Gibson quotes Ellen White:
“If there is one work more important than another, it is that of getting before the public our publications, which will lead men to search the Scriptures. Missionary work—introducing our publications into families, conversing, and praying with and for them—is a good work, and one which will educate men and women to do pastoral labor” (Review and Herald, April 4, 1882; published the first time in Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 390).
Ty asks us to pause to catch the significance of the historical context in which her above statement was made. A proposal was just brought before the General Conference Session stating that females “be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry.” Then, with that recommendation on the minds of Adventists, Ellen White stated in the church’s official magazine that women, as well as men, may “do pastoral labor.”
He says that for Ellen White to make a statement like this in favor of women in pastoral labor at a time when the General Conference was pondering the question of whether or not to ordain women would be reckless if God was against ordaining women. He says that “it is inconceivable that Ellen White would not have warned the General Conference brethren to refrain from passing the recommendation to ordain women if, in fact, doing so would constitute unfaithfulness to Scriptureand…
rebellion against God. But she did not. In fact, she pointed in the opposite direction at the very time when the matter was under consideration.”
Brent,
This statement by EGW makes too much sense and is too clear. Let’s see, Ellen White references women in “pastoral labor.” Ellen White is officially recognized by the church as having an authoritative prophetic gifting. There is no higher responsibility for human beings than the responsibility to speak to God’s people on His behalf; a responsibility that the church acknowledges a woman to have had. There is no Biblical evidence or indication that male headship existed anywhere in any way before the fall. Neither is there any indication of such pre-fall male headship in any of White’s writings;* and there is no Biblical evidence or indication that male headship in the church is a Christian doctrine as opposed to being a cultural tradition; nor is there a Scriptural prohibition against women’s ordination.
So perhaps the only legitimate question that should apply is would Paul have allowed a woman to speak for God, or in His behalf, in any Christian church?
*If there is, I’d appreciate being corrected/enlightened.
Independent ministries are gaining ground on not only on influence but their theology. In some cases, I’m afraid we are going backward instead of forward. I’m afraid we are moving towards requiring women to cover their head in the church and keeping their silence in the church. Is this what the Holy Spirit wants in the last days?
What is wrong with women covering their heads? The problem we have now is fashion and women rights as if they did not have rights.The bible stated that clearly on women covering their heads. As time moved on things started to change direction because world politics is now running the church. If you say they should cover their heads its regarded as suppression and out of fashion. Civilization brought too much civilization in spiritual things.
There is something called context. And we need to read the Bible in context, and try to understand why e.g. women should cover their heads. We need to understand the culture in which the Bible operated, and see how that context have shaped the message of the Bible. Because that drastically aids us in understanding what God has been about all the way through the Bible, and today.
If we read the whole Bible out of context, and without interpreting it – but just reading and doing, then why don’t we celebrate easter? Why don’t we celebrate all the festivals from the pentateuch? Why don’t we stone fornicators? Why don’t we kill both men and women who are adulterous?
Only independent ministries are “going backward?” Give me a break! The wildest and least scripturally-based arguments I’ve heard against the ordination of women have come from people within the church claiming to defend some concept of getting back to the foundations of the church when the diversity of their “facts” shows such variety that it is impossible to describe what that “foundation” is.
Have you heard Doug Bachelor on Women in ministry: the 28 reasons they should not be ordained?
There are other independent ministries besides Amazing Facts. You often don’t hear about their work because they aren’t so strong in expressing their regressive views.
Excellent observations…if all that wasn’t enough, the words “voting machines broken” and “secret ballot” should have done it.
Why is the church wasting time arguing about this issue. Why not recognize that women and men are equals. How can a church which had a female prophet not recognize the implication that God just might be making. We are spiritual beings and equals.
You know, what I am concerned about?
That we are worried if we are good adventists instead of thinking of if we are good christians/Jesus followers.
So what-we are extension of hebrew natiin the holy nation that has to stay holy instead of thinkig of all who dont know Jeesus or are in “wrong” denomination? Is that our priority? Really? So sad! So so sad..
The SDA founders all believed and taught male headship. They were not Calvinists, but they believed Scripture. I have plenty of primary source statements from them to prove this.
But though they were our founders, could they be wrong on male headship? The apostles all believed and taught that salvation were for the jews only, until Peter was reminded that it was not so. But though Peter were told it was not so, he forgot, and seemed to wrestle with it.
The kings in Israel thought that God would protect them no matter what – because they were God’s chosen people, even though they worshipped everyone else than God. And the kings in Israel en Juda continued on this road for several hundreds of years, yet they completely missed the opportunity to be the great example that God had in mind for them.
Though our SDA founders all believed and taught male headship, they might be just as wrong – but they lived in a time, where female headship were still unthinkable – that doesn’t mean that God hasn’t been waiting roughtly 6000 years for mankind, to put their male-headship idea aside…
where is the bible perspective in all of this? i see rambling and very little of sola-scriptura in most arguments on this whole women ordination debate. Give me the bible and the bible alone. Let us also remember not to lose sight of the mission as we grapple with controversies which i believe would easily fall into the class of “worthless controversies”
Dear Brother Owen: Some of us have been studying this question for the past 50 years, from the Bible and from every other possible angle.
