Union Conference in Norway takes Steps toward Ordination of Women in Ministry
by AT News Team
“I am starting to lose patience in this matter,” Pastor Reidar Kvinge, president of the Norwegian Union Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, stated in an interview about the study of ordination being coordinated by the General Conference (GC). He thinks that women clergy are important for the denomination’s development in Europe, states an article reporting the interview in New Adventist, a publication in the Norwegian language.
This is yet another union conference joining those in North America and Europe to take a stand on the need to end gender discrimination in ordination. At a board meeting in late September, the Norwegian Union Conference made “a policy decision” along those lines, the union president stated.
“I do not want to lead a protest movement,” Kvinge said, but “I’m not happy with the situation.” He would like to see the schedule for the ongoing study on ordination speeded up. He thinks there must be room in the Adventist Church for different practices on ordination in different regions of the world. “I want unity but not uniformity. We may well have diverse practices in different parts of the world without this dividing us as Seventh-day Adventists.”
He cautioned that although the union conference governing body has approved extending ordination to women in ministry, that does not mean the Norwegian union will do it immediately. But he warned that “if we do not get approval to ordain women pastors, we will easily be in the same situation as the three unions that have already adopted ordination of female pastors.” It is not clear that at the time of the interview the Netherlands union had taken the steps that Adventist Today reported recently—which would make it the fourth such union.
The Norwegian union board voted the following: “Based on our understanding of the Word of God as expressed in the Adventist Church’s 28 fundamental beliefs (especially numbers 7, 12, 14 and 17), we consider it morally and ethically correct to recognize women’s and men’s service as Adventist pastors alike.” In the same action a decision was made to issue the Commissioned Minister credential to those holding ministerial credentials in the meantime.
Although there is some ambiguity with the language differences—probably intentional ambiguity to some degree—it appears that the Adventist Church in Norway has essentially put the GC on notice that unless some opening is provided, it will go ahead with removing gender discrimination in ordination after the 2015 GC Session. This is essentially the same position taken by the Adventist Church in the Netherlands, although a union conference officer in the Netherlands later told Adventist Today that they might move ahead sooner with ordination of women in the gospel ministry.
There are 4,600 members of the Adventist Church in Norway out of population of about five million. The Norwegian union includes 62 local churches in three conferences. It operates a junior college and there is a health center and two homes for the aged affiliated with the denomination.
It's called "Democracy in Action." Look at the worldwide unrest in many nations that demand participation in ruling that affects them. No more dictatorial control.
It is not dicatorial control when it's based on God's Word. The Sunday law's will also be "Democracy in Action".
It is not dicatorial control when it's based on God's Word. The Sunday law's will also be "Democracy in Action".
Rebellion is gaining more and more as a dominant charateristic not only in our culture but also in the SDA church. And ordination has *nothing* at all to do with equality and it isn't even closely related.
If ordination is recognition of the call of God upon a particular person, how can we deny the call upon certain women? God calls and uses whom He will. We should be in tune with Him.
To be "in tune with Him" should we not be following the "notes" that have been scribed by the Greatest Conductor? There is true Harmony when the roles He has given us are followed, and the parts blend in sweet melody……
All4Him, are you saying that the Holy Spirit would never call a woman to ministry? Are you saying that if a woman feels the call of God to pastoral ministry, that she is mistaken?
Neither was James White called to pastoral ministry. Does that mean no men should be pastors of the flock (which, BTW Ellen specified could be both men and women).
Edward can you show me an example from God's Word where a women was chosen as a priest/ apostle/elder/bishop to shepherd the flock of the Church? Was Ellen White called to ministry? Yes.
Was she called into pastoral ministry? No
What's pastoral ministry? Show me in the Bible what you mean? Pastor, like Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist and Teacher are spiritual gifts as far as I can see from the Bible.
Great question Stephen… Of course Christ is out supreme Shepherd or Bishop yet we as husbands are called to lead in the home and the Church. Examples in the Bible are the 12 Apostles that were choosen by Christ including the replacement for Judas.
The book of Acts is clear on the on the setting aside of men Acts 6:5 and laying on of hands Act 6:6.
