Top Officers of Adventist Denomination Appeal for Respect, Admit Split on July Vote About Ordination
October 12, 2015: As the annual meeting of the Adventist denomination’s governing body got down to business yesterday, a statement from the organization’s top officers was read appealing for “all entities to respect the decision” about clergy ordination voted in July at a General Conference Session held only once every five years. The vote was against the idea that the ongoing debate about women in the ordained clergy could be settled separately in different regions of the world.
The statement began by acknowledging the conflict. “There are times … when committed Christians have differences [and] these instances necessitate mutual respect, thoughtful listening, heartfelt understanding and submission to the Holy Spirit’s leading. … This is certainly true regarding the vote on July 8, 2015, on the subject of ordination at the General Conference Session in San Antonio.”
The statement also reaffirmed “that the Holy Spirit imparts gifts on all believers,” including women. “The vote taken in San Antonio does not change … the role of women in the life, mission and practice of the church,” the statement continued.” It referenced specifically “General Conference and division working policies” summarizing these policies in a summary that both sides can hopefully accept; “Godly, Spirit-filled women are powerfully witnessing for Christ and being used by the Holy Spirit to make major contributions for the advancement of His kingdom.”
Those who oppose the ordination of women pastors as clergy interpret the vote in San Antonio as prohibiting the practice, while those who have ended gender exclusion in some judicatories in China, the United States and Europe point out that the vote did not authorize any policy changes. In 1901, under the leadership of Ellen G. White, the General Conference (GC) Session voted to create Union Conferences with the specific purpose of decentralizing authority in the denomination and decreasing the direct powers of the GC itself. The working policies assign Union Conferences authority over ordination.
Many leaders in the denomination are caught in the middle on this controversy. They fear what the statement refers to as “unilateral and independent action” because it could result in “fracture and fragmentation,” although they do not accept the argument of hard-liners that permitting women to lead congregations or conferences is unbiblical. The statement recognizes the role of women as ordained elders in local congregations and commissioned ministers employed as pastors while seeking restraint on those organizations that have begun to ordain women as clergy.
“It is ironic that this has become such a big issue among Adventists,” a historian of religion told Adventist Today. White is the most important founder of the denomination and she was issued credential as an ordained minister by the GC for most of her life. At an 1881 GC Session the delegate supported a resolution authorizing the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, although it was never fully implemented. In the 1970s and 1980s the GC studied the topic and took steps toward full inclusion of women pastors in clergy ordination. But at 1990 and 1995 GC Sessions, as well as the one last summer, a shrinking majority of delegates voted against allowing the practice to be decided on separately by major sections of the worldwide denomination.
“The vote at the GC Session was supposed to bring closure to this discussion by allowing the issue to be addressed closer to the local level and allowing for cultural differences,” a retired denominational officer told Adventist Today. “Some in leadership pointed out more than a year ahead of time that this was probably a mistake; that it would not bring healing; that it would be better to address the issue in the body that makes policy for the denomination. Now we are back where we were.”
With so many different views in our church, we must define carefully what we mean by respect for persons and ideas, or we could propel ourselves towards a church that is no longer truly authentic and attentive, or truly concerned for a search for truth.
I value the freedom to disagree with others on controversial topics. In response to the shutting down of debates and of public speakers on controversial topics, or of unions and conferences allowing for feedback about votes on Women’s Ordination, it is essential that persons be allowed and encouraged to speak freely. The new rebellion is for those who will actually stand up in the search for truth. To be sure, there are many safer political alternatives in our day about waiting for more committee reports or study commissions to weigh in.
Will you be a part of a new expression of openness, one in which we thoughtfully engage in arguments on controversial issues in the face of bullies who would shut down critical thinking and argumentation? Will you stand for true tolerance that protects the free exchange of ideas, even for the person with whom you disagree? Will you do so with gentleness and authentic respect, even when you are misrepresented and verbally attacked?
Shutting down or shouting down dissenting voices on controversial issues is not moral progress.
What are we afraid of?
“What are we afraid of?” Lose of power among male leaders.
I don’t think people who cowardly hide their name should be allowed on here.
Its not the males who lead… its the women who run our church…
“Some in leadership pointed out more than a year ahead of time that this was probably a mistake; that it would not bring healing; that it would be better to address the issue in the body that makes policy for the denomination. Now we are back where we were.”
