Top Officers of the Adventist Denomination Respond to Election of a Woman as Conference President
by Monte Sahlin
By AT News Team, October 31, 2013
The top three officers of the General Conference (GC) of the Seventh-day Adventist Church issued a statement Thursday morning (October 31) expressing concern about the election of a conference president in the Southeastern California Conference "who is not recognized by the world church as an ordained minister." The statement was distributed without additional comment by the denomination's North American Division.
"Ordination to the ministry is one of the criteria set forth for being a conference president," the statement said. It refers to a document voted a year ago at the 2012 annual meeting of the GC executive committee in response to a number of union conferences in which constituency sessions have voted to extend ordination without the gender discrimination that has traditionally been practiced. The statement says that the 2012 vote "strongly indicated that [the GC] does not recognize as ordained ministers individuals who do not meet the criteria outlined in policy." This is generally understood to mean ministers who are women, despite the fact that there is nothing in the Working Policy that specifically prohibits women from being ordained to the gospel ministry.
Although the statement does not name the conference or the individual involved, it clearly refers to n historic vote by delegates to the regular constituency session of the denomination's Southeastern California Conference on Sunday (October 27) to elect Pastor Sandra E. Roberts as conference president. As reported by Adventist Today on Sunday, a total of 72 percent of the delegates from the local churches and denominational employees voted in favor of Roberts' election while only 28 percent voted against it, despite a request from the GC president to defer action as announced by the chairman at the session, Pastor Ricardo Graham, president of the Pacific Union Conference.
"General Conference administration is working with the North American Division administration as they deal with the implications of this local conference action," the statement this morning said. "By God's grace and through the Holy Spirit's guidance, the church will find its way through this challenging time. … We urge all church members and leaders to pray that the Holy Spirit will unite us to fulfill Christ's promise that 'this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations and then the end will come.' (Matthew 24:14)"
The statement stressed the importance of Working Policy to denominational unity around the world, while acknowledging that "policy is not inflexible" and "it can be changed." It cautioned that "when personal convictions are placed ahead of the collective policy decisions … troubling precedents are set." It made no reference to situations in which the "personal convictions" are moral stands taken by an overwhelming majority of duly elected constituency delegates. In fact, exceptions to the Working Policy have been voted on many occasions because of local legal requirements and cultural factors.
The North American Division executive committee has repeatedly voted amendments to its Working Policy to allow Commissioned Ministers to serve as conference presidents and thus sidestep this issue. The current GC leadership has specifically opposed this solution. The 2013 annual meeting of the committee begins this evening in Silver Spring, Maryland, at the denomination's world headquarters. Roberts has been appointed a member of the committee by name to assure that the Southeastern California Conference is duly represented at this meeting.
The statement was signed, "The General Conference Executive Officers." The GC constitution defines this as the top three officers, "the president, secretary and treasurer." Currently those individuals are Pastor Ted Wilson, president; Dr. G. T. Ng, executive secretary; and Robert Lemon, treasurer.
To go ahead of an ongoing GC study on the topic of ordination, and ordain women, is not the best way to create unity in the world church. Ordination is supposed to confer upon minister, world-wide authority to perform all functions of ministry in the name or the denomination. When one conference, union, or division ordains women and another does not, the house is divided and cannot function as Christ designed. Right now, there exists division and yes, perhaps dissension as well. This creates distrust and a host of other problems. All divisions, union, conferences, and fields were represented at the GC session in Atlanta when the vote was taken to conduct the study on ordination, therefore it is out of order for any one party to move ahead of the study. Regardless of whether or not ordination of women is Biblical, there is a way to deal with the issue that is decent and in order and not create disunity. That way is not being pursued in some areas of the world in my opinion.
Wes,
You have captured very concisely the Catholic doctrine of ordination of counterfeit priests, developed during the second and third centuries AD. Nowhere in the NT do you find a notion of global ordination conveying global authority. As recorded in the NT the laying on of hands was by the local believers (men and women) to collectively affirm a specific mission of the individual, and did not convey plenary power or authority.
The word "ordain" does not appear in the Greek NT. It was brought into the early church from pagan Rome, where the power elites did indeed "ordain" their subordinates and successors who became responsible for fulfilling and enforcing the "ordinances". It is from pagan Rome that we derive the practice of Bishops (as opposed to local congregations) ordaining the clergy (and thereby infusing them with grace so they could administer the sacraments), and in turn the ordained clergy ordaining (one of said sacraments) local deacons, etc.
There is no notion of a hierarchy or succession of ordinations in Scripture. Ther is no notion in Scripture that any of the sacraments result in an infusion of grace or convey plenary powers. All of these reside in Christ alone as our heavenly High Priest, and have not been conferred to an ordained clergy one earth. Do not undermine the priesthood of all the believers (men and women) by restricting their ministry to those who have been "ordained" by men.
We will never settle this matter within the SDA church while we cling to this vestige of the Beast.
Thank you Jim, amen!
As a student of religious history, and a historical consultant, I could not agree more. Adventism used to be a progressive, think outside the box movement in it's beginnings, like so many in early America were doing and revolutionizing the way we think about religion and God.
The problem is that we have regressed back to Rome and its authoritarian traditions over the past more then hundred years. Actually we are not only going back to Rome, but also becoming more conservative and fundamentalist, especially in our understanding of the gospel, imitating more and more the "fallen Protestant" churches in their twisted understanding of scripture. I think we would understand better the current attitude about pocessing so much power if we would go back and read the papers of the Federal Court case where Elder Pierson compared how this church is governed to the Papacy!
As I recall it was Neal C Wilson, father of Ted N C Wilson, who so testified in the Merikay (McLeod) Silver case?
Not being a professional historian I might be mistaken.
Yes, it was Neal who said that the Adventist church is hierarchal much like the Roman Catholic church. His son must have remembered that well.
By gosh, your right! sorry, I was speaking off of the top of my head! I have not thought about or talked about this issue in over 10 years and my copies of the Federal court papers are packed away somewhere. Oh well, old age must be creeping up on me! LOL! But you realize and get the point of all of this. EG White defined one of the main thrusts of Adventism should be to complete the arrested Protestant Reformation, but it would seem that the Counter-Reformation forces are winning out. I hang out and fellowship with the local Unitarians here, I find a lot in common with them and we can have a reasonable and intelligent conversation about spiritual beliefs, plus I like their idea of dees over creeds, and taking social action to stand up for what is right. But it is all part of my original spiritual roots of my family, we were Unitarians back in colonial times and afterwards.
Yes, Donatists had a serious struggle in the early church to question previous acts and rites performed by priests later disgraced. Their struggle was immense and had fateful implications for Christianity. Women's ordination is a minor issue when, they contended w/ the legitimacy of Christ being integrated into the role left by paganist sociological conventions.
They dealt w/ the righteousness and idolization of man in relation to Christ. Our issue is clear, none of us are worthy because Christ truly had to die for everybody.
So ordination should be an issue to advocate for anyone that accepts they are a sinner, unworthy to deny others because Christ died for everybody. Instead, our current church attempts to appropriate spiritual power of universal love by, denying those born "woman". They cannot deny anyone, even pastors do not have to be righteous to claim grace, and women equally serve God w/o any exceptions.
Rome modern papist leader- says who is he to judge? And Ted Wilson aims to control what he has no right over. My how the tables have turned.
I have remarked elsewhere that if we repudiate every woman pastor who has served in the past 40 years, a lot of SDAs might have to be re-baptized. And a lot of SDA couples might be living in sin without benefit of clergy.
Exactly it is so spiritually destructive to undermine women's value to the message of God. This continued attack on women's equality can only be understood as an establishment power grab in the face of church growth in the secular and developed world. In our free society, women have to be featured to win converts- its that simple.
“God foresaw the difficulties that His servants would be called to meet, and, in order that their work should be above challenge, He instructed the church by revelation to set them apart publicly to the work of the ministry. Their ordination was a public recognition of their divine appointment to bear to the Gentiles the glad tidings of the gospel.” {AA 161.1}
For a more detailed treatment of the history of "ordination" see:
http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2013/04/history-ordination-part-i.html
"Ongoing" in this story has been "going on" for more than 25 years. Does anyone truly believe that more years of studying WO that the light will break through and suddenly, the entire world church will be in agreement?
To expect people from all kinds of backgrounds: racial, cultural, education and experience to all reach consensus is absurd. When has that ever happened in a similar situation? Has God instructed his church that all had to be in perfect agreement in practice? The early church did not agree and there were two distinct divisions. They both had the same mission and yet, one faded from view. "If God be for it, who can be against it?" Evidently, God was with the Gentile Church as it was the one that became the Christian church from the destruction of the temple to now.
Elaine,
The Mohaven meeting was 40 years ago:
http://www.columbiaunion.org/article/1173/news/2012-news-archives/november-19-2012-josephine-benton#.UnPQ31N0nPY
A posting…redux
Isn’t it amazing…
that certain scriptures regarding women’s place in church are conveniently trumpeted “clearly stating” what the divine will is regarding the non-ordination of women using the literal approach to understanding scripture, but other scripture is completely ignored when considering literal interpretation of the Bible i.e. gouging out an eye when it offends you; Lazarus’ conversation with Abraham all the way from hell, and others?
