Submission? A Reaction to Recent Statements by President Wilson II
by John McLarty
Occasionally, I come across accusations that there are Jesuits at the General Conference. I am alternately amused by the silliness of these charges and saddened by the spiritual sickness they evince. Then I read President Ted Wilson's (President Wilson II) repeated calls for submission to the authority of the church, and I recognize a theme that has characterized Catholic spirituality for a thousand years.
Anyone who has known President Wilson II for decades finds accusations that he is a closet Jesuit so preposterous it's difficult to give a coherent response. On the other hand, he is following a trajectory described by his father in the Merikay case of movement away from anti-hierarchicalism toward a form of church governance reminiscent of the papacy. A primary reason for this movement is its effectiveness. If your objective is a global, coherent, long-lasting organization, the papacy is by far the most compelling exemplar. President Wilson II's commitment to the Adventist ideal of the remnant—not merely as a spiritual movement but as a recognizable, ordered church—requires the imposition of a discipline that can only be achieved through an authoritative hierarchy.
When Wilson urges people to submit to the church, by "church" he means the top clergy, more specifically he means the General Conference Executive Committee.* President Wilson II acknowledges people may have sincere, individual differences of conviction regarding women's ordination. They may believe their respective views are supported by the Bible. Still, he insists, they must subordinate their individual consciences to the decisions of the church (i.e. the GC Executive Committee which Wilson dominates). This is another baby step toward the establishment of an Adventist papacy. Two hundred years from now historians will be writing about the efforts (successful or unsuccessful) of Wilson II to secure the unchallenged primacy of the Bishop of Columbia in the hierarchy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (a.k.a. American Universal (catholic) Church).
The teaching of submission as a virtue has a long and venerable history in Judaism and Christianity. Passages in the Bible advocate submission. Certainly, we are warned about the folly we can get into when we reject wisdom from outside ourselves. However, the great heroes of the Bible were not mildly submissive.
Abraham directly challenged God's announced plans for Sodom. Moses twice flatly rejected God's stated judgment on Israel. The Syro-Phonecian woman blithely dismissed Jesus' explicit statement that she was asking him to operate outside God's template for his ministry. In each of these cases, God bent to the will of his challengers.
Jesus repeatedly rejected the authority of the church of his day. He gently chided Peter for acquiescing to the Jewish leaders' claims of authority over Jesus in the matter of paying the temple tax. (This would be the equivalent of messing with tithe policy in the Adventist Church.)
The great revivals in Israel were led not by the high priest but by the kings–Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoshaphat. On the other hand, Elijah and Elisha modeled principled, sustained opposition to the authority of King Ahab. The high priest Azariah with eighty of his fellow priests confronted King Uzziah when he overstepped his prerogatives and went into the temple to offer a sacrifice. In Israel God never consolidated authority into a single person or institution. The monarchy and the priesthood each traced its roots back to an independent inauguration by God. Neither was the "final word." Then there were the prophets–wild cards in the authority structure of Israel. Their role is filled in our day by bold preachers of the left and right who call for the radical application of principles that are deeply rooted in our heritage.
Ellen White celebrates the intervention of Frederick of Saxony to protect Luther from the authority of the church of his day. She repeatedly delights in the refusal of the reformers to submit to formally constituted church authority.
When President Wilson II orders people in the church to submit, he is voicing his sincere convictions about what people ought to do. He is fulfilling his divine mandate as he understands it. He is seeking to defend the institution of the church. This is the normal (and I would argue, appropriate) role for a church bureaucrat. Reformers ought to respect the sincerity of President Wilson's convictions.
On the other hand, reformers—other church bureaucrats, pastors, laity—who oppose President Wilson II, are also acting out of sincere conviction. Their commitment to God and justice requires them to exercise all available means compatible with integrity to shape the church according to the vision God has given them.
The Bible offers no tidy formula for resolving this conflict. Passages can be cited in support of both institutional primacy and prophetic (individual) primacy. Frequently in the Bible the formal structure of religion is shown to be opposed to the will of God as voiced by minorities and individuals. Other times dissident individuals are portrayed as mere rebels.
I look for the bottom line by measuring ideas and practices with the yardsticks of the Two Great Commandments and Micah 6:8. Neither mentions institutional conformity as a primary virtue.