Yep.
Behold i stand at the door and knock if any man hear my voice and open the door i will come in to him and will sup with him and he with me. Christ has many fellowers in the world, like the stars in the day time you can’t see them but when darkness appear they shall be seen. Today SDA is like Isreal in the first advent of Christ, they were blessed with many things yet did not accept the saviour. The greater we reject the light given the greater the darkness.”but if thine eye be evil thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! We must not follow the church but give the heart to God to complete what He has purpose for us. Why are we always opposing the truth?
“The greater we reject the light given the greater the darkness.”
People on both sides of this issue would strongly agree with your statement. The problem here is that we as a worldwide body, cannot agree on what is truly the “light” on this question. Each side sees the other as “rejecting the light”.
If you take the time to read through the body of papers presented by our most able and dedicated theologians on this question, you will see that these good men (and a few women) are deeply divided on this question, though the majority would be willing to permit ordination of women.
After the GC Session in Utrecht, I had a very candid one-on-one conversation with a gentleman who is now a retired “high church official”.
He made two predictions:
1) The longer we continue to engage women in ministry while refusing to ordain them, the more devaluation there would be of having a distinct ordained clergy, because the list of functions reserved exclusively for ordained clergy would dwindle and eventually might vanish entirely. He was right.
1) Sooner or later a woman would be elected as a conference president. At that point the GC would find it very difficult to keep “kicking the question down the road”. He was right.
Boy, were they ever right! And we continue to kick the can down the road on this issue and its becoming rather maddening. Pastor Wilson’s sermon delivered at the council is a piece designed to strike at those that see things differently as to WO. He is saying that those dedicated theologians, men and women, are not taking up a plain reading of God’s Word. If they did they wouldn’t be entertaining any ideas of ordaining women. It’s this kind of leadership that continues to be unable to bring about any sensible and spiritual resolution to this matter.
Being always the “team player”, I wonder what would Ted have said to the Annual Council, had the vote gone the other way? Would the Lord have spoken differently to him?
So I am now wondering when will come the inevitable appeal to all of those hundreds of theologians who have erred, that in the interest of “unity” they must now teach and write as Ted sees things or as the GC Session has voted, regarding this question?
Will Ted then proceed to try to “reform” the overwhelming majority of the AU Seminary professors who do not know how to read their Bibles as “plainly” as he, regarding this question? Where only a handful have not “bent their knees to Asherah (the female consort of Ba’al)”?
Maybe it is time for the GC officers to review the parable of the Wheat and the Tares?
Re Asherah – some sources indicate that she was the Consort of El and the Mother of Ba’al, rather than the Consort of Ba’al. I will leave that for my archaeologist friends to sort-out – it really makes no difference to me 8-).
Ellen White herself, should be admonished for “not taking up a plain reading of God’s Word”. There is no record that she always donned a head-scarf when she prophesied in public. Shame on her for daring to preach to thousands of men with her hair uncovered!
My Calvinist relatives (who espoused “male headship”) used Ted’s “plain reading of God’s Word” to condemn Adventists for following the counsel of Ellen, and publishing her books. The fact that Adventists continue to allow a woman to exercise spiritual authority over men a century after her death, is clear proof that we are an unbiblical cult.
“these instances necessitate MUTUAL respect, thoughtful listening, heartfelt understanding and submission to the Holy Spirit’s leading”
I wonder how Ted would explain the MUTUAL (my emphasis) in this statement, with his reported insistence that everyone who disagrees with his “plain reading of God’s Word” is simply wrong. If he is appealing to others to subordinate their own view for the common good then is he willing to do the same? If indeed he insists on publicly condemning those who disagree, this suggests the answer is NO.
Respect is a two-way street. You cannot expect voluntary respect from those to whom you show no respect. So if this is not voluntary respect, then is it compulsory respect he expects?
We show our true character by how we treat those who disagree with us. My question to both sides is this – Whose character is being modeled here? That of God or that of Satan?