Isn’t it amazing…
that post hoc reasoning is used to justify positions of male headship i.e. Eve was created after Adam so therefore she must have been divinely ordained to be under his rule, when the same reasoning could be used to justify an elephant, lion or tiger be in charge over all humanity since Adam was created after them?
Isn’t it amazing…
that a practice that has no biblical basis but rather stems from ancient political and religious traditions (i.e. the act of clerical ordination) can create such vehement opposition to a change in the church’s traditional practice that the love and grace of Jesus Christ is lost in the rhetoric of perceived rightness?
Isn’t it amazing…
that a topic such as ordination, which is not and never has been one of the 28 fundamental beliefs, can create such intense polarization, condemnation and self-righteous attitudes, when it turns out it is only an administrative practice rather than a tenet of faith?
Isn’t it amazing…
that the actions of some unions are deemed as unacceptable variances and therefore not recognized when the world church approves legitimate variances on many issues and does not seem to view them as a threat to unity?
Isn’t it amazing…
that the GC calls in its “legal beagles” to interpret the constitution and working policy but then chooses to officially ignore the outcome when legal and duly constituted bodies choose to act in accordance with the wishes and conscientious beliefs of its duly elected representatives?
Isn’t it amazing…
that a male-dominated world church leadership structure can make the decision to exclude women as full partners in ministry, which in turn prevents women from reaching this level of church leadership, ultimately excluding women from voting on significant issues such as ordination?
Isn’t it amazing…
that some parts of the world which are not under the working policy strictures of the church seem to ignore world church policy when it discriminates against women, and gladly ordain those whom the Spirit has called who may just happen to be of either genders?
Isn’t it amazing…
that these same parts of the world are achieving rapid and significant growth in church membership under the leadership of women, but who would not be recognized as eligible for full pastoral credentials in other parts of the world church?
Isn’t it amazing…
that those who love to hold dearly to the historical legacies and traditions of the church ignore the fact that God selected a woman to be the prophet for the church but cannot rationalize that God may also select other women to serve as ordained pastors to further his work?
Isn’t it amazing…
that the issue of women’s ordination has been studied, re-studied and continued to be studied ad nauseam by various committees for close to a half century and no clear definitive basis for rejection in the Bible or Ellen White’s writings can be found, but rather it seems to be the safest maneuver to stick with the status quo meanwhile ignoring basic equity and equality?
Isn’t it amazing…
that some factions get so worked up about the “clear” Babylonization of the church, that they devote entire websites to nothing but the utter rejection of anything to do with this “complete and unbiblical” heresy known as women’s ordination and stand staunchly in “defense of the Truth”, but seem to give short shrift to other interesting Biblical passages such as Matthew 25’s call to be a part of the sheep flock rather than the goat herd through treating others as Jesus would treat them?
Isn’t it…
amazing that what is perceived as “proper and correct” practice in some parts of the world church, must be maintained so as not to offend, and therefore be forced on the entire world church without regard to local context in an eager attempt to maintain church unity?
Isn’t it amazing…
that the world church leadership can expend so much time and energy on the ordination issue with the express desire to “unite” the church, and in its actions, actually achieve the opposite?
Isn’t it amazing…
that a church whose mission is to spread the gospel to all the world can get so tied up in knots over some internal dissent to church policy that the original mission seems to be put on hold or possibly lost while all energies are spent in correcting the “rogue” elements?
Isn’t it amazing…
that the very changes that are feared most might just be the heavenly answer to the earnest prayers for revival and reformation, although if we are not careful, we may just miss out on what we prayed fervently for?
And isn’t it amazing that the machinations of men and councils seem to continually trump the basic Christian values of justice, peace, mercy, love and grace that Jesus talked about so many years ago…and isn’t it amazing that history will most likely repeat itself once again (see John 11:35).
Yes, isn’t it amazing!
Epilogue
And today, isn’t it amazing that truth stood bravely in the streets and children of God used their God-given wisdom and Spirit-filled common-sense to overthrow the attempt to maintain an anachronistic approach to church life and governance, and history was made, albeit long overdue. The SCC can stand with its head up and make the statement that we will not discriminate based on gender no matter what may come. Yes, it indeed is amazing! May God continue to bless the SCC under the leadership of Elder Roberts!
That was well said and thought out!
Sometimes I think those in Adventism who still have some spiritual eyesight, and common sense, are like the little boy who blurted out about the Emporer having no clothes.
Another thought, we need to ask this question, when the scriptures talk about unity, harmony, and 'being of one mind', does this mean blind marching together in lock step like a bunch of obedient nazis, having no differing opinions on anything???? …or does it mean agreement on what is fundamental and important, underlying moral values and convictions on what is right and wrong? Actually the gospel to be precise, the underlying foundation and source of motivation for all we do as humans?
As for the whatever amount of "Fundamental Beliefs" I thought we were supposed to be creed free? So what's this garbage? I heard a sermon once a few years ago from a local elder and leader at the academy on one of those pillars of Adventism, loyalty to leadership, sounded like some nonsense from the dark ages!
One other thing I've noticed since becoming an Adventist back in 1970, being a troubler of the brethren or being against unity is just another way of saying, get with the program and obey the leaders, love this,
“Unity without verity is no better than conspiracy.”–John Trapp
Most amazing of all that people who would never accept such antiquated beliefs and practices in any "worldly" institution, meekly accept such discriminatory attitudes in the name of religion. Religion blinds many to real life and causes a retreat to medievalism simply because as religious beliefs, they are sacred and cannot be disputed or changed.
Exactly! Great post
We know about religious pogroms, inquisitions, persecutions, pre-Temple orthodoxy, pre-Protestant orthodoxy, why orthodoxy fails b/c of oppression- but abide a divided message, an unequal sacrifice.
Some are born to do this, other that, and rather than make spirituality a truth for all- the church retreats into an executive committee arbitrating over who gets wants. That was the medieval church not serving all of humanity but, deciding who was worthy of humanity.
Lest we forget, the union conference policies and procedures stipulate that it has sole responsibility in choosing whom to ordain. Ted Wilson seems to think, evidently, that the GC can over run those Holy Spirit ordained policies and procedures because of his elevated corporate position. Yes of course, less enlightened areas of the world might be opposed to the ordination of women. Some have said, including the renown, elder theologian among us, Dr. Sakae Kubo, it is for this reason that the union conferences must have sole responsibility for ordination of its called. Ellen White had many "ups and downs" with the chief elders of her day. I well remember the following statement being quoted from Adventist pulpits: 1875: "I have been shown that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered." (3Testimonies, p. 492) When Ellen White was asked about that 23 years later she wrote: 1898: "It has been some years since I have considered the General Conference as the voice of God." –17MR 216 (1898) {LDE 50.3} Of course we must read Scripture and the Writings as a whole, being careful not to cherry pick as we all have, including the church's divines. However, it seems to me that Ellen White's comments prove that she was truly a great example of one who progressed to truth. I can only imagine her frustration, (usually), held close to her chest, as she dealt with the bearded, authoritative posturing in her day. It was so long ago, I hesitate to mention it. In '75 I earned a MA degree in leadership with an emphasis on community leadership. From my 74 year old perspective, the wrangling, twisting, authoritative diatribe emanating from the corner offices of the GC can be expected when its supposed followers are way out in front; lead by the Holy Spirit rather than by those who believe God has empowered them to lead, soley by corporate position.
Edwin,
Whether in this matter EGW progressed in truth or whether the GC degenerated into institutional intransigence and she responded appropriately, would be an interesting question to deliberate.
Is it possible that men are just afraid of women's natural position and power in society.
They bring life to our children.
They nuture and train our children.
They gather and prepare the food we eat.
They satisfy our sexual needs.
They multitask.
They are compassionate.
They represent God's church.
They have the power to convince us men, including Adam, that they know what is best for us.
Is it possible that we (men) just haven't gotten over the fact that women got the best of us in the beginning, and we just aren't going to ever let that happen to us again.
Is oppressing women the only way men can feel safe. Wake up men, oppression is a tool of the weak. Don't make it so obvious that we are so weak.
Women, we appreciate all you do for us and all your abilities. Please forgive us of our abuse and oppression.
Good points Terry,
Even though Ellen Gould is our figurative saint, we need to celebrate women in church too often neglected as founding members. I bet outreach to women's issues would give us a platform to present Adventism to secular communities like never before. Maybe b/c Ellen G was so successful Adventist men wanted her to remain that iconic figure by discriminating against spiritual women that followed wanting to contribute as equals.
I think the Fall of Man was due to vanity as woman wanted knowledge to foolishly compare to God's. While man was not vain enough to stand next to God but was so passionate and ultimately lustful, he walked away from God to be w/ his new wife.
Women think they're smart enough to not have to trust. And men are foolish enough to stop caring all together. God ties woman to their husband or child, while man hungers after partners.
Ultimately, we become the worst of ourselves by not helping each other.