Interestingly enough, though Headship Theology in the Adventist Church has grown increasingly stringent during the past 25 years, the support for women as ordained ministers has jumped exceedingly. Something very specific is going on here, and despite the best efforts of those who oppose ordaining women, world Adventism is warming very much to the idea. In our recent GC Session, two-out-of-five delegates supported allowing divisions to enable ordination of women, a huge increase from 1990 when a similar motion went down to devastating defeat.
In other words, despite a valiant effort, support for male-only ministers is slipping quite rapidly. Clearly the level of Bible support for males only is not convincing the thinking Adventist (delegate material) as a whole. And as I conversed with folks at the Adventist Today booth earlier this summer, it appeared that the more thoughtful folk were open to ordaining women; the stringently opposed tended to speak maladroitly and seemed to alienate onlookers from their cause.
Ellen White urged us to evaluate contentious debate by the spirit in which it is delivered. Today hard-liners seem to be their own most-powerful foes, hoist on their own petard. I’m sure this is most discouraging to those who brace against the sure gusting of God’s prevailing winds.
“In other words, despite a valiant effort, support for male-only ministers is slipping quite rapidly.”
Which means the devil is gaining ground year by year. Just as when the early church adopted Sunday in place of the Bible Sabbath.
Such misguided information.
Look, friends. The GC Session vote was IN NO WAY a vote to deny women to be ordained. The vote was ONLY about whether it would be individual Divisions deciding whether to ordain women or if it falls to the GC to make a worldwide decision. Nothing more.
I see the vote as a good thing. As a world-wide church, we cannot tolerate a women having the credential of ordination in one country and be in a position where she must travel to/interact with another country that refuses to work with her because they haven’t embraced women’s ordination. I heard all the talk about unity doesn’t mean uniformity. That’s fine when it comes to deciding what color your pew fabric should be, but Divisions don’t pick and choose fundamental beliefs. Neither should they pick and choose what gender can be ordained.
To all those in a particular Division crying over the decision, what would you have done if the vote at Session had been yes, but then your Division subsequently decided no? Problem, methinks!
The No vote is a great opportunity. It means in 2020, we can push for a world-wide women’s ordination vote.
Yes it can be pushed for…but the Bible is clear on this matter. wether the theologians want to accept it or not. God’s Word never changes…but theologians do.
Theologians many times think they are above everybody else…to me they have the wrong focus unfortunately.
It’s comforting to read that for some, “The Bible is Clear” which means “my interpretation is clear to me.”
Lee,
I applaud you for presenting some critical thinking regarding the procedural implications of an ad hoc approach to this. (This type of independent critical thinking is somewhat rare.)
Since the church has previously taken a cultural/regional approach to wedding bands and rings without any lingering divisive consequences, one would think that this could likewise have been accomplished in San Antonio. Although the full-fledged ordination of women appears inevitable; perhaps a delay was wise with regard to the cultural/traditional issue of its institutional implementation—since women’s ordination is an institutional issue.
As long as we have women as ministers, as ordained elders and deaconeses; and women outnumbers men numericaly they cannot be denied ordination until Jesus come. The SDA Bible Research Instutute must take a lead and tell us if God indeed distrust women and would not like them to lead the church. Theologian in our universities must tell us the truth. At the end we will not need to vote. We will practice the truth
So you’re telling me theologians are closer to Gods will???
…again I’ll remind you about what EGW ref I gave at 3:01pm below.
Thank you very much Harold Giesebrecht for a very insightful article. I believe your picture of what has happened in the General Conference leadership is accurate. Many of our members do not seem aware of the growing “kingly power” of the GC leadership. This was a danger in the beginning of the 1900s and it has become a threat in the present time. Unions were introduced under the blessing of E G White at that time and we need to reassert their power once again in 2015. Elder Ted Wilson could have avoided the divisive vote of San Antonio if he really had the desire to keep the church united.
May I remind you all of what Ellen White said…I have by reading her books got a closer relationship to the Lord…I have far to go still…but EGW has lead me to study my Bible much more…she describes herself as the little light leading to the greater…and I can only say Amen to that…I have experienced it…
“Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work, and to say what plans should be followed.” 9T 260.1
This includes theologians and leaders…measure them by the Written Word…the Bible!
You can read more about her statements in 9T 260.2 + 9T 261.1
Ted Wilson has followed the Bible in what I have seen so far. It’s just many of you who are not willing to accept it as you think your ideas are higher than God’s Word…the Bible…there is NO room for personal interpretations in Gods church. That’s why we have GCs.
GC = Pope? A simple majority vote by a small group of SDA buraucratic delegates in San Antonio equales “God’s point of view”?
@Ole-Edvin
No but it’s the best we have and we were shown that this structure was what God wanted to prevent ‘strange ideas’ be followed.
GC can be like a pope…as it’s not ONE persons view.
So sorry but your argument pope ~ GC totally fails!
Seems like you obviously don’t know much about who is represented at the GC sessions. The world representatives are present too…people that don’t work within the church, lay people, etc.
Correction to above: “GC _cannot_ be like a pope…as it’s not one persons view.”
@Denni Jensen
“Seems like you obviously don’t know much about who is represented at the GC sessions”
Do you have any idea of the pressure made by “big money” in the election of the GC Prez?
This is not just one issue
In the South Pacific, 3 countries have been ordered to worship on Sunday based on the argument regarding the date line. Tonga, Samoa and Kiribati.