…”Pastor Wilso’s sermon delivered at the council is a
piece designed to strike at those that see things differently as to WO.” He is right. EGW will wroth similar; “Believers are not to rest in SUPPOSITIONS and
ill-defined ideas of what constitutes truth. (or see
things differently) “Their faith (our faith) must be
firmly founded upon the word of God”… ( Their no such
a thinks “see things DIFFERENNTLY” beside Word of God. So,
If someone is not in harmony with Bible then he, she is
as WO! Does so called “dedicated theologians, men and
women, some of them in regard of women ordination “see
things differently then what is written in the Bible
and “rest on suppositions” but not on the Bible, So,
do we Adventist rest on Bible or on theologians wisdom
or suppositions? May I quote something from EGW (without contexts, to illustrate what going on whit our churches and all level of leadership.
“God will arouse His people; If other means fail, HERESIES will come in among them, which will sift them, separating the chaff from the wheat. The Lord calls upon all who believe HIS WORD to awake out of sleep…” Our work by God grace is to arouse from the sleep and put christen man in his God given place in the Church, and women in there place in the Church based on the Bible instruction and will be harmony among us.
Thank You. Ziva Grujin, BC Canada. All EGW quote was from
the Book Maranatha the Lord is Coming by EGW P. 45 February 6.
Aha! Two 1) points. Very apropos. Just like the current controversy on WO.
“The statement recognizes the role of women as ordained elders in local congregations and commissioned ministers employed as pastors while seeking restraint on those organizations that have begun to ordain women as clergy.”
And herein lies the heart of the problem. For most of my adult life the GC leadership has attempted to maintain this “half pregnant” stance toward the role of women in ministry.
Even Doug Batchelor is said to support women in pastoral ministry as long as they are under the authority of men. But this is a theological “fig leaf” unless the ministry of these “pastorally submissive women” is limited to the women and children in the congregation. Otherwise, the “pastorally submissive women” could still be construed as “exercising authority” over adult men, which is presumably taboo.
Can a woman instruct a man in the teachings of the Bible or of the church? Since the time of Ellen White, we have employed “Bible workers” in this capacity, but we issued them “missionary credentials” rather than “ministerial credentials”. And only man with “ministerial credentials” could baptize said man. But now in some parts of the world, these women can be ordained as local elders, and they can be permitted to baptize! If I baptize someone in the name of the Holy Trinity, could that not be construed as exercising “spiritual authority”?
(to be continued)
As I see it, there are only two intellectually honest stances that a conference can take that would comply with the current GC “canon law” regarding Ordination:
1) Do not issue any form of “ministerial credentials” to women. Women can only be employed in religious vocations where “missionary credentials” suffice (church school teachers, Bible workers, conference staff, etc).
2) Do not ordain anyone at all. And the corollary is to not elect anyone to fill positions reserved (by “canon law”) for ordained ministers. In the absence of an Ordained Minister, a local elder can officiate in congregational rituals. In the absence of an Ordained Minister, a local elder can officiate in congregational rituals. In the absence of a Conference President, some other conference officer (eg an unordained Secretary or Vice President) can officiate at meetings and occupy the ex officio seat on boards and committees.
For those who consider the foregoing proposal a bit daft, let me cite a precedent from GC “case law”.
“Ella Simmons holds the distinction of being the first woman to serve as a vice president of the Seventh-day Adventist world church. Simmons was elected at the 2005 General Conference Session, held in St. Louis, Missouri.” (cf GC web site)
Dr Simmons would also be the first Unordained GC VP in a very long time.
Both in 2010 (Atlanta) and in 2015 (San Antonio) Dr Simmons chaired GC business sessions. Presumably the Ordained Men delegates with strong moral objections to being under the authority of an Unordained Woman, boycotted those particular sessions in favor of shopping or sight-seeing? Or if found present and participating, they wore the “fig leaf” that she was only exercising “parliamentary authority” or that she was ministering under the authority of the GC president?
Regardless, they re-elected her twice on unanimous votes.
On the other hand, nobody ever elected Ellen White to anything conference office, that I know of. Nor did they elect her to any prophetic office. When she told conference officers what God wanted them to do, and on occasion took the initiative to organize and do it herself, she was merely exercising “prophetic authority” over Ordained Men, but never once did she exercise “spiritual authority” or “administrative authority” (pick your preferred fig leaf 😎 over them.