1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying If a MAN desire the office of a bishop HE desireth a good work.
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blamless the HUSBAND of one WIFE…..
Titus 1: 6 If any be blameless HUSBAND of one WIFE
Does this mean women can't teach and minister? Not at all Read Titus 2:4 and Titus 2:5
Wasn't Stephen a deacon, not an Apostle, so not sure how that text in Acts 6:5 is relevant? Or are you saying women can't be deaconesses now?
The next 3 texts you have are about bishops, which in our church we would call elders. Who says a bishop/elder means the same as a pastor? Who says a bishop/elder means the same as an apostle or whatever else you want to call the clergy? Even in our own Church we treat them as different, as we already ordain women elders?
Who says a bishop/elder means pastor? I am all for male-only elders, being appointed leaders according to established, visible and 'worldly' criteria. As long as we recognise pastors, prophets, teachers, evangelists and apostles are spiritual gifts given by the Holy Spirit alone (Eph 4:11).
Instead of quoting the text about the selection of the deacon Stephen, which is irrelevant, you should have instead quoted the text about the selection of Matthais. How was he chosen? It was by lots (where we get the Greek word for clergy). Why lots, unlike Stephen and the other deacons? Because our clergy are selected by God alone, not men, unlike our appointed leaders of deacons and elders who are indeed selected by men.
So why not cast lots to see who God wants?
That method of selection is fine with me.
Those who choose to use the Bible as prescribing how we are to live today are most inconsistent. They carefully select those texts that confirm a position and ignore the many others that are unmentioned. It shouldn't be necessary to demonstrate this but here's examples:
A woman should have her head covered.
Women should not speak but be silent in church.
Women's hair should not be cut.
Men who are a president must not have been married more than once (1Tim. 3)
But this command has also been given in the same writings of Paul:
Hold on to your own belief as between yourself and God.
Should the Bible not be "prescribing how we are to live today"?
Do moral laws not come from the Bible?
Is 2 Timothy 3 : 16 not valid today?
Psalms 119:2, Psalms 119:9, Psalms 119:11
All4Him
You are both correct. It is unfortunate that you see things in such opposition.
Elaine actually makes a very good point. Paul's writings contain a number of direct instructions from God as well as a number of his own comments. Sometimes we know what he meant and sometimes he doesn't explain himself enough for our understanding. Take his comment about wishing that "all men could be as I am." Catholics use that as the basis for requiring priests to be celibate. Was that really what Paul meant? Remember, he had been trained by Gamaliel and was at least in line to be a member of the Sanhedrin, if not already a member at the stoning of Stephen. Besides knowledge of the law and loyalty to their political concepts, members were also required to be married and have at least one son as "proof" of being blessed by God. Was Paul married post-conversion? He makes no mention of having a wife. Given the requirements for membership in the Sanhedrin it is almost certain he was married at the stoning of Stephen. My guess is that his wife divorced him after his conversion on the basis that he had become a heretic.
Paul's counsel to the women in Corinth to keep silent, cover their heads, etc. does not imply that they had not been empowered by the Holy Spirit. Instead it is evidence they were empowered and engaging in ministries. This led them to exercise the freedoms God gives us in how we live and work for Him. But that exercise ran counter to the social customs of the day. Thus we have his counsel to not create controversy so there will be no reason for people to question the ministry they were performing.
I think the root of your opposition to women in ministry rests in your concept of a "minister" being limited to a church pastor. Modern tradition says that is a man but the scriptural application is anyone working under the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to do whatever it is God wants done. Using the modern concept to oppose the ordination of women is neither exegesis (discerning specific meaning from what the text actually says) or eisegesis (drawing meanings and applications from the text), but is "extragesis" where particular views are imposed upon the text to make it say what it does not say. Nowhere in Paul's writings do you find any implication that women were not, could not or would not be empowered for particular ministries in the same way as men. Instead we have his clear declaration that the Holy Spirit is given to all who believe without regard to gender, ethnicity (Jew vs. Greek) or social status (slave vs. free). So the question that matters is not a person's gender, but whether they are believers who have been empowered by the Holy Spirit for a particular ministry.