This to me should have been on the agenda at the last GC and it should have been acted upon.
Take Samoa for example.
It is now the first country in the world to see the sunrise. Its Government decide in 2009 that their days should align with New Zealand and Australia due to their business trading. Before that, Samoa was in the same time line as Americans.
However the Mission office took a stand and decide to remain to the old time line while the whole country changed their days. The South Pacific Division agreed.
Today, the same leaders who worship on Saturday in Australia or New Zealand travel to Samoa on Sunday. Upon arrival they will have to worship on Sunday there which would be the same Sunday in NZ and Australia because it is Samoa’s sabbath.
The argument was sent to the GC, and the respond was they do not interfere with what SPD do.
Yet, the SPD who is fully supported of women’s ordination is now standing beside the GC regarding the no vote issue.
God bless you all
It is not God who established which day was the seventh, but modern cartographers. Flying over the International Time Zone, one can gain two Sabbaths, or completely lose one. Where did the lost Sabbath go? And should a passenger observe two Sabbaths? Did God project that Sabbath should ever be observed around the world when he gave it only to a small tribe living in a very small area of the globe.
Incidentally, the seventh day was determined by the moon by the Israelites.
Solar Scriptura…The Bible clearly states in Genesis who created the Sabbath Day (Saturday) …who was God!
If you had spent just 1minute reading Genesis you would not have wasted time writing such nonsense. Now go read Genesis 2:1-3.
The international Date Line is a human contrivance. Nowhere in the Bible is an international date line described. So which day is Saturday and where?
If the vote had been yes this article would not even exist. It sure does read like the proverbial “beating of the dead horse”. If it walks like one, talks like one, it must be one…
Fortunately, those of good well know well that an issue having to do with equity and justice is not “beating a dead horse.” It never will be “dead” unless, of course, someone wishes to attempt to “kill” the issue by some arbitrary directive from the top. Any such attempt will certainly backfire.
They just follow the clear Biblical views on this. You might not like it…but it’s YOUR problem not ours.
If you don’t want to follow the Bible and it’s teachings…you’re welcome to leave for a church who is more in tune with your thoughts.
Perhaps Ms. Jensen would please inform the rest of us what exactly “the clear Biblical views on [women ordination]” might be. There is general agreement among those best informed to comment on the topic who contributed to several reports that there is no biblical injunctions that bear on whether to ordain or not ordain women. It is an Adventist policy issue not a doctrinal issue.
Since there are no biblical teachings to follow on this topic, I’m not sure the relevance of your second paragraph. Perhaps it was your way to vent. That’s fine, we all need to do that from time to time.
Grow some Balls and do what is right! ballbags
What the Adventist Pope wants he manipulates to get his desired outcome – even if it has no biblical truth. Thank God not all his parishioners think that he is infallible and not all are trained to kiss his ring.
Sorry but it seems like the speech of a poor looser who thinks only his thoughts are correct. Humbleness in front of God you need…are you willing to give up your own ideas and follow Gods?
Women are precious beings are we must all treat them with respect and care. Just because they are equal in front of God He choose who He wants to serve…and here the Bible is clear on this issue.
You have to twist and bend the scriptures to have it say the opposite…and we are told in the Bible what result from this will for such person. Read Rev 22:18-19.
“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. …” Romans 12:1-13
Read Romans 16: 1-16, of Paul’s approbation of the women united with him in preaching the
Gospel message of Jesus Christ. When the apostles spoke of “man”, generally it was a term associated with both the male and female, also the same was how Jesus referenced
both sexes.
Please don’t denigrate the character of the current pope by attaching Adventist to it. Pope Francis pays more attention to his parishioners in need than he does to dogma or in the trappings of his office. 🙂 He provides a good role model for leadership.
“Gender Pusher” you fail to accept The Lord’s leading. You are so crushed that you are calling out the Leaders of the Church and the GC,playing the blame game. On what authority do you speak? Who are you and what do you have to justify your own credibility? You have a bunch of reasons for loosing trust. We only have one for not developing any trust at all in you. Where in the bible did it mandate what you and your gender pushing disciples are fighting for? Did Christ do it while He was here? Do the honourable thing,now that the distraction is over, take up your bible and start some real “Gospel Preaching”.
The vote was clear and means that yes, the SDA Church will continue practicing discrimination of women.
No wonder a civil government sometimes has to intervene (as it happened before) and remind the “saints” that there is something called “human morality, aka decency” that has been forgotten/neglected by the holy congregation.
George, my wife, daughters and the multitudes of women out there want to know what you, all these SDA pastors and paid employees fighting for this issue have to offer in your “human morality”; other than pain, grief, and death. They would like to know why they should not just rely on CHRIST and those he placed here to love them?
At least in our Country; we have and continue to fight for the separation of Civil Government and Religion within conviction. Hopefully and within prayer we can continue to do so.
In my humble opinion and from the multitude of complaints; this is the most chauvinistic ideology I have ever seen. Why would they want your voice or conviction? Do they not have their own? The silence of their voice should speak mountains; do you not hear? Why would you think they would come to you for representation of them in anything? Why would they not go to those that echo their voices in magnitudes; that is the strength of unity and conviction.