The question center stage in the women’s ordination discussion is whether or not this denomination is primarily an authoritarian organization or a Spirit-driven ministry. Jesus pointed out in His teachings that the “Gentiles” exercised “authority”; by contrast, Jesus’ Church was made up of His “friends.”
Ours is a Church raised up in the 19th century, a brutally authoritarian/militaristic time, and by and large the US denominations that rose up during that century are highly authoritarian and male-affirmative.
During my family’s time at the recent General Conference session, it was refreshing to note in conversations with our Hispanic brothers and sisters the change of tone, now much more accepting of women in general spiritual leadership than in the past. In many ways I am very hopeful for our Church. Compared to our friends the Mormons and the JWs (two other 19th-century major denominations), Adventist women are consistently, if slowly, moving toward Spiritual parity. Top-down authoritarianism faces an impossible task in attempting to squelch what is now more than just a “trend”; it is a spiritual movement.
The leadership is limited to an “appeal” as the current church policy gives unions the right to ordain in their region. Unless it has been written in revised church policy since S.A., a majority vote cannot change church policy as it must come from the G.C. in a revision sent to all unions.
Has that been done? Until then, it is only “please do this” as the G.C. cannot COMMAND that all members must adhere to delegates’ votes.
Pastor Ted Wilson should resign. Normally when a leader is not capable of putting together his followers, the next step should be to step aside and leave the place for those who are capable to do the work. The church now is falling apart, if the Europe has decided never to ordain neither the men nor women and some strong conferences in USA have also decided to reaffirm the ordination of their women and again in carribean islands some people have decided to detach from SDA Church and become Sunday worshippers, what would be the next step for Pastor Ted? Most of those people who have refused to vote for WO come from the caltures, which they have cherished all along and yet they associate themselves with the SDA Church. I know one country which does not allow women to pray in public and they don’t even allow them to go to pulpit others are requiring their women and daughters to kneel for them. Why then should the SDA Church be enslaved with such mentalities? where are we going. Some other Church Leaders are so called Pastors but they are still worhiping demons in the name of their fore fathers. A good example is a Pastor who was practicing that worship in a certain country and he was offering bodies of those he killed to his demons. The constrast is that when GC Meeting is held, you find that Pastor Ted Wilson is surrounded by these double deallers and wooing them!
This kind of argument is not “won” with votes. It is “won” with hearts and minds. See the current distractions under the headings of pro-life vs. pro-choice, gun control or lack of control, immigration, war, sexual identity,etc. Votes, and “because I said so” won’t work. We all ought to be working on hearts and minds. Tell me what you think. Don’t tell me what I have to think. Further, don’t try to force me to think your way. Not so much discussion and persuasion, but demonstration. Relationships, not arguments bring respect. Hence washing of feet becomes a good indicator of respect.
A “functional” organizational split in the Adventist Church has already occurred in North America and parts of Europe. A symbol of this is that the North American Division is relocating it headquarters outside the GC building. The question is will “rebellion” spread to other First World regions and, if so, might it start impacting on cash flow issues into the GC coffers? That’s the only factor that might really scare the upper parts of the Adventist administrative structure at the GC level.
Parts of the Adventist hierarchy at mid levels in North America and Europe have not been implementing a number of decisions made at the “higher” levels for several years. The recent GC session did nothing to change that. The “decision” is being ignored while, of course, it is being denied that it is being ignored. A very understandable thing to do.
An actual organizational split is highly unlikely unless, of course, the radical right wing of the church forces it. Even administrators who would “like” to “do something” know that it is impossible without grave repercussions and unintended administrative, legal, and institutional consequences. There is too much of the organization that is needed to pay salaries and benefits, for retirement funding, medical insurance premiums, and covert and overt subsidies on housing and college tuition to name a few issues. There is no way that any of that would be placed in jeopardy, even if some right wing ideologue would like to see…
Don, please be straight forward.
“Top Officers of Adventist Denomination Appeal for Respect, Admit Split on July Vote About Ordination”
Really? An appeal for R E S P E C T? Someone call Aretha Franklin. The problem is the lack of understanding by GC leaders about what that word RESPCT means.
