Unity in Diversity: Solution Offered to Ordination Debate
by Monte Sahlin
By AT News Team, November 14, 2014
A region that has angered some Adventists by extending clergy ordination to women serving as pastors offered a way out of the divisive disagreement yesterday (November 13) with a suggestion for a solution. The governing body of the denomination's Pacific Union Conference, a judicatory that includes the west coast of the United States, voted a statement that endorses recent actions by worldwide and North American governing bodies and focuses on unity in diversity.
The executive committee of the Pacific Union Conference voted the statement on "Unity Through Diversity." The purpose, said Pastor Ricardo Graham, union conference president, is to support the actions voted this fall at the annual meetings of the governing bodies for the denomination's General Conference (GC) and North American Division (NAD) and to affirm the reports of both the NAD and GC study committees on the Theology of Ordination.
“We all need to focus on preaching the good news of salvation and serving the people in our communities,” said Graham. “Our committee believes the best way to do that on a global basis is the way the early church did it: by endorsing different ministry methods in different parts of the world (Acts 15), and trusting church members and leaders to follow the leading of God as they develop effective ministry methods.”
This statement may provide a starting point for denominational leaders around the world to come together around an affirmative vote on the question on the agenda for the GC Session next summer. Such unity would largely bring to an end a divisive debate that began in the early 1970s.
The text of the statement:
"Whereas many members and leaders in the Pacific Union Conference: Believe the Bible supports the ordination of women to pastoral ministry, while others do not.
"Whereas some local conferences in the Pacific Union Conference: Have ordained women to pastoral ministry, while others have not.
"Whereas Acts 15 records that: When faced with this kind of conflict while the apostles were still living, the church preserved unity for mission by establishing different practices for different peoples.
"Whereas the North American Division Theology of Ordination Study Committee agreed that: Seventh-day Adventists can disagree on women’s ordination and still have a 'thorough commitment to the full authority of Scripture' [1] and, by implication, live together in the same church in unity.
"Whereas the General Conference Theology of Ordination Study Committee voted: 'To affirm that in spite of the differences of opinion on the subject of women’s ordination, the members of the theology of ordination study committee are committed to the message and mission of the Seventh-day Adventist church, as expressed through the 28 Fundamental Beliefs.'
"Whereas the 2014 GC Annual Council action: (1) Indicated that the issue of women’s ordination is not an issue on which the church has been able to reach consensus and it doesn’t 'directly involve fundamental beliefs,' and (2) Voted to put before the delegates in 2015 the question of whether each division should be authorized to determine its own policies on the ordination of women to ministry. [2]
"Whereas the NAD Year End Meeting voted a resolution to: 'Encourage expressions of disagreement that are honest and open, based upon a sincere desire to arrive at truth as expressed in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy,' but 'to avoid participating in, or being party to, all forms of unhealthy and demeaning discourse, [and] to govern our communication according to the high standards of Christian conduct … so that God may be glorified in all we say and do.'
"Whereas we are all committed to the same mission of proclaiming the three angels’ messages, and
"Whereas we are unified in our commitment to the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the church, and
"Whereas Ellen White commented that: 'In the different branches of this great work, as in the branches of the vine, there is to be unity in diversity. This is God’s plan, the principle which runs through the entire universe.' [3]
"Therefore: The Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee stands in support of the statements and actions voted at NAD TOSC, at GC Annual Council 2014 and at NAD Year End Meetings 2014, affirming unity in diversity. And we stand in support of a vote at General Conference Session 2015 that will authorize each Division of the church to develop and practice its own policies on women’s ordination, because we believe diversity will best preserve the unity of the worldwide church and will enable the church in each part of the world to fulfill its mission of service and evangelism.”
The footnotes included with the full text of the statement:
[1] “We believe that an individual, as a Seventh-day Adventist in thorough commitment to the full authority of Scripture, may build a defensible case in favor of or in opposition to the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, although each of us views one position or the other as stronger and more compelling.”
[2] “The biblical example of addressing differences that do not directly involve fundamental beliefs, … Whereas the unity for which Jesus prayed is vitally important to the witness of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, … Whereas various groups appointed by the General Conference and its divisions have carefully studied the Bible and Ellen G White writings with respect to the ordination of women and have not arrived at consensus as to whether ministerial ordination for women is unilaterally affirmed or denied, … After your careful consideration of what is best for the Church and the fulfillment of its mission, …”
[3] Ellen G. White, Letter 71, 1894. 1895 General Conference Bulletin, page 373.
There is a marked difference between Unity in cultural Diversity and Unity in doctrinal Diversity of which the latter is the issue at hand. Can we be united whilst holding diverse doctrinal positions? If you said no then you're right. If indeed we are united in Christ then our belief will be in line with the holy scriptures. Of course the biblical position in favour of WO is a weak one and so the cop-out is to pass WO off as a cultural issue and not a doctrinal one. The whole issue is based on a secular construct that is undeniably driven by a feminist agenda, hence the onslaught on Patriarchy, which without doubt is an open attack on the Bible and it's teachings on male headship. Where does this feminist agenda construct come from? Not from the bible! No, it comes from ungodly secular worldviews influenced by a heavy cultural bias and propagated by indoctrination at secular academic institutions where academics have bought into this concept. Those studying at secular institutions are brainwashed by feminist ideals which include the cross-pollination of male-female roles as interchangeable and an inalienable right. Lucifer tried a similar line of reasoning in heaven before he was cast out. The same views are expressed by secular society and it's academic institutions on other issues like homosexual behaviour, which is erroneously being taught as an acceptable normal human sexual behaviour, which is again, like female headship, contrary to what the Bible teaches.