Many also question, if someone takes the job,and the Church pays them, should they not support the desires and graciously do the work; or should they be spoilt children and do everything possible to avoid such? Maybe you should look at what you are fighting for or maybe you always have the need to be fighting for something? Maybe fighting to fill the needs and spread the word to others might fill your need?
George,
But what if your claim that the SDA Church practices “discrimination of women” doesn’t reflect the SDA women’s own perspective?
What if only some male and female feminist activists in the SDA Church feel that way?
What if many don’t care to be treated “equally” with men and become “pastors.”
I know, for instance, that the women in my extended family would not want to be forced to be “pastors” by someone like you. Should I impose on them your perspective? Should I tell them that they are wrong if they don’t care for “equality”?
Shouldn’t the SDA women be allowed to speak for themselves? How did you get the “call” to speak for all the women in the church?
Eduard
Have you noticed how the voice of the Holy Spirit is not being sought in these discussions? There is plenty of strong opinion, and lots of disbelief that God could or would call a woman to a pastoral role in the church, but only rare voices ask us to consider whether the Holy Spirit has actually called and gifted any person for pastoral work, whether they be male or female. I have known many in my life who spent their careers in pastoral work and who got their jobs more by personal connection than on the basis of their giftedness from God and they sometimes did more damage to the work of God than they helped it. So I think we need to focus more on the issue of giftedness for a role in the church than gender in a role.
We need to follow Jesus and study His word more so that we will be sure what God says and not man. Ellen was the messenger of God so compare her writings with the scripture and stick with what God says.
Reality, Sir or Ms, the harshness and tone of your speaking to George Tichy, is not how our Savior, Christ would address His flock. “Why would they come to you for anything”?? Perhaps, possibly because Bro. George is guided by GOD, the Holy Spirit.
Sir Calahan:
“George is guided by GOD, the Holy Spirit”?
George, will you tolerate that insult?
Eduard
Thank you Pastor Giesebrecht.
Regarding your #3, I suggest that we don’t need more theologians to weigh in on this topic. This isn’t about theology, not even about women’s ordination, but about power, just as it was back when Paul wrote that women should keep their heads covered. This is about a church organization believing that it has the authority, and therefore the responsibility, to decide who can speak for God and who can’t.
We can take it even farther back when Jesus cleansed the organized church of his time. It should be clear to us that power corrupts. Organized religion has always inserted itself between God and the individuals he died for. It sets itself up as the gateway through which people must pass on their way to the kingdom by judging the value of personal charity and actions, and by determining the criteria for who can speak with ultimate authority which has been done since New Testament times. It does all this while operating a business that it claims is sacred.
If this control is not exerted, the flow of money and the power that accompanies it is disrupted. While there have been many issues over the past 150 years that have threatened the church’s control, the current issue of WO has coincided with the growing understanding that the church’s authority is based on a voluntary relationship. Your title demonstrates this. More and more members are seeing the organized church for the man-made business that it is, and coming to recognize…
Sorry for the duplicates…
….More and more members are seeing the organized church for the man-made business that it is, and coming to recognize that getting its approval, or obeying its rules is not requisite for a direct relationship with God.
Thank you Pastor Giesebrecht.
Regarding your #3, I suggest that we don’t need more theologians to weigh in on this topic. This isn’t about theology, not even about women’s ordination, but about power, just as it was back when Paul wrote that women should keep their heads covered. This is about a church organization believing that it has the authority, and therefore the responsibility, to decide who can speak for God and who can’t.
We can take it even farther back when Jesus cleansed the organized church of his time. It should be clear to us that power corrupts. Organized religion has always inserted itself between God and the individuals he died for. It sets itself up as the gateway through which people must pass on their way to the kingdom by judging the value of personal charity and actions, and by determining the criteria for who can speak with ultimate authority which has been done since New Testament times. It does all this while operating a business that it claims is sacred.
continued…
Altho’ I am a supporter of WO, I do believe that a YES vote would have split the church. Why? Because it seems that the WO supporters have taken the high road, living up to what a true Christian is = Being Christ Like. They have given their thoughts and opinions on the subject, but have been careful of the words chosen and actions performed. The other side (non-supporters) many have been downright nasty, not representing the character of Jesus. Just as those against the people involved in the other debate over GRACE vs Law.
The bottom line here is: when it comes right down to the nitty-gritty, what the local church board decides to do, is what will be done, if you follow the church manual. I live in Michigan, so far as I know, our small church is one of few that has stood up to the conference on several occasions, and will continue to do so. Why? Because we as a church group are united in looking to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our Faith. We are saved by grace, not the law, not the Sabbath, not whether or not women are ordained.but through how we SHOW our LOVE for CHRIST, and that includes what and how WO is discussed!
Obviously, we won’t get a female pastor, but we will keep our female elder(s).
Connie,
That is rubbish. If “nasty language” is an indication that someone is wrong, then Jesup has lost the election considering how “mean” his words often were, especially with the “good” people.
Eduard
Re Connie’s post, “I live in Michigan, so far as I know, our small church is one of few that has stood up to the conference on several occasions, and will continue to do so.”
How is that possible? It has been my experience that when the local pastor chairs the church board, he thinks of himself as obligated to the local conference to manipulate any motions by members of the board if he thinks those motions are not in agreement with the executive committee of the local conference. Sometimes this is done by “tabling” the motion on the pretext that there are other, more important things that need to be discussed. Sometimes it is done by insisting that “the mater requires more prayer”.