Respect is closely related to symmetry in a relationship. Formal and informal hierarchies are ubiquitous in organized societies. The boss manages the workers, adults discipline children, teachers instruct students, and doctors treat patients. Respect is commonly seen as deference to status within the recognized hierarchy. The worker is expected to show respect to the boss and the patient is expected to show respect to the doctor.
A more powerful and more meaningful respect occurs, however, when the boss respects the worker and the doctor respects the patient. Respect is recognizing this human connection. Since power establishes a asymmetrical relationship, demonstrating respect through a symmetrical relationship is the voluntary sharing of power. It acknowledges that the bonds of humanity are more important that the trappings of power and the formality of a hierarchy. Respectful relationships are mutual and reciprocal. Respect often works against the grain of bureaucracy, providing a partial antidote to its frustrating impersonalization.
The “brethren” followed Brother Ted down the wrong path and did not respect the voice of dissent within the church.
The fact is, it is not the conservative faction that fears loosing control of the church. It is the liberal faction that are now quaking in their spiritual boots.
The liberal agenda has controlled the church for decades, and now there is a real challenge to this liberal agenda. So it is true, the “trouble makers” in the church are the conservatives who demand accountability for all the evil the liberals have brought into the church. And the liberals don’t like it. Ted Wilson is somewhat rare as a conservative voice at the top. Yes, he has support or he would not be there, but it is still a unique situation that has created a real high level challenge all through the church community.
As for “trouble makers” in the church, we should review the bible and we will find the trouble makers were men like Noah, Elijah, Isa. Jer. and all the prophets. And it was Luther and Protestantism to demanded accountability and EGW and Adventism that confronted the world with “present truth”.
And of course, Jesus, the ultimate “trouble maker” who challenged the church authority of His day of abandoning clear bible teaching and opting for human speculation to maintain their authority over the people.
Wilson is unique and a kind of “thorn in the flesh” to the liberal agenda that has controlled the spirituality of Adventism for decades. And to the degree that he advocates conservative values, he will get support from those who agree with him.
In the commission to His disciples, Christ outlined their work and their message. Human teaching was shut out. There was no place for tradition, for men’s theories and conclusions, or for church legislation. No laws ordained by ecclesiastical authority are included in the commission. Every church member should understand that God is the one to whom to look for an understanding of individual duty. No man is to step in between him and the duty that God has pointed out to him.
Christ is our Leader and Commander, The Holy Spirit, is Sovereign and Guide. Is being a member of Christ’s body not enough? Must one be connected with an external organization?
The evangelical system is the pre-eminence of the spirit above form: the Catholic system is the pre-eminence of form above spirit. According to the former, it is the connection of a soul with Christ, that that soul’s connection with the church is involved: according to the latter, it is in the connection of the soul with the church that there is involved that which it bears with Jesus Christ. In the evangelical system it is grace, spiritual capacity, that legitimates the charge of the ministry, whereas in the Catholic system, it is the charge, the ordination to the holy ministry, that communicates grace—spiritual capacity….the above was presented to the GC May 27 1909 by Alonzo T. Jones
The almost incessant fussing because women are not ordained is becoming tedious and boring. It may be time for the GC leadership to take action against those entities that are defying the 2015 vote at SA.
Continuing insubordination is divisive. WO is of little importance with respect to spreading the Gospel and an incursion of the feminist movement into the Remnant church.
The GC leadership may be right of center theologically, but they are not stupid. They know that they don’t dare “take action against those entities that are defying the 2015 [GC vote].” They are aware of the economic realities and are not about to “kill the golden goose” which supplies the church with large amounts of its funding. Sorry about that.
Desire for “Respect”, has caused millions of murders. A person, demanding respect, is a arrogant ass. Unless there is “concern” for a brother, whether a superior as society determines, or an employee, a slave, a underling of any type; there is no respect unless it is truly mutual. Ask the Sicilians.
The crisis of Women’s Ordination is past. The Unions who have ordained women will continue to do so, and or as in some European Unions, not have any ordained Pastors, male or female, which is the ideal solution. And the GC will continue to ignore.
“the GC will continue to ignore”
Earl,
I agree with everything else you wrote in this comment. But the current GC leadership will not continue to ignore. Rather they will continue to “jawbone” about this every chance they get. And they will refuse to acknowledge any women that are elected to higher church offices (except at their own Sessions).