*Wilson writes: "The General Conference Executive Committee, the highest deliberative authority of the worldwide church between General Conference Sessions, includes nearly 120 union conference and union mission presidents as voting delegates, along with elected officers, departmental directors, pastors, frontline employees and numerous laypersons." The inclusion of "laypersons" in this list is disingenuous. This committee is dominated by clergy, primarily the higher ranking clergy.
John McLarty is a contributing editor for Adventist Today.
'between General Conference Sessions' is of course the important fine print.
AT is really going all out on this. Is your denigration of Ted Wilson Christlike? Is this your version of love to misrepresent him? Establishment of a papacy??? Are you aware of how the belief of divorce was changed in this church where western delegates voted among themselves to put an unbiblical principle in our belief system? Ted Wilson is representative of the world church and you are clear not you are only representative of some of your western compatritots
The vote was at a GC session. If others were absent from a scheduled session, whose fault is that?
And so the vilification of our courageous GC president continues. Oh, well; they called Jeremiah a traitor and Elijah a "troubler of the people." He's in good company.
Do you object to the truthfullness of the facts, or the conclusions drawn from them? It seems strange that your response to a post describing what Ted Wilson has done as "the normal (and I would argue, appropriate) role for a church bureaucrat" is to describe it as 'villification'.
A missing piece in this issue that could promote understanding and resoultion is having an open and respectful forum for the contest of ideas. For this to work it is mandatory that people on both sides of the issue come together in a spirit of respect and with a mind open to learning. Unfortunately, this will be impossible under the leadership of Ted Wilson who, after his years in church leadership in eastern Europe and Russia, has a nearly "Soviet" attitude about leadership where all decisions come from the top and anyone who doesn't come into compliance is driven out of the church. This has resulted in many pastors being driven out of the church, entire congregations being disbanded and even one conference in Ukraine being dissolved. Are we in danger of Ted Wilson trying to do similar in North America over the issue of ordaining women?
A spirit of respect is a great idea, William. Unfortunately you violated that principle in the very next sentence by accusing Elder Wilson of having a "Soviet" attitude. More ad hominem attacks. The fact is that, as with any other organization, we have rules and regulations which govern the way we relate to each other and the world. When those rules are violated there must necessarily be consequences. To just allow the Union Conferences to do their own thing, in spite of 2 clear votes at GC sessions, would lead to chaos (maybe even some form of anarchy) and would be irresponsible on the part of the leadership of the GC.
The soviet example may not be as far-off as you think. The Communist party in Russia is actually a classical study in an ideological movement that was captured by, and ultimately destroyed by, the bureaucrats. In terms of authority structure, the Russian Communist party is/was a close parralel with the SDA church. Changing the structure of an ideological movement to a bureaucracy destroys the centre of the movement – its message and mission – and leads to the disengagement of its members and followers. Apart from during moments of nostalgia about 'the good old days', no one seems to want to revive the communist party. It became all about control by the bureaucracy in a quest for 'efficiency' – which meant whatever the bureacracy wanted it to mean. Will we go the same way? A bureaucracy is undoubtedly efficient, but it can never be an ideological/spiritual movement.
Isn't the method of 'election' in the SDA a Soviet model? The lowest levels elect the next level up and so forth until the top. All the members don't directly elect the President in modern Western democracies. I have as layperson nobody member of a local SDA Church, I have about as much say in the election of the next GC President as the average Chinese citizen of the next President of China.
Maybe, but it was based more on the US system. At the time the system was more indirect than now, although I believe it is still not a direct system where the popular vote is all there is.
Jean,
That is not an ad hominem attack but my opinion based on personal observations from years past and the numerous reports I have received from people who have worked under him in the past, in particular during his work in Russia and eastern Europe. My statement was polite and restrained compared to the views of some.
The reality, as illustrated by Dr. Patterson in a separate article, is that the unions have wide authority that is not subject to direction from the General Conference. You may disagree with whether or not it should be that way, but that will not change the reality of the unions having autonomy to pursue the courses of action they feel are necessary and beneficial.