My perception is that if you can describe a mechanism that is capable of countering the hierarchical model at the local level, MANY members of our denomination would be VERY encouraged to know what it is.
I would like to pick on issues of WO and the so called blame on the developing world.I would like to question the openness of adventism to learning and the spirit of present truth has been lost. Now this closedness has come back to bite , the developing has a close fit between culture and this interpretation of the bible. So its not that the developing world are holding on to something contrary to the Bible or are not progressive. For most who have accepted Adventism in the developing world have already forsook some part of their cultures. Its an issue of teaching and learning and for this the GC has continually disregarded what the theolgians have to say so we come to this.If the truth be told people then the developing world would move against culture for the truth.
Independent study shows that Jesus was for women empowerment but this again was impeded by the same cultures in that region at that time. and we cannot forget that the Bible ws written by men within a culture and that cultiure is reflected in their work. This is a fact and the more people resist these fundamental truths the more the relevancy of the Bible becomes questionable.
I must say that this article is unfortunate and not really well thought out. In fact it accuses the GC of exactly what it wants to happen in NA, TED, and others that support WO. Remember, while theologians can do a lot of good, they can also destroy the establishment. Kingly powers referred to by EGW is against the small minority that want everyone to bow to their wishes; but, says, she, when the GC in session meet and vote on a subject, then we should take it as the voice of God. And that is what happened at this GC for the third time on WO. God is in charge. Even if we got it wrong, God will over rule. But when when our leaders divide the flock because their opinions were not voted for, then the church will be in danger. Are we not told that churches will be lost, and that bright lights will go out? And that God will use, not so much the formally educated, but the humble, unlearned to finish the great work on earth? Does not that mean something to you objectors? WO means nothing to me, whether or not it is done. What is important to me is that we move ahead with the mission of warning the world of the impending doom; and everyone must be involved-men, women, and children. Let us not trash the order God has set up, but let us use that order to finish the work under God’s guidance. Speak to errors, yes, but do not thrash nor disinherit your church, the GC, or individuals. Speak the truth and let God do the sifting and cleaning. Satan with be here until it is too hot for…
In NAD there are thousands who are not willing to knelt to Baal teachings. Grow up and accept The word of God.
Satan will be here until it is too hot for him. So will those that collude and side with him. I love my church. I know that it will appear to fall. And that means that we should expect gross errors by theologians (Glacier View, Froom, Spiritual Formation, etc.), and also by the ‘uneducated’ (Waco, etc.). The ship will go through, folks, just stay on board; cargo will be thrown out to lighten (or so the church can be enlightened!)the ship; but do not be among the jettison, the Captain will steer to port-hold the course, friends. Let’s put our hands to the plough and not look back. Blessings everyone!
I am not sure where most of you stand on this issu of women ordination, nor am i certain of the demographic that has been replying here ….however one thing is clear to me , the church seems to have been greatly influence here in America by by the “Americanism doctrine”. Why is it that while entering the very last hours of this earth history , we are so divided about who is call or not to do what? I am so glad I am Seventh Day Adventist. I mean I know whatever happend God has a remnant church here that He will be coming for. I am so glad that it is God who is preparing his remnant to meet him. Only those who are true to their conviction like Daniel and his friends were will make it. we can not change our view base on what the world is doing. Because the world is saying that whatever a man can do , does not mean we have to accept that view ; for its not about power , but its about authority that god has bestowed upon one and not the other. why is that?There can be a lot of opinion on this matter but i believe the best answer to be he is GOD. Also people are missquoting text it seems to me when it comes down to women issue in the church to support their worldly view in many ways. Becareful because Babylon has come in…
Wow. It seems that many Adventist spend little time in deep Bible study or prayer. Do we really have a conscience to yield to the GC?
Too many comments to digest, but doesn’t seem that many are tuned in to the fact that the mess we now face was created quite some time ago. The last post illustrates perfectly why we face the crisis we do. Adventists were taught and many still believe that Adventism is roughly synonymous with “the church”. Sadly many who have seen this error have not recognized the danger it posed. Many could see the flaw in the denominations power structure at Glacier View, but lacked the courage or foresight to know that was the time to act.
Was referring to larry2’s comment. Another was added before I posted.
Folks, let’s not be side tracked by the devil and his agents. Your church voted three times now against ordaining women. Stop bickering and let God work things out! Sure we can debate things past, but when our discussion takes on rancour and belittling we have stepped over the red-line. When Israel asked a king God was not infavour but condescended to let them have their way with all the consequences. And when some objected against the king, God was not pleased and over-ruled in the king’s favour. So with us. If the church is wrong in voting down WO, then let God work it out, but do not spout just because your ideas were not followed. Where is your God? Sleeping? As Paul says, let every man be a liar and God righteous. You either have to believe that God is in charge of puny human activities or believe that He is detached. Are we not told that God will take matters into His hands, demonstrating that He is in charge and not man? Why can’t you trust Him even in the hard times of ‘loosing a vote’? Tell me, are there forces out there trying to split the church over issues like this? Is there a drive to make innocuous the mission of God’s church? Whose side are such people, both you and I, on? Think about that friends. Blessings of the Almighty for this Sabbath.