Ed-
How do you *know* that a woman has been called to occupy the position of a Pastor? To many of us it is clear not only from examples in Scripture but Paul's explicit statement that spiritual heardhip positions are limited to males.
Receiving the Holy Spirit does not indicate that a person is qualified to a spiritual headship position. It's not that complicated. In fact, it's quite simple.
It is said that 4 Unions have voted for WO but it is actually 6 (China didn't vote they just did it 🙂 and NPUC hasn't decided yet. Go back and read what the Mid-America Union voted. Read what they said in the beginning. I wonder if there were no threatenings and pressure how many would be gender inclusive? I wonder if the GC said for each Union to vote their conscience how many more would be added? I don't know any Union in the NAD who have said they don't think women should be considered for ordination and most have gone on record saying they think it is right. I think that is also true in the TED. It might be true in in the SPD and the EUD. There are 5 kinds of power. Force is the weakest because underneath is determination to do what is right and resistance to those who try to hold the group down. The saddest thing is that leaders who have many good ideas will be listened to less if at all by many of our people, because they do not lead as Jesus did.
A friend who is evangelizing in China tells me the official Adventist church in China has been reluctant to ordain women until the past several years. But there is a much larger unofficial SDA Church that is growing quickly and where women are both serving as pastors and being "ordained" according to the Biblical model of the laying on of hands to increase empowerment by the Holy Spirit. We need to remember that "ordination" is a human invention but the laying on of hands to bring greater Holy Spirit empowerment for ministry is Biblical.
The GC says there is no official church in China. They accept them as members, receive them as delegates, visit them and receive their honor (The Chinese treated TW like a King) but because their structure isn't tied to ours, the official word is that there is no SDA church in China.
Satan is loving this: Adventist fighting among themselves,who will be first, oh I'm sorry who will be equal.
Satan is using WO as a distraction from our mission as a church, the same way he used the disciples fighting over who will set next to Jesus in the new kingdom. Next we will be teaching evolution in our universities, oh we are already teaching it. The next thing satan is bring into the church is homosexuality. Yup satan is having a lot of fun with the church.
The process of rebellion that the pro WO members are using is definitely not from God. This process throws WO moment into question, whether it's from God or from satan. This is the way satan worked in heaven.
Let's get the work done and get home!
This is amazing Pastor Reider Kvinge is "starting to lose patience in this matter". Who is he losing patience with in this matter? is it the people? is it the church? is it the Norwegian Union Conference is it the G.C. or is it God? What, he snaps his finger and it's done? What's going to happen if the church votes against WO in the future?
P.S. I'm not much of a letter writer, but I think, I got the point across.
I'm always interested when a human being says he knows what is and what is not "from God." I wonder if such an individual would let the rest of us in on his/her secret of knowing the mind of God. I thought this was left to prophets. Does "asphalto1" consider himself/herself a prophet?
Bro. Taylor it is a honor to receive a reply from you.
It doesn't take a prophet to see that the morals inside and outside the church are going down hill.
My point isn't wheter WO is right or wrong, it's the spirit of rebellion that the pro WO members are using is wrong. It calls into question the whole WO movement, by going against the GC takes the emphasis off of WO movement and puts the emphasis on the method.
It doesn't take a prophet to read the bible and to know that evolution destroys the bases for the bible, that is , that God created the world and man in six literal days. If Gensis is wrong then the whole bible is wrong.
God didn't create Adam and Adam, He created Adam and Eve. Homosexuals can try to twist the bible verses around and play all kind of word games the bottom line is, being homosexual is wrong and sinful. And like any other sin it can be overcome by the power of God.
I know because I've seen God work in my life to overcome sin. At one time I chased women, drank a lot of alcohol, smokeed, and went to bars. About three years ago Jesus gave me a desire to change. God will do the same for homosexuals if they want to change, it doesn't matter what the sin is God will give the power to overcome if you want to overcome.
My question is still who is Pastor Reilder Kvinge losing his patience with?
Thank you for your reply
"It calls into question the whole WO movement, by going against the GC takes the emphasis off of WO movement and puts the emphasis on the method."