The principles of the issue are:
May God continue to richly bless the ministry and leadership of Pastor Sandra Roberts, the Southeastern California Conference and God's church throughout the world!
Amen Barry,
Satan must be having a wicked laugh over all this energy being devoted to arguing instead of winning souls for the Kingdom of God.
Remember the reports that Jesuits had infiltrated the General Conference? Well, no reasonable person could believe that before. But now . . . I wonder. Hmm. Has perhaps all of this had been planned and carried out by those Jesuits at the GC? It explains everything.
Ervin,
You got your story wrong – it is Andrews University that is infested with Jesuits 8-). Don't you know they have hired over the years several professors with degrees from Catholic universitites, and even sponsored some to get degrees there? Back in the midwest we were all over this conspiracy. In fact the invitation to the farewell for one of our associate pastors who was headed to the Seminary announced (facetiously) that he was leaving us for "the home of the Jesuits". Twice our church sent young pastors to the Seminary and twice they ended-up in the theology faculties of SDA schools. This proves that Andrews is the true fount of the conspiracy to infiltrate SDA schools with Jesuits.
Unfortunately for the original Jesuits this seems to have backfired – except for Bacchiocchi (who being dead yet speaketh) the others "Jesuits" that I know of at SDA colleges and universities have all come down on the side of ordaining women. Win some – lose some.
Ok I'm lost there. Ted Wilson doesn't want to ordain women, maintain that status quo of establishment and control. But the militant wing of centralized papists (Jesuits)- support women's equality and dignity before the eyes of God.
Am I to believe Jesuits are more pro-women/freedom than Adventist pastors?
The real conspiracy is how the Catholic Church revolutionized itself to support women BETTER than a Protestant/Adventist church. Who are these male leaders villanizing women and why did corrupt the church organization? Jesuits have more open-mind and faith than an Adventist. I guess believers and women are going to find a Holy Seventh Day Jesuit church…
Militant Jesuits winning souls thru torture and control have always supported this UNITY throughout Christianity! And they would certainly torture the idea of a female Cardinal unworthy of their ranks. Probably unworthy of their love and God's love- so torture them in the name of the papacy. They despise equality and women almost as much as anyone would be against forced celibacy. The Spirit moves and not by physical, human, mortal forces
Jesuits want worldwide Christian UNITY! Ted Wilson wants worldwide Adventist UNITY!
Hmm… this unity rings false and enriched by control, power, and human righteousness over humanity.
Unity without respect for human dignity and equality is NOT UNITY AT ALL. Wilson want women to sacrifice what male members do not- and that's their divine equality won by Christ and spiritual promises. Wilson neglects we are equally yoke and love is only for loving as much as we love ourselves- that's spiritual not rotting carnal flesh of gender dominance.
I know about Jesuits, we had one at Southern years ago when I was a theology major there. Actually we had a few, and one went on to become a major conference GC leader. These guys you have to remember play both sides of the fence, been at it for centuries now. But rock bottom, they hate " liberals, free thinkers, and heretics [another name for someone who thinks for themselves]."
Sandra Roberts would be unbearable for Papists and especially Jesuits. It impossible to bear the light when they work in darkness. Give the message of dignity won by Christ before God and stop this union forged in darkness. Only unity w/ spirituality provides God's light to all- yes, women too
Lynn,
Perhaps my sarcasm was too subtle for you?
I do NOT subscribe to the Jesuit conspiracy theory. My argument above about Jesuit infiltrators is irrational because the underlying conspiracy theory is irrational.
Ok. It was subtle enough to misunderstand. Misunderstandings are humorous and it is comical to imagine Catholic Jesuits would support women's equality in the Church more than Protestants.
Sarcasm on this blog is easily lost w/ the reactions of sanctimony, indignation, and outrage.
But you should be aware of not only the Jesuit conspiracy but all that have attempted to rule the world for ages. I'm really surprised that in this so called enlightened age of reason and superior education [LOL] that we would even give any regard to the media and other psuedo intellectuals who go around bashing people with the smear "conspiracy nut" when any student of history knows better. This is so classic,
"It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country, the United States of America are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated MOST of the wars of Europe."
~Marquis de La Fayette (1757-1834; French statesman and general who served in under the command of General George Washington during the American Revolutionary War)
"The governments of the present day have to deal not merely with other governments, with emperors, kings and ministers, but also with the secret societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments’ plans."
Who needs Jesuits when you're dealing with Satan?
MY church is instructing us NOT to put PERSONAL CONVICTION ahead of COLLECTIVE POLICY??!!! Sorry for the screaming caps, but I am so shocked. Even after all that has passed, I wouldn't have expected that. I was taught in Cradle Roll that we "must obey God rather than man." I still believe it. God calls whom God will call, and we do not have the right to try to deny that. I say "try to deny" because we are not, in fact, capable of actully denying God's call for another person. Only for ourselves. God bless us every one.
You learned your memory verse out of context – it was Peter and John and the other Apostles who were supposed to obey God rather than man.
Didn't they tell you that when you obey your spiritual leaders your are obeying God?
Whoa Jimmy…
What?? And lovely point Kovacs.
Ask Martin Luther about obeying a leader over God. A spiritual leader is spiritual and God-fearing, so because they are moved by God, the Spirit, and biblical Christianity- then yes follow her/him
I need to pray for Ted Wilson. And Ted Wilson is not being spiritual and God-fearing to have his PERSONAL CONVICTION— women are not equal to men before God. Ted Wilson maybe succumbing to the vanity and self-righteous that poisoned the old Pontificate Rex. Wilson is just a pastor, tying his flock to the Great Shepherd. And his despotic behavior to DENY what no God-fearing man can possibly deny- the same Spirit is moving women equally and powerfully to be servants of the Most High.
I am not personally convicted by guilt of women's rights. I'm convicted by the Commandments I always fail (love Gid w/ your heart and love sinners as much as myself) and convince no sinner can judge and deny a role in the Church of God to another. Men like Ted Wilson have a personal struggle to realize they are equals to the opposite sex.
It is biblical that all people of race, creed, sex, orientation, income bracket, nationality, hometown, physical and mental makeup, religious and even political sects- all sinners are under God sinning and serving Him equally. Spiritual leaders moved by the spirit and NOT BY FLESH do not see gender!
In fact, Paul says spiritual leaders ideally do not have a wife, b/c both are equals and brides before Jesus, our husband.
Instead, in the church culture of wives being under the husband thumb, Adventist have more in common w/ polygamists in their partriachal societies as opposed to Christian ideal of Paul.
Even if Adventists were more pro-women than papists and Jesuits, that still would be enough for Paul's standard. Yes, in terms of women, Ted Wilson has more in common w/ the Imam of Riyadh than Paul of Tarsus. Have we really got this point in history and this far from spirituality????
Is it too late? We can put hope in Christ because God is merciful and long-suffering of our blunders and vanity. If we put faith in our own control and power rather than the power of the same Spirit that moved Ruth, David, the Marys, and the same Spirit moving S. Roberts, we fall. If we do not put faith in that Spirit than Jesuits don't need to infiltrate- Ted Wilson and his cronies will be opportunist converts like Constantine. Instead, of going from paganism to pagan and unspiritual "demi-Christianity" Wilson behaves as if he is sinless enough to not allow the Spirit lead.
I guess I need an emoticon for sarcasm? Gotcha twice.
The memory verse does not just apply to the Apostles, even though that is the historical context. People who insist on interpreting scripture can easily fall into this trap.
Ok. But we would not be even discussing scripture or a personal savior and God- if not for Luther. Our spiritual leaders from Rome would not even allow us to read the Gospel and Bible for ourselves.
Those spiritual leaders from Rome were NOT spiritual. They stood in the way of progress and the power of Spirit. They prevented the Word from winning minds and hearts b/c they sought absolutist power. That is a selfish and carnal motivation to satisfy earthly power- it is NOT spiritual. It is not faithful that God and His word will move people. They did not trust in the Holy Spirit- so Luther and his spiritual works were guided to changed the world. When Christianity becomes religious tradition and political institutions and authoritarian leadership- that is earthly and not spiritual.
Jesuits and Ted Wilson have more in common if they stand against women being moved by the Spirit. A spiritual leader trusts in the power of God, not in earthly things, and stands aside like a humble servant encouraging others to serve equally and NOT discouraging others in order to rule unequally.
Use 😉
I prefer 😎 which wears eyeglasses as I sometimes do.
But I did not proof-read carefully enough before I clicked Submit Comment. What I meant to say was "People who insist on interpreting scripture only in its historical context can easily fall into this trap."
I guess I am missing something here. Could Mr. hamstra please let us know how else is one to interpret scripture other than in its historical context?
Reviewing what I wrote, I discover that I didn't write what I meant to write. What I should have written was "People who insist on interpreting scripture only in its historical context can easily fall into this trap." I did not wish to say that we should not interpret scripture nor that we should not interpret scripture in its historical context. But since our context is often very different that the context where it was written we also need to ask how it applies to us.
My bad Ervin – thanks for catching it.