This is not the first time I have heard calls from the General Conference president to not pursue a course of action that proved to be highly beneficial to the church. I have vivid memories from my childhood when the question was whether blacks should be allowed to attend a white church a few miles from Oakwood University. I was there when the General Conference president visited the white church and his counsel was to continue the racial separation. I praise God that wall of separation has been broken down and stomped into the earth because today I attend a multi-racial church that has been enriched by the mix of experience and ethnicity.
William,
Do you have some resources referencing Wilsons leadership style in Europe and Russia? I also disagree with his actions regarding WO, just have not heard anything of this sort before about him. Thanks
For the many members who have seen this authoritarian attitude developing through the years, why haven't denominational employees spoken out? Why has it been the members in the pew who have been objecting? Ever since Merikay and Glacier View it has been crystal clear that the hierarchy were feverishly working to gain control and weaken the influence of members.
Denomainational employees have the benefit of seeing close up how church politics works, but fear of retribution has prevented their speaking out. And now, we have come to this impasse that has been building for more than two decades but where have been the voices of those that are much closer to the inner workings?
It is now headed for congregationalism and schism unless the hierarchy does not cease threating the unions and all those who disagree with the G.C. This did not have to happen. It is always much easier to seek solutions by being willing to compromise, but the hierarchy has refused to even consider such a suggestion.
There is now no time for "suggestions" but action–action that will give unions the much needed freedom to choose what is best for them, not what is dictated for the world church.
If you want an example of a bureaucratic church that is extemely efficient and very good at control almost to the personal level, you need to look no further than the other great C19th American movement apart from the Adventist one. The Mormon church has been put forward by more than one social scientist as the closest thing in existence to an ideal bureaucracy (aka 'legal-rational' organisation). I would see the direction we are heading as more like the Mormons than the Roman Catholic church. The papal system does not sit well with Americans, but an efficient bureaucracy is seen as less threatening.
Kevin,
Have you studied the Mormon administrative structure? One of their big contrasts with the SDA church is the far greater level of trust they have in church leadership. This comes in a large part from the top leaders in each congregation being part of the next higher level of administration.
They have a number of items we could benefit from adopting. Top on my list is being lay-led and having no paid clergy except for a limited number of top administrators. My church is primarily lay-led with only a part-time pastor. The pastor is not our leader, but a spiritual resource. The church is growing and so strong that our conference president is using our church as a training site for young pastors to learn both how a church should operate and the importance of gift-based ministry.
William,
Sorry, I missed this post. I disagree with you about not having paid clergy, although I don't believe the clergy/laity distinction is biblical or Adventist. I do think the time when having one pastor in each church was either necessary or efficient is past. I would prefer to see a team of pastors at district level looking after a group of churches as resource people and the churches themselves led by elders. Having each senior elder on the conference executive committee would be a good idea in many ways. We do that above the conference level, where the president at each level is on the executive committee of the level above.
What I don't like at all about the Mormon system is that it is a bureaucracy where power flows down from the top. That makes for an efficient bureaucracy, but not an efficient movement. We need to keep power more diffuse and wherever possible it needs to be at the level which is dealing with the issue. The local church is where all day-to-day decisions need ot be made, and where all resources needed to do the work needs to be concentrated. I would like to see us return to where higher levels are mainly focused on coordination and development of resources that need to be developed at higher levels. Also providing long-term plans and overall policies. If members believed that the different levels of the organisation were truly there to help them carry out their mission in the local church, rather than imposing plans and ideas that often aren't appropriate, I believe they would have more trust in their leaders without any change in the sytem of government being needed.
Back in the late 1980s I traveled to Salt Lake City and spent several days studying in their central library, specifically looking for similarities between their organization and ours, their history and what we Adventists have experienced. The following are the primary comparisons and contrasts that struck me as significant:
1. The LDS Church continues to be led by an uninterrupted chain of prophets; a church conceived as a prophetic movement seems to preserve its centralizing gravity more readily if it remains a prophet-led organization.
2. As an apocalyptic organization each claiming to be the one and only true church, the stakes in a splintering of either or both the SDA and LDS churches are exceedingly costly, often involving some manner of armed, internal conflict or partitioning into separate camps separated by national borders.