It's funny how things so quickly change as the table turn. When I grew up in the SDA Church (not that long ago as I am 33), in a quite conservative family, many of the conservatives were pressing ahead with various independent ministries – 3ABN perhaps being a very good example. It was often said that the GC was controlled by Jesuits (or insert other conspiracy theory), and that true Seventh-day Adventists need to stick by the Bible and SOP and not simply obey the GC as some Papist would.
Now of course the conservatives feel they have one of their own as Pontiff in the person of President Wilson. Thus, disobeying the GC isn't a sign of standing up for truth any more but supposedly a sign that something is off and possibly the spirit of Satan. How quickly the tables turn and the anti-establishment becomes the establishment.
"It doesn't take a prophet to read the bible and to know that evolution destroys the bases for the bible, that is, that God created the world and man in six literal days. If Gensis is wrong then the whole bible is wrong."
I am not saying the Bible doesn't read as promoting 6×24 YEC, but it certainly isn't the only way to read the creation account. YEC is certainly the 'traditional' way of reading the story, but since when have Adventists been defenders of tradition over present truth? For example, the Bible only says God created the world in six 'days' (yom), but 'day' doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours – no where does the Bible say 'literal' or '24 hour' days. Just saying…
"God didn't create Adam and Adam, He created Adam and Eve…And like any other sin it can be overcome by the power of God."
God also certainly didn't create people with an extra chromosome (Down Syndrome), or hermaphrodites (such as people with both sex organs or XXY), or a range of other 'unnatural' conditions. We are all broken in this world.
Yes, Down Syndrome is obviously the result of sin, in the sense that we human beings have imperfect bodies that can lead to that condition. But I am not sure you would not think someone with Down Syndrome could overcome their condition, which is borne in sin, through prayer? Likewise, it is possible for a homosexual to refrain from certain sexual actions (currently undefined), as it would for a hetrosexual, but they can no more change their sexual orientation than someone from Down Syndrome can change their nature.
"I know because I've seen God work in my life to overcome sin. At one time I chased women, drank a lot of alcohol, smokeed, and went to bars."
I have never smoked, and not really been a drinker ever. As a personal gripe, I do hate it when people use their own previous sinfull life as somehow proof or a position of strength as to why they are right, over people who have never lived that life. The same argument is usually given against contemporary music, when conservative people say, 'I use to go to nightclubs…'
That said, I do understand where asphalto1 is coming from. In life though, things can be a little more complicated that he is perhaps suggesting. The Bible included…
I very much appreciate it when a traditional Adventist is honest and straightforward about his or her beliefs and the basis on which we should interpret the “Signs of the Times” in the Adventist Church.
In the case of “Asphalto1” (another conservative who does not give his real name), his list of bad things happening in the Adventist Church includes most of the current classic list of conservative Adventist talking points: (1) morals (going downhill, of course), (2) pushing forward with women’s ordination is rebellion again the GC, (3) evolution destroys the basis of the Bible (including that classic of classics: “If Genesis is wrong then the whole Bible is wrong”) and (4) homosexuality is evil.
Obviously, many Adventists would disagree with “Asphalto1” on all of these points. That is a given. After agreeing that we disagree, the critical question becomes what should be our attitude toward other church members who disagree with us on what is regarded by some as very fundamental issues?
With regard to whom Pastor Reider Kvinge is losing his patience with: If I might venture a guess, he is running out of patience with an ecclesiastical political process specifically designed to frustrate God’s will in the modern world concerning the equality of all regardless of gender for those who feel called to be a pastor.
Doc. Taylor:
My name is Steve Mahan.
Four yrs.ago when I gave my heart to the Lord I didn't give it to Him as a liberal or conservative, but as a sinner who needs saving. The Lord has made a big change in my life in the last four yrs, and I want to live for the Lord through the power of the Holy Spirit, for the rest of my life. I know these are hackeyed phrases that I'm using, but they are true and the best to explain my walk with the Lord..
I don't understand,when it's stated in the Bible that homosexually is wrong or that the earth was created in six evening and mornings, which are the same evening and mornings we have today (24 hr. periond.) how can it be understood any other way? My point on WO isn't whether it's right or wrong, but the method their're using to push it through. If the Uion Conferences can ordain women against the will of the GC and the church ( voted on WO twice and turned it down twice), what's to keep the Uions from withholding tith or offering or anything else they want to do?