I do not wish to minimize the importance of what is happening here with some simplistic comment, but it concerns me that our Denominational leaders seem to label any opinion different from their's as disunity. Think of the difference between us sinners and the God who came to save us. Yet WHILE we were sinners Jesus dies for us and reconciles us to God (Romans 5:10, 2 Cor. 5:18-19) His love brought unity – we certainly do not agree with Him yet, but have, as Christians, all kinds of different beliefs and practices – yet He totally accepts us. That's unity! – but certainly not uniformity. Uniformity and unity are simply two different things. We may feel that it is important to have a uniform set of church standards or doctrines, but it seems to me that we make a mistake to refer to that as unity – it is not, it is uniformity. Unity can exist among us as Christians (Even in different denominations) without agreement. Nancy, my wife, and I have many different opinions on numerous issues. This is not a lack of unity, but in fact, the exact opposite. If we did not allow that for each other, there would NEVER be unity. Love is the basis for our unity, not agreement. In fact, isn't it true that if I will no allow my wife or others to have and express their own unique opionions or follow their own convictions, it is not love at all! Nancy and I are opposites – I like it that way! When I long to know the reasons behind her different opinions, it enhances our love. We seek to understand each other not convert each other. SO . . . What would a church look like, whose members and leaders operated on love so strong, unconditional, and accepting that they didn't have to all look alike, eat alike, drink alike, or believe alike, but they just plain loved each other exactly as they were – sort of like Jesus did. Might THAT be unity? In fact, since that's the way Jesus treats us, wouldn't we want to bring everybody we knew to Jesus. How refreshing that that would be our mission! Our chureh and it's leaders would do well, to "study" how a church funtions on the basis of love rather than agreement. Our problem is that on each level we simply don't want the upper level to legislate what we should do (ie. the G.C. forcing California to to do what the G.C. thinks they should do). Each level, however, has the tendency to want to control the ones belows them. We're like the Pilgrims who came to the knew World to find Religious Freedom, but then forced others to believe the way they did or suffer the consequences! Each level claims that they "prayerfully asked the Holy Spirit to guide them" and so, the lower level should submit to God. But here's the way we should rule – by love, not force, allowing the Holy Spirit to guide all of us to the conclusion He wants. Jesus said, "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another – not agree with one another." So I ask it again, "What would our church look like if all of us felt free to believe differently (As our early pioneers did, by the way), obey differently, worship differently, and honor those whose love for Jesus was expressed different than our love for Jesus? Might we not win the admiration of non-believers, and who knows, that kind of spirit might bring us together to agree as well. What power the Gospel would have to produce that kind of "UNITY"! We probably should repent and confess that we are all loathe to give up our power and "settle" for unity that is willing to labor vigorously and patiently for solutions to our problems that come from God's Word to us via His Holy Spirit. It seems to me that the G.C. prefers uniformity over obedience to the REAL HEAD of the Church. 🙁 The Remnant "follow the Lamb, wherever He goes." 🙂
Don,
Now you've gone and spoken the truth! Shame on you for casting light on the darkness in such a lively debate! 🙂
Obeying the two commandments Jesus listed in Matthew 22 is a major challenge. Our sinful nature causes us to forget them too quickly.
Now if unity is the issue, could we also say that our nation cannot be unified unless all have the same religious belief or worship on Sunday? No comparison? I have always heard from religious liberty that even if a smalll minority does not have religious liberty, then no one does. To follow further, let's say NAD and Europe are a minority. If they don't have freedom in an area that is not part of our creed or FB, does anyone have it? Are we living by our own principles?
Let's say these study papers were spread around the world equally. Woulldn't it be possible that NAD and Europe are not represented in the results as much as the rest of the world? If so, could we trust the results if they are against women's ordination? Could they possibly be objective? Humans are not objective nor can they be. Thus the minority still loses representation and cannot effectively carry on evangelism in its culture.
The only way to be fair and honest would be to return to biblical laying on of hands and do away with this Roman custom. The unconverted might leave, but that doesn't matter–it might result in a "clelansing." It would also be a drawing point to those of higher values in the world.
But with human egos, that's probably impossible without that "latter rain" so many talk about. So we can at least be fair to our religious liberty principles. Otherwise it would be sad if our church broke apart on an issue that isn't even in our stated beliefs. This is so much like other denominations and shows how very average and typical we are and not special at all as we have been taught.
After reading most of the comments here I am surprised no one has really caught on to what is happening. As you know Mrs White was not the first choice of God. Others were asked but refused so God chose the very weak in His selection and who accepted the call.
Men, if you were doing your calling would we be having this conversation? NO I don't think so. Many in Gods work are not doing what they should and some should have been relieved of their duty a long time ago. What will it take? What if God Himself could fire people?? Yes we are all sinners but God uses us inspite of ourselves. I have been around several preachers who have done great damage to Christianity and not just in the SDA church. Shame on them. What will the judgement hold for them?
I will be watching to see how this leader is blessed and whether she is led by the Spirit of God. If she is blessed and led by the Spirit, and I pray she is, lets praise God for His leading to help finish work on this earth so He can return..The sooner the better.
Perhaps men leaders could learn a few things from all this and stand up to the task before us by examing our relationship with our Savior. God will choose those who will do His will..Male or Female
In the end May God be praised.
Well that reminds me of one of the explanations heard in my youth that if Adam had just been doing his job as Eve's guardian then she never would have gotten near that tree. So it was really Adam's fault – he was guilty of negligence.
Let's see now – Adam sees Eve headed for trouble, Adam being stronger tackles Eve and pins her down, Adam and Eve are naked and in excellent health, and there is only that ephemeral sheen of light between them? OK – now I see why nobody explained to our impressionable young minds exactly how Adam was supposed to protect Eve from evil. Did you ever wonder how often Eve headed for that tree and was stopped in her tracks? No wonder they eventually decided they needed those fig-leaf aprons. Or if you follow the Catholic teaching regarding no copulation in Eden, then maybe Eve decided to spring them loose from Eden so Adam could start protecting her properly? Sort of reminds you of the girls who wanted to sneak out of the dorm at night hoping their boyfriends might be there to protect them?
Seriously, I think God's intention is that both genders should be fully reflecting His character. Adventists starting out preaching the imminent Advent, then the subset who became SDAs decided they need to keep the commandments. Then they decided to engage in the burning social issue of their time in the US of A so they operated an Underground Railway station in Battle Creek. After the Civil War they started evangelizing Blacks, Europeans, Australians, Indians, Africans, Pitcairn mixed-breeds, etc. Not to mention the health and temperance movements along the way. And Reform Dress – did you know that EGW invented the pants-suit way back in the late 1800s?
Now if we could just solve that persistent problem of how to deal with our restless women-folk 8-). Damn those Feminists for having to remind us all over again of what we Christian Men have struggled so mightily to suppress!
Was it ever mentioned in the Bible or since whether men should be ordained? No. Such questions have never been asked about whether it was man's Place to do anything. It has always been his prerogative; and his prerogative to assign to women what they should not do or how they should behave. Is this what really God intended? That women should always obtain man's permission before making a choice of her own? How could have ever used free will? Maybe the Mormons believe this: women can only be saved through men. If Adventists believe this, why have they not openly preached that women are to be subordinate to men in everything?
Certainly a challenge is that we don't want THEIR list to be forced over on me. But MY list is God's list and everyone should obey MY (GOD's) list. We somehow don't think it's possible for the Holy Spirit to have a different list with each of us and the church be in unity, but that very thing is the evidence of unity – that we allow each other the freedom to disagree and in this safe atmosphere or soil of acceptance the seed of unity and love can grow! What a dream!
How ironic that women have kept religion alive in the homes and churches through the entire life of Christianity; this is recogized by all students of Christian history. And yet they have always been kept in the kirk, kitchen and kinder areas; only eligible to teach small children. And yet, if religion had not been taught by their mothers from the cradle, few men would be Christian leaders today!
There would not be a church if God did not call women of the Early Church to open their homes for worship when Christians were persecuted. God used men and women to bring the message, and regardless of their class, race, gender etc. they were equals w/ God as the head.
This is classical. The hierarchy of an organization creating problems where their should not be friction, which produces the opposite results than that which is good.
The hierarchy has its toes stepped on, their arrogancy can't tolerate and accept this seeming threat to their pontifical egos, so they strike out by issuing "bulls" of non compliance to the infallible purity of the heirarchy's lofty eminence.
They seek to intrude in the area of which they aren't authorized. Intrusion into the business of the Unions, of which they presume to have veto power, because they are "all powerful", and not to be opposed, "it is spoken, so it shall be".
Instead of acting the spoiled brat, they should seek to maintain decorun, harmony, and unity in God's temple, His bride. Yet by their aggressive behaviour they are doing the total opposite, and because of their arrogance, heads will roll, perhaps their own at the next GC constituancy conference (2015), when the rank and file of the world church indict them for the disunity they have perpetrated. The doors will swing outward as the would be future brain trust, Youth, depart in haste, leaving white washed pews seating white headed attendees in ever diminishing numbers, steeped in rigid 19th century discredited dogma.
Is this what the heirarchy wants???? It's not to late to repent.