3. When ministering primarily to one culture, a central authority in the LDS manner can provide relatively efficient and effective leadership. When ministering beyond the immediate culture, the system of segmenting authority by unions and conferences is far more effective, which is why (perhaps) the LDS people have been far slower to grow percentagewise outside of North America, but have consolidated tremendous presence and power in their church's homeland.
4. Both organizations put up with the existence of their respective independent presses, while dedicating their own literature and newspapers to stories that underscore how being Mormon produces blessings untold as the church moves forward with heartwarming cheer to fulfill the prophet's vision.
5. A strong contrast between Adventism and Mormonism is Mormonism’s ready acceptance of the proposition that LDS is primarily a culture, and secondarily a theological movement. The unsuccessful attempt by the prophet Joseph to forge his beliefs into a semblance of ancient and newly discovered Scripture makes it imperative for Mormons to appeal to a "burning in the breast" (i.e. emotion and feeling) as the imprimatur of the authenticity of its narrative. Neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon is read as cohesive narrative; they serve primarily as books of quotes and legends for use as cultural proverbs and sacred illustrations.
Bottom line: Mormonism and Adventism share many similarities. Their primary differences include Mormonism’s theology of a continuing line of living prophet in Salt Lake City; the centralization of power at the seat of the prophet; and Mormonism's appeal to emotion rather than to the written word to undergird its claim to be God's only true church for this time.
Kevin, I agree with you that we would be far better to have ministry teams at a district level than one-church-one-pastor systems. In my own limited life, I have seen Pastors who have fantastic skills in one area but wholly lacking in other areas.
Some are real intellectuals, some are great with kids and teens, some are very empathetic on a one-to-one level, some have a real hospitality (often with wives who are just as important to the Pastor), and some are liturgically innovative. The real problem is in my experience many, many pastors are very poor administrators – and finding a good administrator is a real gift worth their weight in gold.
I have often discussed with SDA friends and family that wouldn't it be great if these pastors were pooled together in a ministry team, where their strengths would work to cover each other's weaknesses?
There are two main problems :1) churches like to feel 'ownership' of 'their' pastor. The more churches they share their pastor with, the less 'ownership'; and 2) most pastors are not team players. They like being in charge and doing things their way. There are pros and cons to both reasons.
Stephen,
If you want to find an ideal mix of ministry qualities, let the Holy Spirit take over your church and develop members into ministry leaders as they are individually empowered. That is what we did at my church. Issues of strengths and weaknesses in a pastor cease to be an issue because God is in control and the members are the church. Yes, the conference has put us in a three-church district where we get about 25% of his time. We function just as well without a pastor as with one. They have two primary roles: guest speaker and ministry trainee learning about gift-based ministries. Our church is one of the fastest growing that I know about.
I absolutely love it. I have a ministry that I never could have imagined and it is adding to the spiritual vitality of the church. In the same way, others have grown into ministry roles. We enjoy a number of special blessings. God has led us to organize the church a bit differently than what is outlined in the Church Manual. We don't have a nominating committee that twists arms to get people to fill official positions for a year or two at a time. Instead we have a Connections Team that helps people discover their giftedness and ministry for a lifetime. We have a Spiritual Focus team that is dedicated to building and guiding the ministries of the church. We have an Administration Team that handles business affairs and is chaired by our head deacon. You would be absolutely amazed by our Business meetings. They are marked by respect, harmony and brevity. I've seen us review and approve the annual budget in as little as 15 minutes!
And I should just my understanding is that previously, when our pastors were more akin to evangelists, missionaries and pastoral leaders rather than professional theologians with theology degrees, the Church used to ordain a greater range of roles – at least in Aus and NZ. For example, some of my family members were ordained and attained very high positions in the Church, but never in fact ever had theology degrees – in fact they were accountants.
I wonder if a model going back to the future would be a good idea? Why don't we have different streams of professional ministry – why do they all need to have degrees in theology? Why don't we make all our professional 'clergy' do say a Bachelor of Ministry or other type of Grad Dip or Cert? But then have more variety of roles, where some do degrees in accountancy and business (becoming our administrators), some in theology (becoming our theologians and scholars), some teaching (recognising our Christian teachers as a ministry vocation), some health etc etc?
Is there any requirement that M.Div graduates have any business or administrative courses? That should be imperative, and would prove to be far more useful than knowledge of Greek and Hebrew which is practically useless except for large and highly educated members.