When a parent disciplines a child with love,the child knows right or wrong, because the parent explains it to the him or her. As Seventh-day Adventist christians we are to have the same relationship with our Heavenly Father as He corrects us through Bible as a child.
In Mark 10:14&15 unless we become as little chilren in our understanding of the Bible and accept what is plainly stated there, we will not enter the Kingdom of God. The Bible isn't that complicated.
Rebellion requires an object as the focus of what is to be rejected. Is it rebellion to take Galatians 3:28 literally where Paul declares: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus
"? If that is rebellion, what it is focused against? I think male-centric traditionalism.
Bro. Ferguson thank you for your post.
When I grew up in the SDA Church, in quite a conservative family, many of the conservatives were pressing ahead withe various independent ministries – 3ABN perhaps being a very good example.
Whether it's conservatives or liberls that rebel against the church it's still wrong, two wrongs doesn't make a right. WO has been voted down twice before in the 1990's. My point is the WO movment is not helping themselves by rebelling against the church. I don't recall that the SDA Church ever vote against 3ABN? Although I could be wrong. I thought the SDA Church was behind 3ABN?
I am not saying the Bible doesn't read as promoting 6×24 YEC, but it certainly isn't the only way to read the4 creation account.
What other way is there to read it? The Bible reads;" the evening and morning were the first day."That is a 24 hr. period . Is the day that God created in Genesis the same day that we live by today? If it isn't then how long is evening and morning in Genesis, because now the evening and morning are a 24 hr. period.
but they can no more change their sexual orientations than someone from Down Syndrome can change their nature.
Down syndrome is a physical defect and the Bible doesn't say it will keep us out of heaven, but the Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin and like any sin God always makes way to overcome it by prayer and allowing the Holy Spirit control our life.
In Cor. 6:9-10 NKJV says that homosexuals (effeminate KJV) will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, also SOP states that all inherited and cultivated tendencies must be under the control of God, who will transform our character. (Adventist Home ch. 33 p.206 CTr ch.8 Christ will create a new heart in his followers. Christ Object Lessons ch. 25 p.330-331.)
The way I read the Bible there will not be any homosexuals in heaven, just like there will not be any adulterers, sodomites, thieves…….etc.
We should love the person and hate the act, and treat everyone with respect.
As a personal gripe, I do hate it when people use their own previous sinful life as somehow proof or a position of strength as to why they are right, over people who have never lived that life.
I apologize Stephen, I didn't intend to sound arrogant, I'm just so happy that Jesus saved me that I want to express my love for the Lord and what he has given me. I will be more careful in the future. I just want to tell everyone what he has done in my life,and sometime it comes out wrong.
I'm very ashamed of my pass life. There is not a thing to bragg about.
Again who is Pastor Reilder Kvinge losing patience with? To me this is a rather arrongant statement.
Christ said many times "go and sin no more"…. I am sure the "thiefs" last thoughts were not of what he could gain deception but what was gained by grace. David did not seek to make adultery "normal" but in Psalms 51:1 prays for forgiveness.
The comments of "asphalto1" and "All4Him" remind us that the Spirit that drove the views of
those very religious people of the time of Jesus,the Pharisees, is still very much with us. I, for one, hope they continue to express their opinions so we will never forget what kind of convictions can be held and advocated by our very orthodox co-believers so these opinions can be roundly opposed.and rejected .
Bro. Taylor:
The comments of "asphalto1" and "All4Him" remind us that the Spirit that the Spirit that drove the views of those very religious people of the time of Jesus, the Pharisees, is still very much with us.
The Spirit that drove the religious people and the Pharisees of the time of Jesus was hatred of Him and they killed Him.
I don't hate Jesus I love Him, He has change my life in so many way. Why would you say that All4Him and I have the spirit of the Pharisees?
so we will never forget what kind of convictions can be held and advocated by our very orthodox co-believers so these opinions can be roundly opposed and rejected.