"white headed attendees" Heaping scorn on older members is hardly a way in which to gain support for one's position in a controversial issue. It's commonly known as a "low blow." I was taught from child up to show respect to those who have aged.
Quite obviously the selection of a woman as Conference president is insubordinate and divisive. Aren't we advised to be subject to authorities? Can you imagine if everyone went his own way on the highway? It's just that simple.
Maranatha
What doen't go gray goes away. Alas my hair color is fast fading towards my beard color 8-(.
So I guess I show disrespect for myself as much as for anyone else when I say that I do not prefer to attend a church full of people with whiter (or lesser) hair than mine. I much prefer a church with a healthy contingent of children and youth and young adults. That church has a future.
As with Scripture, so with wresting "white headed attendees" from the immediate context of "Youth, depart in haste, leaving white washed pews seating white headed attendees in ever diminishing numbers" – I know bad exegesis when I see it. You can take a phrase out-of context and make it appear to say something entirely different than what the author intended.
Truth Seeker, unless you have discovered the long-sought Fountain of Youth, when your church pews become filled with "white headed attendees" your attendance will diminish and eventually your church will close because there will be nobody left to open the doors. I have seen this happen and it is not a pretty sight. Telling the truth is not disrespectful to our elders – they can see it coming and they grieve for the loss of their younger generations that have moved off to greener pastures.
You keep asserting that "the selection of a woman as Conference president is insubordinate and divisive" but you offer no argument to support this proposition nor any rebuttal of the many detailed Biblically-based comments submitted by Yours Truly and others that argue otherwise.
It is a truism that any change to a long-hallowed tradition can and will be construed as "insubordinate and divisive" by the entrenched religious authorities. Look no further than Martin Luther or John Huss or Paul or Peter or Jesus Christ – this very charge was leveled at each of them. You might want to seriously consider the advice of Gamaliel that if this is of God then we cannot stop it, lest we find ourselves fighting against God. We ought to obey God rather than man.
Truth Seeker,
Matt. 12:50
Whoever does the will of God is my elder, mother, father, sister and brother- all rolled into one. Elders, youths, even women have been denying women since before Adventistism, before Sunday Christianity, and before the death of Christ- they had a reason to discriminate women.
Yes before Christ, an unclean woman bleeding was forbidden to even enter the Temple. Christ changed that.
Yes, before men led the Church away from the Sabbath, spirituality, and servitude to all humanity- , for a brief interlude, women were equals in the Early Church w/ Paul, so great b/c he humbled himself. Then, Rome tried to change women's place while changing Christianity. Yes, Rome and men of Rome, not Christ, try to change what Christ did for all humanity.
We got the Sabbath restored, but neglected to restore women as spiritual equals. Yes, women like men are spiritually circumcised and born again by the Water and Spirit. Born again w/o any gender just servants and children of God.
Matt. 9:22
The bleeding woman has been made well by her faith. Her faith is a faith all of us must have and a faith that Christ has the power to heal all of us, equally. Christ heals our divided Church b/c it is His church, He is the head. And died so women can fully enter His church along Gentile men and legally righteous Jews. We can only be Christians if we believe by simply touching Christ's robe, His divinity can heal us w/ our sins fully and equally. Don't deny women who want to serve God b/c He is healing them as equally and fully as he is healing men. Sin can stand in the way of a full relationship w/ God. But being a woman is no sin. In fact, not loving everybody as their mother, sister, father and brother is the true sin. Be a mother and yes, even a brother at the same time b/c of faith in Christ.
Lynn,
Thank you for reminding us of this beautiful biblical story and pointing out its spiritual significance for us today.
I know of a good traditionalist Catholic church down the road, or a good cult of mind control types who love obedient followers! Submit to man, be or as those stickers and shirts say, OBEY! LOL Most counter-culture types get it more then so-called Christians. Geesh, isn't putting obedience to man over God submitting to the beast? God wants us to think for ourselves and give an individual account of our actions, the cop out " I was only following orders will not get you out of hot water for sure!
Here is a detailed discussion of why women should not be ordained and it does not stem from a "long-hallowed tradition."
Mainly the appeal *to* ordain women is based on our feminist culture and not on Scripture. Mixed in with the feminist inspired push for WO is a healthy dose of emotion not based on Scripture.
http://tinyurl.com/m9ssdez
Thanks for the link.
Seeker,
I found the 20 pages of the minority report, but where are the remainder of the 240 pages? Could you kindly provide us with the link to the missing pages? Or is this another web site that selectively publishes the views of those with whom it agrees, and asks the readers to trust them that the other side (in this case the overwhelming majority of the committee) must be wrong?
In the sequel I will comment on a few errors and discrepancies in this minority report.
"the official organization of the church in 1863" (p 193).
The authors are drinking the GC Kool-Aid. If the church did not organize until 1863 then why did I attend the centennial celebration of the Michigan Conference in 1961? Was the Michigan Conference not part (actually the major part) of the church in 1861, or was it not truly organized? Several other Conferences were also organized before the GC was organized in 1863, as a confederaiton of said Conferences. This is not just nit-picking, the powers that be in Silver Spring seem to be genuinely convinced that the SDA church did not exist before them and can no longer exist without them. This paper uncritically accepts the top-down view of how the SDA church is constituted and organized.
Having pointed-out that the Michigan Conference existed as an organized SDA church prior to the GC, I should have also added that the SDA church in China is reported to be progressing amazingly well under the guidance and support of the Holy Spirit without benefit of the GC.
Disclaimer – I an NOT calling for the GC to disband. I am calling for it to stand aside so the Holy Spirit can work as He/She/It wills.
It's an old cliche: "let the Holy Spirit work." When has it not worked through humans? Does the Holy Spirit preach the Gospel, feed the hungry, feed the sick, or make decisions that God has left us to make?
We are indeed God's hands and feet and arms and legs on earth. God has chosen to do His work on earth mostly through us.
However for thsoe of us who still believe in miracles there are occasions where God takes matters into His own hands and does something directly.
"the happy, harmonious relationship in Eden of two equals, one as leader and the other as supportive helper" (p 199)
I do know of no place on earth where this would be construed as an equal relationship. Christ had to empty Himself in order to take the form of a servant. But Eve, although by the admission of the authors she was created in the image of God, did not have to empty herself because she was created for this role of service to her leader. If you think I am taking this statement out of context please read the many Biblical examples of other human "helpers" cited in the paper that precede this statements. Show me where they exemplify equality rather than superior-inferior relationships? As for the examles cited of divine "helpers" these would suggest that woman was superior to man. Beware the pitfalls of deriving doctrine from analogies.
For a more detailed discussion on Genesis 2 as it relates to this topic see:
http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2013/05/creation-order-genesis.html#more
Read both the blog article and also the commentary.
(I will not copy the lengthy EGW quote on p 200 taken from PP p 59)
The obvious reading of this quote is that Eve was not content to be equal with Adam but desired to become superior. Ironically in the Genesis 3 narrative her desire to become superior leads to her subjugation. How does anyone read this quote as implying that Eve before the fall was in any way subservient to Adam? Is this really what Ellen was saying or is this a wishful reading by men?
The authors take pains (pp 205-206) to insist on a very close application of the qualificatiosn of an elder or overseer in the writings of Paul. The passages they cite and their method of exegesis was used in the 1950s and 1960s (and probably earlier but tha is as far back as I can personally remember) to refuse ordination to single or divorced or re-married men. If the authors are correct in their exegesis then the SDA church must not only repudiate the ordination of women but also of single, divorced or re-married men.
I will now venture where few others are willing to tread (fool that I am).
1 Timothy 2:8-15 is the gorilla in the room that nobody wants to tangle with. The same passage that says "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet" goes on to give the arguments from order of creation and from the fall of Eve that are given in this paper. It concludes with the ever-popular "But women will be saved through childbearing" (subject to certain other conditions).
So I am wondering if those who would claim this "proof text" to deny women any spiritual leadership roles would also deny them any hope of salvation if they are infertile, celibate, pre- or post-menopausal? Just as being the husband of exactly one wife (neither more nor less) is a requirement for ordination of men, so should being the mother of at least one child be a requirement for baptism of women. If you claim that Paul would not exclude the baptism of childless women then would you claim that Paul would baptise women who could not be saved?
Sorry, but I just couldn't bear to break this "good news" to a group of 11 year old girls in my Jr High SS class who wanted to be baptised last year. Alas, they should have waited until they got pregnant.
Not to mention that our own dear Ellen Harmon should not have preached to men, or at least she should have waited until she married and brought forth her firstborn son so that she herself might be saved before trying to tell others how to get there. Or were her many sermons and books delivered only to women since she was not permitted to instruct men? Or was she actually a trans-gendered person and not really a woman? Or was she immaculately conceived and thus not subject to the spiritual limitations of ordinary women? Was Mary the "second Eve" or was Ellen?