Would Mr. Henderson like to identify specifically who is being “side tracked by the devil and his agents?” (By the way, I noted that the “D” in devil is not an uppercase letter? What, to some, might be a little thing, might be significant. This is being pointed out because of all Protestant denominations, classic Adventism places a lot of emphasis on single words and single texts to create major theological concepts.)
Ervin: just for your sake. The church is being side-tracked by the devil and his cohorts from doing God’s work. Secondly, I have made it a rule never to spell the devil with a capital D. He does not deserve that!
But he deserves your belief and knowledge of his activities? Do you have the ability to identify what are God’s activities and which are the Devil’s work? Is that through spiritual discernment or clairvoyant ability?
Check your Bible, my friend. We are the children of the light and not of darkness. We know the wiles of the devil and submit totally to Jesus so we won’t be deceived. Let’s work together my friend and not against each other.
Thank you Ron for your words of wisdom. This issueis not even an equlity issue. It is a power issue that Satan has use to distract us from our mission of spreading the gospel to all the word.
If this discussion was about racial equality it would be very short! However, as a majority of the Adventist Church has determined women have no standing or are somehow less valued by the Creator, the ridiculous accusations against those who place a high value on Gods ability to equip whom He chooses deny the Authority of God to choose Women to be Ordained Pastors!
Are we not missing the point when we feel that women have been done a great injustice and argue strongly against those who voted against women? Were not women treated unfairly even in Christ’s day, not to mention times before and after? I am not saying that women should be kept down, not at all. I am saying let us work together with God and ourselves to redress and change the situation as societies will allow. Do not rush ahead with vehemence. This is not the way God works. Check the Bible with, polygamy, slavery, and treatment of women. God works to change situations together with humans and does not usually run ahead of them. We must experience the stupidity of our choices. But when we tear one another apart we lose sight of God’s leading and suffer the loss of souls; and prevent God from bringing about a change in a manner that will please Him and us. The forces of evil will use every thing and everyone, including Christians, to retard the progress of the mission that God has given us. In the times of slavery, war, and polygamy, God’s mission went ahead. In the time of WO issues the mission of God can still proceed well until God intervenes if He so desires. As I see it, the only thing women have not got is ‘ordination.’ And the work of God has not suffered! As with EGW’s time the work went ahead. So let’s not hinder the gospel with our hurt feelings; EGW did not, let’s not today. Together we can overcome, so let’s work together in spite of the set backs we…
I think perhaps we are missing a part of our mission by the stance of not allowing WO. We are losing many of our young people from our churches; I believe some of it relates to unfair treatment of women. Then there is the issue of needing more women pastors to deal with counseling women in difficult marriages; Pastors often succumb to temptation and having women Pastors would definitely be a blessing.
Let’s work together in spite of the set backs we experience. Trust God. He’s in charge. He will accomplish what He wants if we allow Him to use us even as we disagree with the opinions of others. Is that hard? Some are bent on doing their own thing. But God will prevail in the end. Soon everything will be entirely out of our hands administratively. The work will move ahead like fire through men, women, and children. Isn’t that something to look forward to and to work towards? I think so. Blessings to all.
My name may guide article writers… Avoiding me may change the impression from objectivity to a “sore loser”.
When I joined the Adventist church I wanted to work in Ministry, my talents and training suggested I should study theology and become a Pastor. As a female, it was unheard of in the early 80’s in my Conference. I was disappointed in the gender bias I saw in God’s remnant church, so I remained a proponent of WO. The best argument I have heard suggesting it is a plan of Satan is that most Christian churches that have consented to ordain women, have subsequently opened the door to the debate/ordination of homosexual leaders. Now the serpent was subtle in the Garden Of Eden, and Satan has to be just as subtle in the last day church, as to deceive the very elect. These are the last days. We need to be more Christ centered even in our zeal for justice. Our leaders who betray the trust and confidence that we as church member confer on them, must give an account to God. (Remember Eli and his sons). Even in your disappointment be sober, be vigilant and carry on the work that God has called you to. Who He calls, He equips. Be Blessed
The churches that have embraced homosexual women as ministers are typically the ones that first embraced women as ministers and homosexuality separately as part of their doctrinal decline and rejection of the basic teachings of God. There are churches where women are serving very effectively as ministers and where homosexuality is not an issue because the denomination has not abandoned the Bible in their pursuit of social and political correctness. So I do not share any fear that the same will happen in the SDA church.
I agree, William. That has been the result of my continued research into this oft quoted view that just doesn’t hold up in verity.
Some have offered the suggestion that those who object to issues in the Church just wish to cause the Church to fight and cause the Church to split up. i don’t believe this. They love the SDA Church, and the fellowship. They don’t want to cause trouble, they just want the Church to allow everyone the opportunity of being inclusive, even though our outlook on some issues is different. We are each different, and we should realize that rarely do even just two, agree on much, yet even in our families we are able to love each other and get along. My wife and i celebrated our 66th wedding anniversary last week, and Lord knows how opposite we are in most things, wow.
GOD’s Church should be like a Lighthouse, standing on a high promontory, shining a bright lazer light
360 degees with the words “COME, ONE AND ALL, COME TO SAFETY. Though you may have differences than some of us, you are always welcome in God’s house. In God’s house all skins are present. All sexes are present. Your Pastor may be a different sex, or different skin, but all are equal in God’s sight. Their is no qualifications to enter God’s house, none. All are welcome to come worship in spirit and in truth. None of us are pure. None of us are sinless. We, each and everyone of us must have the love of God in our souls, and His Grace and mercy our goal. Hallejah. Come Lord Jesus.