Smart pastors choose an accountant or successful business person as a treasurer or advisor, recognizing his incapabilities in those areas. Theology degrees are usually useless and lost on practical pastoring. More history and humanities would greatly benefit a pastor, also, and should be prerequisites for the seminar.
Southern Baptist friends have invited me to their churches over the years. When invited, I go with them. Most of the SBC Churches, the Pastor is the Religious Leader of the church. The Business Manger is the financial leader of the church. The separation works really well and there is no confusion.
Elaine,
The simple answer is, no, for two primary reasons. First, their course outline is too demanding to allow classroom hours in those areas. Second, business managers/accountants and pastors tend to be from different personality types and have such different aptitudes that it is not reasonable to expect a pastor to manage the business affairs of the church.
Given the differences in giftedness and aptitude between manager and preachers, it seems counter-intuitive to consider anyone with a pastoral background to hold management positions in our conferences, unions, divisions and the General Conference.
I agree. But if a pastor has difficulty in meeting monthly payments, doesn't the buck stop at his desk?
That most administrators up through the president of the G.C. are graduates of seminary and have religious degrees, is one reason that so many terrible financial debacles have occurred on their watch. Since, as you state, seminary students don't have time for business courses, it is inevitable that such losses have, and will continue to occur. I guess we simply "carry on."
Have you read Who Watches, Who Cares? It is a long litany of financial fiascoes costing the church (read tith payers) and each time, the lesson isn't learned and simply is repeated.
Kevin, that is exactly right. I just finished reading today a book I received yesterday: The Mormon Book Girl of a girl growing up within the very enclosed Mormon church. Their position on women is almost the same as Adventism in many parts of the world. Subordination must be taught as well as accepted.
What I think most of you miss is that Ted leader of the world church. what many of you are advocating for is some sort of special interests. I feel that many want a projection of the American system on to adventism where we have activists, lobbyists, special interests, etc
I think you misread what most of us want.
May I ask what political system Mr. Mushaninga lives under that does not have activists, lobbyists, and special interests? I would really like to know of such a country. And, of course, Adventism has all of these things and they have been operating during most of the history of our church because the church is a human institution.
Tapiwa,
You make a good point when you remind us that Ted Wilson is leader of a world church. That places him in a difficult situation because of the diversity of opinions on WO and the strength of those opinions in North America. But what may be his greatest challenge is the rigidity of opinions. He appears to have a cut-and-dried, yes-no, right-wrong attitude on the topic. I have no question that his appeals are sincere. What I question is his ability to understand that other views may be based in scripture and that God may be leading in a direction other than what he advocates.
Yes that is a good point. I'm thinking the way things have worked out is nearly ideal. Mr Wilson has advocated for what works at his level. The North American Division has done what it needs to do in not going directly against the GC, but leaving the issue to the local unions. Now local unions are deciding one way or the other. Everybody wins. Looks like unity to me.
One of the reasons why this issue may not be solved is that ppeople have been running around saying and publishing that the only reason people want ordination of women is for cultural reasons. That is somethign that keeps coming up time after time on forums and elsewhere. It seems many members in NAD, SPD Africa and elsewhere who ae gettign their information from those opposed to women's ordination are absolutely persuaded that there is not a single bit of biblical reasoning in the argument for women's ordination. And that NAD and others have never even attempted to argue from the Bible because they know they can't. They really do beleive there is one side defending the clear words of Scrtipture and another which doesn't use Scripture but relies on cultural arguments.
In 1985 part of the recommendation not to ordain women then also recommended that there was a need for education on this issue. While the opponents have used every method possible to get their message to teh divisions where it counts, the GC seems to hav ebeen reluctant to do any educating at all. The fact that the Ministry has published articles in favour of women's ordination seems to be more a result of the editor allowing that than of the GC purposely using the Ministry for that purpose. The GC should have been investing time and effort since 1975 in educating the world church on both sides of the issue. The fact that it largely has not means it has to bear a large share of the blame for our current impasse.
That the GC president has said that it is not a biblical issue, and that both sides are sincere is good, but it is probably too little and too late to make a difference in how the debate is apporached by many.