I do not offer these absurd propositions in jest. This very "proof text" has been used for over 150 years by Fundamentalist Christians (including my own beloved Calvinist relatives) to demonstrate that SDAs are a cult. Likewise for the reasoning of the authors of this paper that the various OT and NT women who prophesied were not therby elevated to the same spiritual authority over men that the male prophets possessed, or in the case of Deborah, her authority was only temporary because of the unbelief of Barak (we could call this the "donkey exception" because even a donkey could speak for God to a rebellious prophet). Again this very line of reasoning has been advanced by Fundamentalist Christians (including said Calvinist relatives) against our own Ellen.
I submit that as with other "proof texts" we need to look at the immediate context. In this case the answer can be found in the preface "I do not permit". He does not preface this passage with "I have received from the Lord" or "God does not permit". Paul is qualifying this as his own preferred practice, not a universal proscription from God.
The authors of this paper go to great pains to explain that OT prophets point to a future time when uncircumcised Gentiles would be joined to God's people, as justification for the Jerusalem Council to set aside the requirement for circumcision. This is sound exegesis of the prophets. The cited Future Prophecies regarding Gentiles being joined to God's people became Present Truth in the NT times.
The authors notably fail to apply the same principles of exegesis to Joel's prophecy of the Last Days (perhaps not Present Truth in NT times but certainly Present Truth now). I found no mention of Joel in their paper (perhaps I missed it?). It is this very prophecy and exegetical principle that SDAs have correctly used for over 150 years to refute the Fundamentalist charge that because we recognize the spiritual authority of Ellen over men then we are therefore a cult. Joel's Future Prophecy became Present Truth for the SDA church with the call of Ellen Harmon to speak-out for God.
In order for the prophecy of Joel to come to full fruition we must now accept that God's Spirit will be poured out on all women We must accept that when George Butler and Uriah Smith (the two top officers of the GC at the time who themselves struggled with submitting to her spiritual authority) signed the document in 1887 certifying Ellen White was an "Ordained Minister" (though there is no evidence that they or any other man ever laid hands on her in a spiritual manner), they were thereby confessing that they recognized no theological hindrance to ordination of a woman.
Having established the principle in 1887, why are we still haggling about the implementation? Why do we refuse to accept Present Truth for our time? Why do many among us still maintain that Ellen's 1887 credentials were merely a "donkey exception"?
Truth Seeker,
The only body that respect secularism more than Christ's will- is the executive committee of the Adventist church.
They (Adventist executives)
1. Admit secularism is too powerful of an influence in their judgment so, they (Adventist executives) deem themselves too biased and incapable of trusting Scripture. Why have an executive committee if no one can be trusted w/ truths of Scripture despite secularism, someone may rhetorically ask themselves? B/c Adventism is their (Adventist executives) corporation and they do not want to be held liable for hearing these secular voices- answer to inflammatory rhetoric.
2. They emotionally cling to good 'ol days frontier life and joyously exacting a Second Coming which no human being could ever predict no matter how many times they say "soon" – our flesh bars us from ever knowing the ways of Heaven. But those were the glory days of ministry where Americana was pure and untouched by secular evils (evolution, artificial intelligence, abortion, liberalism, a society of "socializing" and "socialism", post-post modernism, and universal anything) Sin is can only be evil if its secular.
Therefore, guard against that ol' secularism that corrupted everyone from making a decision about WO as it corrupted from the beginning. A decision about women's spirituality or any creation's spiritual value and faith never should have been in the hands of man, in the first place. And get deeply emotionally moved and revived 'bout keeping the church stuck in its origins of 19th century America, which is the ideal example for all fledging 3rd world nations and dens of secularism to follow. God will not save America, certainly did not return to save 19th century America, God does not love America w/ its "Americana" "frontier" and "freedom". God loves people and plans to spiritually free us from physical death.
There has never been a more collective idea that to suggest all of humanity has sinned and it must be redeemed so it can be collectively rejoined w/ its Creator. If secular communities want to call that socialism, utopian, fatalistic, make-believe, or its "not for me" then let it be. Ayn Rand, Saul Alinsky or beloved Martin Luther (nee' King) do not get to define Christianity as an institution, body, church, Ponzi scheme or school where we get to leave our brains in bed. The Holy Spirit has its ways, and Peter was mocked, and even Peter rejected Christ prophesies of his sinfulness and future rejection of Him. Yes, like the secular world, Peter rejected Christ as His personal savior and He died so that all could be convicted by law and saved by the Spirit. Christianity is the greatest contract there ever was or could ever be- we get to keep to getting rejected or other previous forms of fatalist rejection and still can opt-in to subsidized salvation, coverage through eternity.
Adventist executives claim the secular world is influencing WO. When it is the secular world that views women as women instead of spiritual circumcised servants of God. Adventists are secular when they view a woman as a woman instead as a child accepting Christ as the personal savior. Peter, a child of God but also a "lawful Jew", rejected the Son. And women, children of God, want to proclaim how they are children of God once rejected as legal sinners but now bought by the death of Christ. Jews see women as women, secularism see women as women, but Christianity allows woman to born again gender-less and be born spiritually. Although Orthodox Jews and secular communities are different, they are still very similar.
An Orthodox Jew and "Secularist Humanist"
1. Respect the law (whether its a Commandment or socialist mandate)
2. Despise "spirituality"
3. Respect ethnicity, blood, nationality
4. Celebrate and/or recognize gender difference
And many other issues are respected and despised by both of them.
19th century America may have been ideal breeding ground for Adventism, just as Ancient Israel was to Jews. But God didn't come for 19th century America or Ancient Israel but for people of the world. This will not be a hidden rapture where believers disappear but, He is coming for Jew, Gentile, and secularist just the same. 19th century America may have been a special time but sin is eternally sinful. And even those 19th century patriarchs w/ the matriarch EGW could fixate on Sabbath restoration from Early Christianity (Paul) and neglect women's spiritual restoration as it was in the Early Church (Paul).
Nothing is more grossly secular than to discriminate or liberate women. This is not women's liberation rally- no one is asking Wilson to make history for women. And I don't favor discrimination but, it will exist until the end of days, and long after Wilson changes his heart to that spirituality is not a privilege by gender but, the future of humanity-discriminating attiudes will rest besides our hard human hearts. Thats not the issue at hand upon your screen. Only an executive could be so vain and righteous to think he stands in way of making women spiritual servants of God. This is a plea for Adventists not to be tied to the tradition of their fathers, indulge in the past and their righteousness, and mock the power of God over anything secular or otherwise.
Women are no longer women w/ the death of Christ but, spiritual children of God. Matt. 16:24 and women like men must deny themselves even of gender to follow God.
Secularist/Jew mock how a Christian
1. See the law condemning all to die
2. Believe That the Spirit and all things spiritually won by Christ are the only means of salvation
3. And see ethnicity, blood, tribe Levite priesthood, circumcision are over and from an age dated B.C. And even if you're ethnically or culturally circumcised male, all must born again of Water not blood, and spiritually circumcised. Yes spiritually cut off flesh using a painful term like circumcised but, no worries most of us can't possibly remember it.
4. There are no differences in gender under Christ's spirituality. And do not try to trap me saying only men/women can marry. That is true and legal physical marriage of the flesh. But spiritually nobody takes a wife in or to heaven. The entire Church is a bride to Christ.
Our Adventist executors have less in common w/ the aforementioned and more in common w/ what aforementioned similiarities of what Jews and "Secularites" love to hate about these Christians and their Christ.
Wilson and decidely male cabal are vainly deciding the following 4 things I can think of and 4 things they shouldn't be "thinking" of:
Use the law to deny what he has no spiritual authority to do and should accept for the sake of his own humility. Reject the spirituality has ending all differences and being a call to make everyone a mother, father, sister, brother to each other. To be sensitive to tribes and patriarchal ethnicities around the world, when they don't bother to exist to a believer. And see a man as just a man and a woman as just a woman- Christ changed that.
He made them His children, His servants, His that were born again not of the blood, their mom, their dad or of flesh but died so we could be born of the Spirit- gender-less. Women are men and men are women in the spiritual world no one takes a wife who bleeds for themselves or a husband who gives seed for children. Men/women are meaningless, the battle of sexes was only meant to say- some are privileged, some cursed, and children of God can't end that. God and His children can do just that b/c the Spirit saves people from themselves. God gives much more than that, so don't presume it is even possible to deny spiritual promises but, a chance to humble ourselves before the Spirit where past sinners failed to do the same in the Name of Christ. So in Christ's name, step aside and accept "spirituality for all" has already been won. This is not a debate, especially not a debate of flesh and gender b/c it's already won. Adventists were not called to bring the message of God to the Secularites, Sunday Christians, and Old Covenant Legalites but to stop getting in the way of the Way to the Father. The message is being yelled and people who prophess, are empowered, and pridefully yell to be "Christians!" are choking it.
I know of no proven stats which indicate the church is losing its youth because women are not ordained. I have seen stats that show Protestant churches who gain the most require the most. Too often our SDA church is pandering to young people thereby losing their respect.
Maranatha
You aren't aware of them–ask Monte Sahlin,, whom I believe has studied this. I know middle-aged people who have lost trust in the church, and the church has lost credibility with a majority of thinking NAD and European members over the authoritarian way this has been handled. Even on a logical and moral level, it is not appropriate for male pastors to be counseling women; it is not moral to discriminate against anyone on the basis of gender or race.