Beyond that there is little they can do. So the more noise they make, the more credibility they lose.
In this respect they are like politicians who continue to talk about things they cannot control. Why? Because their constituencies care about these things.
After reading this and the comments various folk have posted, I am reminded that I consider what Jesus did and said as the most important guidelines of what God wants for me as a follower. I cannot claim to be a Christian unless I am looking to Christ and try to act like Him as best I can. So when I read in Scripture how Jesus interacted with women, like the woman at the well where He sent her back to her village to tell everyone what she discovered (and remember in that society, women were not considered reliable witnesses) Jesus was and already had turned the cart upside down. When Jesus after the resurrection, at the tomb, apostled Mary to take the Good News of his resurrection back to the other disciples, He was treating Mary as an apostle and full-fledged disciple right there on the spot. This weighs in my estimation far and above anything what Paul and other writers of the Bible may have written and colors anything else I read in the Bible. Jesus ordained more than these two women to be preachers, messengers, etc so I consider these things to be stronger guides than whatever the “male headship” might try to make a case out of.
I find the Bible to be silent when it comes to both the approval and denial of WO. Solid arguments can be made for both sides using the Bible, and still, both sides will be right. Women play a pivotal and irreplaceable role within the church, but I have yet to see a Biblical example of women exercising priestly positions (Priesthood in the olden days, Apostleship and Discipleship in the NT and beyond).
Women were everywhere (Biblically) lending a hand, but they just were not placed in those specific priestly roles (which today, IMO, would = pastors).
I work for a company where oftentimes I have to carry out the duties of my boss in her absence; she’s the Director of the company. I can never presume that, because I carry out her duties well (IMHO), I deserve to hold the title of Director. I already have my role. Us women have to roll up our sleeves and help to carry out the purpose of the church through serving in whatever capacity we are called to serve. If we happen to be serving as unordained pastors, because that’s where our God-given mission took us, then so be it.
I believe that just because we may carry out certain duties/roles does not mean that we are automatically entitled to hold the title of said duty/role. But that’s just my opinion.
In spite of my opinion, I still do not see Biblical grounds to deny women’s ordination… I’m on the fence when it comes to this one.
“Women were everywhere (Biblically) lending a hand, but they just were not placed in those specific priestly roles (which today, IMO, would = pastors).”
The problem is that the opinion that the OT priestly role is equivalent to the contemporary pastoral role is completely unbiblical. Repeatedly in the NT, all believers, both men and women, are described as a priesthood. In the Christian church, we are ALL priests.
Fernando,
“Repeatedly in the NT, all believers, both men and women, are described as a priesthood. In the Christian church, we are ALL priests.”
Yes, that is right. But the attributes of the Priesthood is of Christ, in us. Anyone without the Holy Spirit does not have the Priestly nor Kingly attributes of Christ in them.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal. 3:26-28
“To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” Rev.1:4-7.
I also agree with your point, and that is sometime I’ve considered as well.
Yet, in spite of this point, female apostles did not exist in the NT and beyond. (Remember, I wrote below that if the WO movement truly seeks equality for all persons who qualify to be ordained, regardless of gender, then I’d gladly support it).
We are all disciples, priests, etc. Yet, as accurate as that is, then why can’t we find at least one example (only one would be more than sufficient for me) of a woman purposefully placed in the role of Apostle/top leader of the church (in the Bible)?
I do not believe that is it because of the custom of the olden days. If that were the case, then all other counsel contained in the Scriptures would become obsolete today becasue said counsel was dispensed in the olden days.
The Bible has an example for just about everything you can think of. If the example is not directly expressed, then it is enveloped in a principle.
Why is the Bible silent, then, about either the approval or denial of WO?
However, what I am wondering is, what is the difference between an unordained female pastor – who currently leads an SDA congregation – and her ordained male counterpart.
Do unordained female pastors, (in North America specifically), get paid less than their ordained counterparts? Do unordained women pastors carry out different duties than their male counterparts? Are unordained women limited in the roles they play as senior pastors of their congregations?
What is being sought; to gain the ordained title for women, or to truly have women be equal and on par with men? It seems to me that, in most cases (again, in North America), the only difference between the two is the word Ordained. (I am specifically referring to unordained female pastors, not to unordained women who work in other leadership roles.)