And the G.C. is getting the reward for neglecting to educated and inform the church. Now, they will have to begin a huge campaign of "reeducation" in some parts of the world to avoid schisms there! They have been so concerned that ordaining women in NAD would cause schisms, but it may come from another part of the world!
Thank you very much, John McLarty, for such an exceptional (and daring) article. The points you made, especially regarding the style and agenda of "President Wilson II", have been under private discussion for some time now among me, my wife/ex-wife, and a very few select other SDA's. I love AToday!
Where does Mr. Mushaninga live? Perhaps Zimbabwe or RSA? Perhaps we need to be more culturally sensitive to his circumstances….
It wouldn't hurt to be a bit culturally sensitive to everyone's circumstances, cultural or otherwise. A good place to start might be to not assume that everyone from Africa – or US or Australia – share common values and beliefs. Not meant personaly Joe, just an observation. We (western SDAs) have a long history of assuming we understand what other peopel think, and we have often been wrong. When the issue of WO first came up, many Australians and NZers stated that while it would be OK in Asutralia and NZ, the islanders would never go for it. In some areas they have voted in women elders and employed women as pastors quicker than some churches in Australia or NZ. It was interesting while working with both people from PNG and Polynesia to hear their views on what they thought white people in Australia and/or NZ would or would not approve of (those views only seemed to be shared after people found out I wasn't entirely white 🙂 ). Sometimes they were very perceptive, sometimes they weren't. That seems to be a universal human trait.
If Taipiwa could recognize that this decision in the PUC will have no affect on him wherever he lives. We in the PUC have no intention of voting for WO except in our own division.
Those who are so irritated by this vote who do not live in the PUC really haven't a dog in this hunt. If they live in the PUC, everyone within PUC must accept the 79% majority vote.
I have already given you good reasons of how this vote affects me Elaine. what about if the 21% in PUC do not want Women as elders? will it be imposed on them? You have a masssive double standard Elaine PUC is going against the majority of the world church and you agreed with them in their rebellion and yet you want those 21% to submit to the 79%. I believe that is hypocrisy. I find your Attempts allude that I am afraid of women power etc. The vice president of our country is female! the deputy prime minister is also female! I have no issue with female authority, I actually used to be an advocate for WO! but I have read the bible and I am conviced this is not biblical! Your efforts to paint me as some illiterate misygonistic barbaric african are eiltist and borderline racist. Only God knows my mind and my motives not you.
But since they have allowed the ordination of women, I am not aware of any local Church being forced to take a women elder. In my own conference, we have women pastors (commissioned not ordained), and there are a few local Churches who have refused to have a woman pastor – and they have been left alone.
At the end of the day, I fail to see how allowing WO will effect Churches that don't want women pastors? I can't imagine a women pastor agreeing to be called to a Church that doesn't believe in women pastors. If some of our local Churches do want women pastors, and want them to be recognised as 'ordained' rather than 'commissioned, what's the big deal?
Tapiwa,
The majority of any population has always won their right to that by virtue of the people's vote. Those who voted against it will not suffer. Have you told us a single way that you are now suffering because of that PUC vote? Has your church suddenly appointed a female pastor? Is you fear justified? Only you know why you are so passionately opposed to women pastors, but surely you realize that if each individual got his way, there would be nothing but anarchy.
Perhaps there are people in your church who are both happy and unhappy with this decision. Life is full of disappointments and maturity helps to grow in how we relate to those disappointments.
You have a choice: you can continue to write and complain or continue to read and study your Bible both in and out of church. Unless you are female (?) you have failed to give a single way in which this is affecting you personally, other than feeling that all those delegates at the PUC meeting were very short sighted and did not interpret the Bible as you do. Live with it; all the complaints will change nothing.
Whenever the Word of God is ignored or misused to suit one's agenda, someone suffers. It may not always be immediately quantifiable, but it will eventually produce its fruit.
Jean, not sure what that is saying? One could apply your statement in favour of WO. One could argue that women called by the Holy Spirit to ministry are certainly suffering discrimination because others are following Papal Tradition rather embracing the egalitarian message of the Gospel as clearly set out in Gal. 3:28. As for good fruit, the one place in the world where the SDA Church does allow female ordination is China – and they are exploding in numbers.