Anyway I am sure you know all of this in your heart, we need women to carry on the ministry to the world and especially in the west.
To paraphrase what you said to what is really historical truth: Ordination is not based on Scripture but on the Roman Catholic culture of over thousands of years.
Let's be logical–to use the NT culture we would need to never allow women to teach men–we would have to change our educational system as well as our history, for EGW taught many men. I believe God chose a woman for a special reason at this time of history, and it was to break the cycle of discrimination against them.
If the SDA church has not conducted sufficient "detailed discussion" on women's ordination by this late date, nothing new could possibly be added that has not already been said or written. The G.C. archives are filled with these going back to the Mohaven report, which I believe was in the '70s.
Mohaven report dates to 1973.
Truth Seeker, being in my upper 80's, with just a small amount of white hair on my head, i certainly am not denigrating the elders in the pews, i am stating the obvious. i have three daughters, products of SDA education, from kindergarden thru Univ. Two SDA University grads, one non SDA college grad. Today only one considers herself SDA. i am aware through their constant networking this is the norm for all their former SDA friends. And i hear the same from all my contacts, and my daughters made their decisions to leave the church before me.
The church as now constituted, has nothing to keep young people there. Most people today don't want to be a member of an odd-ball organization of any kind, they want to compete in the real world and accept employment as a human among humans.
I don't know exactly why your daughters left Adventism, Earl. Until the Adventist church redefines itself by divorcing from its peculiar, restrictive, now meaningless teachings, it will never keep the young, brightest, unless they are in the medical field where Sabbath breaking is encouraged. I doubt if that will ever happen. I took my two kids with me from this church, almost teens, one is now a captain at Alaska Airlines, another is in graduate school after raising two kids, one of which is national gymnastics champion. I'm proud of them and have never regretted my decision to move on.
If, like one of my brothers, your only goals for yourself and your children are to "get ahead" in this life then the church has little to offer – it will only get in your way of pursuing your secular dreams.
If, on the other hand you believe there is more to life than the here and now you might feel other needs and priorities.
Getting ahead and "more to life" are not mutually exclusive. They may even be complementary. My point is being restricted by the limits imposed by Adventism, especially the Sabbath requirement, slams the door where an alternative "more to life" could be possible. One of the steps of progress in my exodus from Adventism was achieved when I realized there were countless good, legitimate, wholesome ways to lead a life. Adventism is just one.
There are plenty of SDA people compulsively driven to "getting ahead," in their puny domain in disregard of higher priorities.
The trek to spiritual understanding and growth, coupled with "worldly" (yes, non SDA) achievement, is successfully negotiated by countless non-SDAs round the world. You can count me and my children in that group. And Jim, you have a life experience that can verify that, if you just will admit it. Please, you don't need to create a logically vacuous "brother" category for sake of argument!
Bugs-Larry,
I take strong umbrage at the suggestion that my beloved biological brother (unless there is something our parents haven't told us 😎 is merely a "logically vacuous category" that I "need to create for sake of argument". His views regarding Adventism happen to be very similar to yours, though he is more circumspect in where and how and to whom he expresses them. Not to exclude the many friends I regard as brothers and sisters who have chosen to pursue other paths.
(Another brother did issue from my parents for the primary purpose that he and I might mutally pratice and perfect our argumentation skills, greatly to their chagrin and that of our wives, so your speculation though rash is not entirely vacuous.)
Jesus said "no man can serve two masters". Could He have been referring to more than the classic dilemma of bigamy?
LOL!
Most parents teach their children to aim even higher than they did: get the minimum of a college degree with a vocation or profession that will financially be self-supporting and enjoy serving with excellence whatever choice of vocation.
"Faithfully" observing the "precious Sabbath hours" by not working–except in medical care–greatly limits some employment. We all work to solve problems. And there are many problems that are not experienced in physical health, and some may be of an emergency nature. If those cannot be imagined, there is a serious lack of employment positions today: positions that were not dreamed of even 20 years ago. The main reason Adventists do not pursue many new positions today, is their sincere, but taught belief that no work should be done between sundown Friday night and sundown Saturday evening. It is a law given ONLY to the Israelites, but when taught to moderns, the same rules, sans penalties are skipped. It was given to a small, isolated community, largerly agrarian, completely foreign to us today, and yet we translate "not to pick up sticks" or not to light a fire" in completely different manners. Anyone who takes a serious look at the many laws given to the Israelties found in the Torah, should very quickly realize that they could only apply to them and their situation and never to a modern society in which we live today.
All those evangelists, preachers, and teachers who taught strict Sabbath observance were gainfully employed by the church that didn't believe that the work they did on Sabbath was "really work," and in fact many will confess that the busies work day of the week for them was the Sabbath!
Sabbath keeping is a manufactured, self imposed restriction. Keeping it "holy" pleases no one except the internalized parent usually discarded by adolescents as they achieve maturity. It could not be universally enforced if the world was mostly SDA. And it is an imposition on many non-Sabbath keepers who have to make allowances in scheduling, assignments, etc. They have to "break" the Sabbath, or assign others to violate it, so the Remnants can be good remnants.
When I "broke" my first Sabbath upon skkdadeling out the front door, I felt no guilt, only relief. Finally I could relate to the real world, not the imaginary of Adventism. I wanted my kids to aim higher than me, too, and I was right, the best opportunity for them was where I took them.
If someone wants to observe Sabbath, that is fine with me. Just don't try to tell me it is a required exercise.
When and where have I ever denied that most of the people I know who have succeeded in worldly endeavors are not SDA nor do they emanate from SDA or even from Christian backgrounds? Except for two former-SDAs that I hired (without ever inqiring into their religious backgrounds which would have been unseemly to say the least) I have encountered very few SDAs in my career and worked closely with none, though I have met many in my private life all over the world. It does happen that I have worked for two Christian bosses, four Jews, a few Agnostics and many who never expressed a preference.
I am not sure what is the point of this question? If perhaps 1/1,000 of the world's population are SDA then I would expect to encounter about 1/1,000 SDAs in a secular career. That is probably about the ratio I have seen (higher if you count ex-SDAs).
Forgot to mention that at different times I have hired three known SDAs as contractors for specific projects. I exclude them from my sample because I knew them persoanlly before I engaged with them professionally.
Also there was one (brilliant) SDA that we tried to recruit for a semiconductor company. He turned us down and has been working for Intel for many years.
If everyone today observed the Sabbath, what would life be like?
Years ago, Adventist Today had an article "Thank God for the Gentiles" an accurate, though tongue in cheek description of town, largely Adventist. But the "gentiles" were so handy to do the work that Adventists would not do when needed. Just as the Orthodox Jews always located a kind "gentile neighbor" who would come and light the fires on cold winter days!
This could be the majority of parents of adult children if such a survey were taken. My three graduated from SDA universities. They have no interest in Adventism. Occasionally, I mention something like WO, and they receive the free mailing from the union conference and Review, but have no intrest in church, period. I cannot blame them as I long ago divorced the SDA church. Why should they be Adventists? Can someone give a reason that would appeal to them?
Elaine,
I do not know you and I know your children even less. I would not presume to try to tell them how to live their lives, nor would they be likely to listen if I did.
My own three sons all graduated from SDA colleges or universities and two have graduate degrees from same. They are all still "inside" the SDA church though they and their spouses practice their religion in their own individual ways – not necessarily the same as my wife and I.
Merely some anecdotal evidence that Bugs-Larry would doubtless dismiss because one is a pastor and another works for a Christian ministry. Both in their youths swore they would never work for "the church" because they did not want to have to cope with its many problems, but subsequently changed their minds. Bugs-Larry might claim they caved because they realized they could not succeed outside the "coccoon", but I prefer to think their magna cum laude diplomas might be worth something on the open market 8-).
Anticipating your children's growth, watching them successfully pass over fools hill, and become productive, high valued people, is what every parent foresees for his toddlers. From that point of view, it doesn't matter the arena they live their game. As a parent you do your best to direct and encourage. At the end, it is all up to them. Congratulations to any parent who gets to enjoy the good outcome of any child.
It is impossible to predict what our children will choose. Some, because they felt the church was too restrictive, and some in spite of the best influence from home and school. We probably know parents and students who fit those descriptions.
But one thing we should remember: being a member of any church says little about one's life and character, but it is the traits that were taught that are the most important should not be either in or out of any church, but what qualifies as a caring, honest and responsible adult. And my three, I couldn't be prouder of for exceeding those traits in their lives.
Elaine,
Like you I have many caring, honest and responsible family and friends who are ex-SDA, non-SDA and even non-Christian. I certainly hope to see many of them in heaven. I would not presume to try to judge who is or is not following God. He knows who are His own.