What opinion do you opposed and reject? Jesus is the center of my life.
What part of my belief should be opposed and rejected? You don't know me and you are judging me.
I don't want to hurt a soul, I want everyone to be saved, but God has setup conditions how we are to be save. Both the Bible and SOP laydown those conditions.
Steve Mahan
Ervin, I entirely agree with your comment, but I'm not sure its fair to single out Asphalto and All4Him. They simply represent the spirit of SDAism, which is based on a philosophy of religious materialism, and so cannot avoid teh Judaising bent which Paul rails against in Galatians. 'Very orthodox' are simply very foundational. As such, they probably represent original Adventism more so than those (more enlightened) folks who have found the true Spirit of scripture which enables them to see a little more clearly through the darkened glass of this earthly sojurn. If All4Him were to consider the vast theological implications of a name change to something like 'All are One in Him'; of 'Him in All,' then perhaps, or almsot certainly, there would be a change in perspective.
Whilst on that subject, Paul's view that 'all are One in CHrist Jesus,' ie, neither black nor white, male nor female, etc, should be sufficient to settle the question re female ordaination. I find it passing strange that a church which is based on the authority granted to a female prophet cannot find the moral fortitude to ordain women. Unless she herself spoke against it, but of this I am ignorant (and a lot besides). Paul does also state that he 'suffers not a woman to teach,' but SDAs suffer the teaching of EGW constantly, so where is the problem? It is also highly possible that those apparently 'anit-feminine' views attributed to Paul were later insertions by the male dominated western church dominated by Rome. It would therefore be a great act of subversion of the authority of Rome for SDAs to ordain women.
Serge take a look at Ellen Whites own words on the subject in 5T page 60 and 5T page 598.
Has not John Paul II claiming evolution capatible with Christianity?
Was not Mary elevated to co-redemstrix?
Connecitcut University poll in Dec. 2012 Roman Catholic voters more accepting of gay marriage than other Americans?
Becareful of the "him" many are all in….
I certainly agree with Serge that the views expressed by "All4Him" and those who agree with him/her probably are very close to how the original small Adventist sect members thought about how they were "in the Truith" and most other Christains were "out." This is a common feature of the early phases of all cults. As for Paul's views on women: they are certainly problematic, but it is important to view his comments in context which seems to mitigate to some egree the harsh nature of the expressions of his opionions..
Erv,
Paul's writings began making a lot more sense to me when a friend reminded me that they are letters and suggested that I read them that way. While Paul was a highly-trained theologian, his letters are primarily not theological treatises. The difference that suggestion made was to change my expectations when reading his letters. No longer was I looking exclusively for theological proofs and I began seeing the personality of the author. I soon realized that Paul makes a number of personal observations along with his declarations about God, but people often do not see the difference and think his personal observations are commandments from God. Take his remark in 1 Cor 7:7 "I wish that all men were as I am." Catholics take that as the entire scriptural foundation for requiring priests to be celibate. But it actually is part of his larger discussion about spiritual gifts. What spiritual gifts and ministries did Paul have in mind when he made that statement? He doesn't give us much to answer the question because he is encouraging all believers to discover the guidance and empowerment God wants us to have in the Holy Spirit.
Very well said, William. Paul's ultimate message is always that which encourages, nay, demands, that each believer be born and led of the Spirit. But I think that his letters are a veritable fountainhead of theological understanding. I guess he considered the people to whom he wrote back then were far more theologically literate than we are today. Although it would appear that even Peter had some difficulty in understanding everything he wrote. 2Peter 3.16.
The other problem with his letters is to decide which of them he actually wrote. I think that the apparent contradictions, eg, his attitude to women generally and in terms of 'teaching,' suggests quite strongly to me that probably not all the letters in the NT reputed to be from Paul are actually his. I am a big fan of Shawul / Paulos, but I try to draw the line at Pauliolatry.
Timo Onjukka :
You have taught me a lesson to be very specific in my comments. I agree with All4Him, I assumed that you understood that David and the thief on the cross aren't practicing sinners, like all people who will be in heaven.
Are you saying that the Early Christian church and the Seventh-day Adventist church are cults?
Steve Mahan