Elaine
That's the double standard I am talking about you reject the majority of the world church and want to impose your views. The church rejected WO twice so maybe you should live with it.
The GC has never voted on WO itself. They voted in 1990 to not proceed with ordination of women pastors because of teh risk to unity. They voted in 1995 not to allow the decision on WO to be made by the divisions. Since 1975 the GC has consistently avoided putting WO itself to a vote. At the same time the GC has voted to allow women to work as elders and be ordained, it has voted to ordain women as elders, it has voted to allow women to work as non-ordained pastors, it has voted to allow non-ordained pastors to do everything that an odained pastor can do except organise churches. Is it worth withholding ordination just so we can claim women cannot organise churches?
Mr. Mushaninga insists that there are efforts on this thread to “paint him (as an) illiterate misygonistic barbaric African.” That is a serious charge and needs to be supported with specific quotes. I can’t find any statements that use such racist and sexist words. If Mr. Muschaninga can not cite where they have been used to refer to him, he needs to apologize for using them here.
I don't think any 'side' can claim moral purity insofar as name-calling. I remember someone recently suggesting Adventists were all sheep, or that Adventists had 'shrunk heads', and I don't recall any call for them to apologize. I think the Moderator does a good enough job trying to calm things down when they get too personal.
Beating people over the head with the Bible also causes suffering. Love is always kind and gracious, is not overbearing. The Golden Rule is also in the Bible, but too seldom quoted and used.
Elaine "Bible Thumping" to the conservative Christian is that we love Jesus so much His word is in our hearts and you can hear it working…thump-thump……..thump-thump………. Don't just quote live it…..thump-thump……
That is why conservatives are known for being loving and gracious.
where did I insult Tim?????????????
Historically, the patriarch culture has prevailed globally. In the US OF A, this is rapidly changing. We
have a greater sense of the value of the individual, male or female, in most areas of society. Most of the world is still rigidly controlled by the patriarch culture. i believe acceptance for leadership should be on ability, personality, conviction, and dedication, not on wheather the candidate is male or female. In my business career of 40 years, i had greater expertize, preparation, follow thru of programming, & execution of planning by the female team members, by far than the male associates.
i have 43 years with the SDA church, serving in local church supportive leadership, member of executive committees, contituancy councils, advisor to conference leadership with business expertize, where in every case of large grandiose projects, the professional business recommendations were totally ignored. In each case the following through of the projects failed with losses of millions of dollars to the church. In each of these instances, the holier than thou, egotistical arrogant response
from the conference leadership was in questioning your faith. Brothers, all we need is faith, the Lord
will provide. The Lord will also permit foolishness. i have served with female church staff on many
projects, including building a $400K elementary school. We secured pledges for the total, had 50%
cash in hand, & paid the total in 3 years. We had Josephine Cunnington Edwards for our initial theme
promotion to launch the successful program. i have witnessed great contributions of spiritual leadership and committment from women in the SDA church body. i have been inspired by the witness of these educated women and their excellence. The scriptual references to women in most
cases, raised them up, not tread on them as second class, or worse. i have not witnessed any fickleness or womanly manipulation, ever, in my association with women in the church.The Bible messages are not for private interpretation. Now is the time for the SDA church to benefit from the excellence of prepared dedicated women, to any position in the church. i believe in a church organization that has input flowing up from the laity, as well as proposals flowing down from the elected servants to vote on. There should be graceful acceptance from the church at large to recognize the great culture differiental of Unions. Where there is 66% or greater approval by constituancy, accept their decision to make changes. Don't create heat and schism where not needed. The GC does not have a monopoly on Spiritual led power. Should a Union consider a flagrant departure from general three angels messages, they would have left the SDA church; they wouldn't have to be excommunicated. Let's have a large tent that has the love of Christ for all.
Ellen White recommended letting business men run the business side of the church. Even her husband ignored her on that issue. I have found a lot of pastors really consider themselves to be entrepreneurs at heart, and often feel the need to run some sort of business, even if it is only as a money-losing hobby. That may make for good evangelists, but rarely good administrators. Those who do seem to be good adminstrators don't seem to be entrepreneurs. Perhaps we should choose our presidents for their pastoral skills and insist they become primarily spiritual leaders rather than CEO's as if the church were a business.