I must agree that many are sincere in their desire to see women ordained; similarly many, the majority, are sincere in their opposition to WO. It cuts both ways. The issue however, is that those loosing the vote seem to discount the leading of God in this vote. The whole tenor of the article we are answering is just that. You cannot condemn the ‘no’ voters as bigoted or archaic, while supporting the ‘yes’ voters as sincere and lovely and progressive. To me, a pastor who has no ax to grind due to my own studies, I am prepared to allow God to control this church even in this non theological issue. He will work things out in the end. When ‘losers’, I say this kindly, get upset and call the constituencies apart to reaffirm the women (which would have been ok it it was just that) pastors and to speak with some sort of defiance (and I say this very carefully), this is in my mind distrust in God’s leading. Yes, we can be unhappy with what God does or allows, but because we know God and love Him, we can lay everything at His feet. When Paul asked for healing God said, stop! Speak no more about this. Paul submitted to God. Therefore we also should all submit to God’s leading here until He changes things as He sees best. There is a qualification that everyone must have before salvation, that is, accepting Jesus’ offer of salvation and following Him in faith. Without faith is is impossible to please Him. And He will give us the faith if we ask Him. Let’s work together for the…
Ron,
That’s an inspired and thoughtful response (in my opinion). No one has resisted the will of God!
Like I pointed out in my earlier response, WO has not passed on four occasions: 1881 (Battle Creek), 1990 (Indianapolis), 1995 (Utrecht), and San Antonio (2015). Regardless of the politics and multi-dimensional thelological analyses, God’s will cannot be resisted and a noble judge, time, has proven how consistent the outcome has been on WO.
It is my earnest plee that we, as a people put aside our cherished positions and stay focused on the mission of sharing the “present truth” with the world.
An inference that God is in control of the SdA church is presumptuous. He is in control of HIS church and when leaders take over and put to a vote whether God’s church should not recognize the full equality of all its members, it is not His will. He created both genders in His own image; for man to do otherwise is in direct violation and substituting their own will and calling it God’s will.
Equality is never up for a majority vote anymore than turkeys voting for Thanksgiving or Christmas.
The Bible is full of bad decisions made by
God’s people, that delayed the work of God’s desire for His church. They keep walking backwards from the promised land.
It appears they have made many more unthinkable decisions that have caused great harm to God’s forward progress to reach His desire for His people. A majority vote does not necessarily indicate leading of the Holy Spirit. God will let His People keep shooting themselves in the foot, until they see and “think clearly”, before the result, their actions will bring. Bringing forward
the decision to vote at GEN. CONF. of the issue of WO, was tragic and unforgivable.
Resignations are in order.
What awful faulty logic.
Let me summarize what I’m getting here:
Point 1: GC Leadership has made WO a church splitting issue. (Implying it’s their fault we followed proper procedure. Intentional ambiguity?)
Point 2: Ted Wilson is causing more damage because he didn’t state sentences to polarize the vote.
(Suggesting biasing the delegates and leveraging position…)
Point 3: Similar to point #2, but allowing the power of Church scholars to have more/clearer sway, whether preventing items from going to Session, or swaying the vote if it does.
(Very Catholic-esque, with the learned being those who interpret scripture and have more of a say).
Point 4: GC is a threat because they allow issues to reach the Session that shouldn’t, especially when they have Calvinistic/Catholic origins. (Partial red herring vs the other side here, attributing historical causes for belief, rather than critiquing reasons they themselves maintain).
Point 5: We must yield our conscience to a higher authority.
(Ironic, since it endorses a decision that would have maintained a “Roman Catholic view of ordination”, implicitly condemned in #4. Reinforces how Ted Wilson should have polarized the vote, self-refuting #5 in favor of bias. Also suggests this issue goes against conscience, therefore significant enough to implicate faith, implicitly self-refuting #4).
Point 6: Our structure has given too much power to one man.
(Bogus, the author already hypocritically suggested his…
…wish that Elder Wilson would have swayed the delegates).
If this is the type of quality of authorship AToday aims for, then I’m honestly pretty disappointed in proportion to my expectations being positive.
We use to act strongly in order to comdemn whispering at our churches, but currently are able to take advantage of publics means to do that same work that we reprobate.
When we speaks ills about our church, we are able to do the same about our own families. We do have to mature. If you are not agree about some decisions taken by the church, it does not give you any right to openly express your desagreement on public and try to influence many others with yours criticsm.
It’s Ted Wilson’s fault that the vote for women’s ordination didn’t go through?
It’s the General Conference’s fault that the vote for women’s ordination didn’t go through?
I can hardly recognize our Church described in this article.
What many simply fail to admit and realise is the fact that there are many Seventh-day Adventists in the first world who hold the same traditional Adventist views as taught and practiced by our Pioneers and these fine Adventists in the first world stand united with the rest of the world church not because of cultural ties but because of truth. They too see WO as a theological issue in terms of God’s plan and purpose for mankind. As Creator, it is he who determines and defines the distinctive roles and functions of both men and women. It is therefore on this basis that any deviation from what God has designed should be seen as a departure from sound biblical theology.