Having said all of that, I’d gladly lend my support to the WO movement IF they are truly and sincerily seeking ordination for ALL qualified unordained lay workers in the church, regardless of gender.
There are thousands of male lay pastors who are also unordained. I believe if we’re going to seek fair ordination practices, then please, let us advocate for all deserving persons. Let’s not just make this about women.
“Ordained” “Commissioned”–what’s the difference? Because words have meaning, that’s why. Otherwise, why use a title?
You’re absolutely correct!
And the attached meaning to the word Ordination automatically places a glass ceiling above those who do not hold the title. (I can’t remember who, but someone else mentioned this in another article).
It’s just not fair.
Honestly, I believe that we need to strip ourselves off the title. I was deeply moved by the example my brethren on the other side of the vineyard set. They’d rather strip themselves off the Ordination title, rather than be divided. I do not see that move on their part as rebelious, but regard it as a beautiful, loving sacrifice on their end.
They have truly understood, IMO, the importance of unity, and have regarded sucha as way more important than the who’s right/wrong in the argument of WO.
In the NAD, unordained women employed as pastors are paid the same as ordained male pastors. They have substantially the same authority and conduct weddings, communion, etc. The only real difference is the credential and eligibility to be a conference president, ordain ministers, organize churches, etc.
Lay pastors are usually ordained as local elders. They are not full time employees. They are part time volunteers.
Thank you very much for clarifying that!
Unless there has been a change in the Working Policy mentioned above where unions have the authority to manage their districts, the G.C. can not make any changes to subvert that authority and take over administration of the unions.
That is why it is an “appeal” and not an order. The G.C. has no authority over the ordinations made in the unions.
It is written to give the impression that NOW, the G.C. will decide on ordinations. Has that policy been changed, and if so, when? As majority votes by delegates cannot change the Working Policy.
David Lamoreaux and Yudelis, i second your offerings.
If Jesus was willing to give up his position to become equal with us here on earth, isn’t that the perfect examples for those ministers to give up their titled positions and become equal with their female ministers?
“If Jesus was willing to give up his position to become equal with us here on earth, isn’t that the perfect examples for those ministers to give up their titled positions and become equal with their female ministers?”
Come now, Elaine. I would like to give you more credit than that in your discernment of this issue.
Jesus gave up His position of equality with His Father. But this was the same Jesus who said, “Ye call me Lord and Master……”
Your comparison will no doubt be given a great deal of credibility on this forum. But no careful student of scripture would ever agree with your parallel explanation.
Bill,
“Your comparison will no doubt be given a great deal of credibility on this forum. But no careful student of scripture would ever agree with your parallel explanation.”
I agree.
Elaine,
giving “up their titled positions” and becoming “equal with their female ministers” may appear to be an act of equality, or maybe it’s a subtle plan to raise females to leadership positions; what would you call that, reverse psychology?
Jesus the Christ came from God the Father to redeem sinners; He led captivity captive. All who willingly accept His atonement have also been subjected under His Sovereign Rule.
Are the women willing to do the same?
Jesus gave up his equality with the Father to descend to a much lower state. Ministers who willingly give up their positions to accept a lower status would be following Christ’s example, but no way could it be equated as the same.
It seems to be a waste of time having a vote. Why waste time voting if people are going to ignore the outcome and do what they want to do anyway.
sufferingsunfish on October 12, 2015 at 7:37 pm said: “The almost incessant fussing because women are not ordained is becoming tedious and boring.”
At the risk of “boring” you may I remind you that If we are to be one with the Father even as Jesus is one with the Father, should we arrive at such a place in Glory without “learning obedience through the things that we suffer,” even as Jesus learned obedience through the things that He suffered? Hebrews 5: 8-9 states, “ Though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.” We know that Jesus was perfect when He was born because there was no sin nature in Him; however, how could He be declared “perfect” unless He had been tried and tested to see if He would endure and hold fast to His God.
If we could only understand that we are being “trained to reign,” our “boot camp” course would be much more easily endured. Paul stated, “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we do not look at the things that are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (2 Cor. 4:17-18)
What would happen I wonder if the vote did go ahead and unions decided not to ordain women?