Wow! I am exhausted by the open discussion – but how wonderful! What would an Adventist organization look like that allowed such honest and open discussion and even preaching? The church of Jesus day had a metaphorical temple of worship made up of various stones (ie. doctrines and practices). One of these stones was their doctrine about the Messiah – who He was to be and what His purpose was to be. However, it was vastly different from the real "messiah stone" that should have been in the wall. The probem was that the stones in their "Temple" walls were set in concrete. So when Jesus comes along looking drastically different from what they perceived the Messiah should look like, they rejected Him because He didn't match up to THEIR stone. The Holy Spirit, I believe, was working on the leaders and teachers, desiring to remove that stone, but they had set it in concrete. If Jesus was different than their stone, He could not be the Messiah. This is why Jesus reminded the leaders of the cornerstone that the builders rejected (A real incident perhaps when Solomon built the Temple?). Jesus IS the cornerstone against which all other stones must be measured and leveled. If some doctrine, if some practice, does not line up to who Jesus was – how He loved, accepted and forgave all men – that stone needs to come out of the wall and a new doctrine or practice inserted in it's place. But if we cement our doctrines and practices in place, the Holy Spirit cannot build a church that is Jesus' Church.
Don,
An excellent description of what has happened. The ordination of women doesn't match the view of the cemented few. They call on others who opposed what was adopted to support it anyway because of they need to yield to the wisdom of the larger group, then they wail and cry when the larger group adopts something that doesn't match their cemented opinion. If that isn't a real-life illustration of hypocrisy, then I've never seen one.
It is the same thing with the Holy Spirit. He turned out to be quite a bit different than what I expected. There have been a number of times He's told me to do something and my reaction was, "You want me to do WHAT?" I remember once when my reaction was, "God, you've got to be CRAZY!" But it was exactly what He needed done to achieve His purposes.
Ah, the adventure of following God. Our ways are not His ways.
You're right William, for a long time women have held important positions, even in ancient Israel, and of course early in our church as well (ie. Ellen White), but the cement metaphor I speak of is an attitude that lacks open-mindedness. If we ever take the attitude that what we presently believe IS the truth and anyone who disagrees with what we presently believe is wrong and, in fact, disloyal to God's chosen church or chosen nation – that is cement, and I believe it is dangerous because it can cause us like Israel to reject the movings of the Holy Spirit. However, constantly staying open to the Spirit's leading, makes it possible for the Spirit to remove any stone and replace it with a doctrine or practice that is in line with what God is wanting to do in this place and in this particular time. The GC set their stone -"No Women should be ordained" – in concrete, others, I believe were open to how the Spirit was working among the Body, and allowed the Spirit to remove that stone in their area and replace it with a stone that honors the gifts of leadership among God's daughters. Yeah, God!
I am getting the feeling that the advocates of women ordination believe they will loose the battle again when the world Church meets to decide on theis issue. So they have reverted to political pressure to black mail the Church to accept their position. If their position was indeed Biblical they would wait, but it is not, so they dear not wait. This is going to have the oppostite effect, I await their next move. If this is the expression of the Holy Spirit we may not need him, all we need is a well ocestrated political strategy.
clericmorris,
So where and how do you see this alleged "political pressure to black mail the Church to accept their position" being applied? If this is a serious allegation then could you offer us some evidence to support your suspicions?
On the other hand might this merely be your feeling with no external evidence to support your suspicion?
Many in the Church have claimed in the past, that for the sake of unity in the Body of Christ, let's not go the route of ordaining women. Well, there is now a threat of fragmentation if the Church does make a decision to bow the to the pressure placed on the world Church by the North American Division (or the more liberal conferences in the North American Division). Here are some points for you to ponder;
1. "If past history is repeated, and the issue is delayed or ‘punted’ to succeeding GC committees or future world church sessions, the NPUC has resolved to then move ahead on its own, as per the February 20 action (Feb. 21, 2013, GleanerNOW, art. “NPUC Updates Its Ordination Plan,” retrieved 5/21/2013 http://www.gleaneronline.org/2013/02/npuc-updates-its-ordination-plan).
2. Elder dan Jackson's blatant disregard for the Church's Administration's counsel in moving ahead, even when he knows it will produce "tension" with the GC.
3. Even when he (Elder Jackson) had to back down in the E60 addition, he stated in a January 31 letter “. . .the clear commitment of the members of the NADCOM to strengthen the role of women in ministry within the North American Division has not changed.” this was in relation to women's ordination. If the Church votes in a way that deny you the prevailage of having your way, what will you do? The next act will be to engage in open rebellion (It is happening already).
I could go on and on, but which decision have we been at for so many years, where Churches, Conference, Unions, and Divisions engage in veil threats to ensure the World Church says yes?
I await the next act in the unfolding drama.
OK so you have offered evidence of pressure, but where is your evidence of blackmail?
Arrogance is a funny thing. I am not here to play the semantic game with you Mr Hamstra, vail threats, is a mild form of blackmail to me, perhaps bullying would suit you. Take your pick, it matters little to me. What is clear is a liberal element in the Church is prepared to effect an agenda no matter what the World Church says, even if it means threats, psychological or emotional, to force a legislative decision they know the World Church is against. But the time will come when would want to hault an agenda another Division want to further but the hourse would have already bolted.
Well there is certainly evidence of pressure being applied on both sides. I think it was unwise for Ted Wilson to threaten "grave consequences" to Union Conference Constituencies. Other than that I do not see the threats and bullying that you seem to see. Who do you think is bullying whom?
I think your attacks on Dan Jackson are completely unfair. As President of NAD he is accountable to Ted Wilson. As Chair of the NAD Executive Committee he is accountable to that body made up of Union officers and and Conference Presideents. When he speaks for NADCOM he is speaking as chair of a committee that he does not control. Did he or did he not fairly represent the position of the Committee?
Just because you do not agree with the actions of this Committee does not justify your shooting their spokesperson, Elder Jackson. He is every bit as godly and dedicated to doing the right thing as is Elder Wilson. These men are not enemies as you make them out to be. They are both in a very difficult position over this matter and neither is in a position to dictate to the other, or to the respective Committees that they chair.
Personally I prefer not to impugn the motives on either side of what I think is an honest theological and procedural dispute. I think these are godly and committed leaders who happen to disagree on how best to proceed. They are in need of our prayers, not our criticism.
So I am attacking Elder Jackson? And making them out to be enimies? Really? Or do I "happen to disagree on how best to proceed"? I am all for theological disputes, What I cannot contenence is the refusal of any group to disrespect the World Church, when the World church say's no. If the shoe was on the other foot, those who are now calling for the GC to back off, would have been shouting for the Church to enforce the law. But I am convince that the true nature of this rebellion will be seen, just give it some time. The chicken will one day come home to rouse.
#2 and #3 in your comments above look like a personal attack on Dan Jackson. Did I not read your comments correctly?
Given that it has neither Canon Law nor a police force nor a Judiciary, I am not sure how exactly the church is supposed to enforce the law? Are you calling for entire Union Conferences or Divisions to be dropped from the church or disbanded?
The General Conference does not have the authority to appoint or replace officers of Union Conferences or local Conferences. Only their contituencies or their executive committees (between Sessions) have this authority.
The GC can call a special session of the Unon Conference, or the Union Conference can call a special session of the local Conference. These measures are generally invoked in extraordinary situations where the officers or the Executive Committee have refused to address a problem, to give the constituencies an opportunity to take corrective action. However in this case it is the constituencies themselves who have voted things that you do not approve. The only way to reverse such actions would be for someone to persuade a majority of these same constituencies that they voted wrongly.
I am afraid that your style of persuasion will probably not work very well. If you want to be part of a church where everything is controlled from the top then I could make some suggestions 8-).
It was the G.C. fearless leader who threatened "grave consequences" to those who would dare ordain women. So who is threatening who? The unions, not the G.C. are responsible for ordaining in their unions, not the G.C. This is why the "grave consequences" were merely words as nothing he does will affect the divisions or unions when women are ordained, as several already have.
You should know that the Holy Spirit is female.
Elaine,
I would like some more of your thoughts as to your statement here. Please be assured I don't know either way and I have never heard of this before.
We must first admit that there is no gender in the Trinity. Although the writers of the Bible referred to them as male, that was the common usage throughout the Bible as either "men" was used to represent mankind just as it is today; and IF we believe that male and female were created in the image of God, there must be the female gender represented in the Trinity.
Since neither an all-male Trinity, or represented by both genders can ever be verified, it is accepting that both genders are created in God's image and there should be female representation.
That God is neither male nor female would seem to make the necessity of one member of the Trinity being female un-necessary. Can one Being be partly male and partly female, or must that Being (in all its parts) of necessity be both – or outside such distinctions.
We need to first go back and learn how and when the idea of the Trinity was formed, and according to John,"No one has ever seen God." The apostles never spoke of "three persons of the godhead." It was never a distinction made in the Bible, but an evolving process over three centuries until it was finally adopted at the Council of Nicea in 325. It was not a unanimous vote by all bishops present, nor was it peacefully settled as there was continuing disagreement even to this day.
The formation of Christian doctrines is simply consensus by the elders or bishops; promulgated, taught, gradually accepted by the people and thus becomes undisputed. If we could understand and realize that all doctrines are man-made we would be less forceful and charitable in enforcing them.