“It is hardly possible for men to offer a greater insult to God than to despise and reject the instrumentalities that He has appointed to lead them.” (3T 355). Even if you would be of the opinion that the GC and/or Ted Wilson is wrong or did wrong, please consider David’s attitude towards erring Saul. This article has more of the spirit of Jehu than that of David…
Are there two very different ideas as to what adventists have been called to do?
What would you do if you lived in the 1850s and there wasn’t any denominational organization? Would it be to promote the organization? (Absurd question.) Or would it be to warn the world that the final false messiah will promote the idea that Christians should use civil laws to promote morality?
I’m 71. Ever since I was a teenager, I have believed that understanding which day is the sabbath day will help people avoid being deceived and I have believed that understanding the doctrine of conditional immortality (aka the state of the dead) will help people avoid being deceived. I have also believed, since I was a teenager, that neither of those doctrines is as central to helping people avoid deception as the religious liberty principle–the principle that EVERYONE should be free to base his religious beliefs, his religious practices and his religious prohibitions on HIS OWN study of the evidence.
People whom the Lord has called to a specific emphasis can create organizations to facilitate the promotion of that emphasis but I wonder whether, for some, the emphasis on religious liberty has been subverted by emphasis on organizational unity for the sake of unity. I like the picture vs. the frame analogy. Is the focus now so much on the frame that the picture has been forgotten?
Possible solution: Local adventists forget bureaucracy and focus on promoting the religious liberty…
“And yet he is asking Adventists all over Europe and North America to give up their convictions and act against their conscience. He is asking us to continue to denigrate women in the name of Jesus, even if we believe Jesus calls us to actively reverse this curse. Had he wanted to, he could have created space for all of us to follow our conscience. Women’s ordination is, after all, not a fundamental belief. Instead, he is asking us to yield to him?”
I am not sure if you are are aware but TW repeatedly said he would submit his view to the outcome of the GC vote which ever way it goes because he believes that God is still leading a people…
The GC in session was the space. He is not a monarch to be creating “spaces” according to what a group wishes. He doesn’t have that kind of authority. Just that fact that WO was even on the agenda for the 3rd time in a GC session is more that one could expect.
Repeatedly it has been stated by WO advocates the WO is not a fundamental believe and yet they are so pushing it forward disregarding the will of the church body to the point of splitting the church (if you argue that we are splitting the church just think about the churches official position in 3 GC sessions). Why fight for an issue to the point of division if something is not a fundamental believe!? Some say it’s a matter of conscience and at the same time it’s a church policy and not fundamental doctrine.
Harald’s grandfather, Karl Abrahamsen, was one of my Bible teachers and our principal. He taught us to love the Author of the Bible, the writings of Ellen White, and our church – around 1950. The tales of male headship was completely absent at that time. It is good to know that Abrahamsen taught his daughters to read the books of Ellen White, knowing that Harald’s mother found time while busy tending her patients as a loving physician to read the precious message to her son. And Harald’s father enriches the discussions in the local Sabbath School with his thoughtful questions and comments.
Johann Thorvaldsson, retired pastor
I’m wondering whether the main problem is the rejection of WO by the GC in Session. Many seem to be bitter about the outcome.
I wonder why some of those who are so much against the SDA church don’t start their own??
The GC was not supposed to take “kingly powers” and be like a papacy. http://tinyurl.com/GCpapacy
I’m afraid that the General Conference is becoming almost like an “Adventist Papacy,” assuming the kingly powers that the creation of the Unions was designed to avoid. http://tinyurl.com/GCpapacy
I know this post is almost a year old, and I realized no one will probable ever read this for a while. but I have always been very leery of the General Conference before I even joined the church. I never did like the top heavy nature of the church, and how tithe money is funneled through the whole system, all the way up to the General Conference. I have posted a link to the most recent tax filing for the Adventist church. Yes, I know it is a 501c(3) nonprofit, but they are required to file Form 990. There seems to be some dishonesty in its tax filing. On line 5, they reported they had zero employees in 2014. In the revenue section, they reported zero contribution in 2014 and the previous tax year. For total revenue they reported $137,920 for the year. They reported zero expenses for the year, and $2,184 in the previous tax year. As for their total net assets they reported $26,653,623 for 2014, and for the previous year they reported $16,987,703, so how to you grow your bank account by nearly $10 million, but only have $137,920 in revenue. They only way this happens is by not reporting tithe money received as revenue. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some Capital Beltway politics going on; I know they are outside of the Beltway, but only by 4 miles.
Could you provide the EIN on the 990 that you are dealing with? There are many charitable (non Religious) entities that have holdings and income to promote into charitable purposes.
This looks like Mission Strategies of Georgia (nursing home support for Adventist Health Systems Sunbelt).
The financial statements for the denomination are available in the Treasurer and Statistical Reports; published on the archive and news websites.
You know what I deeply apologize, here is the website where I accessed the form 990 http://www.guidestar.org/ViewPdf.aspx?PdfSource=0&ein=90-0866024. I just wasn’t paying attention, I just saw General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist, and didn’t see the Mission Strategies of Georgia.
Sorry I forgot to include the link in my previous post.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/900/866/2014-900866024-0c3b41e1-9.pdf