So where can you show me any official church action regarding ordination (of men or women) as a Doctrine?
The Church Manual and the various conference constitutions, by-laws and working policies codify Practices, not Doctrines. To regard theses as Doctrines is to create an Adventist Talmud. And we know what Jesus said about the Talmud, don't we 8-).
Dear Mr Hamstra
WO is in conflict with at least three of these doctrines:
This includes the blatant disregard of the Method of Bible Study document by many Adventist theologians in favour of a compromised culture driven interpretation of the Bible which keeps in line with the dictates of a permissive secular and ungodly society. As a result of the wool being pulled over the eyes of many, there can be seen the transition of many traditional Adventist believers who have crossed floors becoming liberals by their decision to compromise – choosing culture over Christ. Choosing Barabbas may have its spin-offs but it comes with a heavy price. Feminism is not taught in the Bible and was not supported by Ellen White. Denying that the call for WO is a feminist driven ideal only displays the extent of how luring and blinding cultural compromise can be. Worse still: trampling on the word of God and insisting that that is what the Bible teaches.
You are grasping at straws my brother.
I am puzzled when someone attributes the whole possibility of women as full ministers of the gospel to feminism. It feels blind to the alternative that God's Spirit is leading us someplace valuable. That perspective feels like it is blind to the possibility that God is willing to declare practices of 2,000 years ago as no longer as useful as they were then. I am personally reluctant to limit the movements of the Spirit, as if I have full and unfailing insight into the mind of God.
According to the White Estate (whiteestate.org), Ellen G. White was first issued ministerial credentials on February 10, 1871 by the Michigan Conference and her credentials were reissued through 1887. In the first listing of ministers 1884 – 1887 Ellen G. White was listed as a minister under both the General Conference and the Michigan Conference. In 1888 she was listed as a minister in the California Conference, the Michigan Conference, and as a General Field Minister. In 1889 she was listed as a General Conference Minister.
So once again I ask the question, why all this argument about women's ordination. Ellen White was a woman and she was ordained to preach in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
We have a message to get out to a dying world. Get over it; women are prophets and they are capable of preaching a sermon and to lead a body of believers. The solution offered by the Pacific Union Conference makes sense. In Conferences and Unions where the people are agreeable to the ordination of women; ordain women. Where they are not, do not ordain women. God has a work for us to do, and it is not continually discussing an issue that was truly settled in 1871 when the General Conference ordained Ellen G. White as a minister!
That is all I have to say on this subject.
AMEN, brother.
This is what I am hearing: I understand and interpret the Scriptures correctly and you do not. My understanding is from heaven, yours is from some place else… This line of reasoning is divisive and unholy. It is clear that after serious minded committed members of our faith group have considered the matter of WO THEY were UNABLE to convince each other of their positions, EACH presenting their VIEWS from Scriptures. They asked for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They were sincere. They wanted to find the truth.
When the Holy Spirit speaks it is clear He has spoken. When the Holy Spirit is silent we must accept that fact as well. The God of Heaven is very capable of speaking and ending this debate. He has chosen not to do that.
Are we being tested to see if we have love and respect for each other? Must we codify OUR PERSONAL understanding of ALL things? Some things are very clear to me from the Scriptures such as the best diet is the Eden diet of fruits, nuts, and grains, with the addition of vegetables as an accommodation after Adam and Eve sinned; yet as a faith group we have agreed to hold to clean and unclean meat rules and allow individuals the right to choose what works best for them where ever they live. We have not felt it necessary for us to sharpen this doctrinal position to the point of dividing the church. This is doctrinal, it is cultural, it is environmental.
Making everything black and white is not consistent with God's dealing with a sinful world, aside from God's clear statements of the ten commandments and other such things… go into all the world. Who should do that? Only those approved and credentialed? No, those who are gifted according to the choice of the Holy Spirit, in which case the Holy Spirit has spoken. Let us listen.
Dear Mr. Nash, light and darkness is as black and white as it can get. It's not about having differences: it's about whether these differences in particular are in harmony with the Bible or not. Here are a few verses of many that draw a clear distinction between the two:
2Cor 6:14 Be all of you not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion has light with darkness?
Eph 5:8 For all of you were sometimes darkness, but now are all of you light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
1Thess 5:5 All of you are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
Rom 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
2Cor 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, has shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
2Pet 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; unto which all of you do well that all of you take heed, as unto a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Rom 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
Rom 2:19 And are confident that you yourself are a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
John 1:5 And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 8:12 Then spoke Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
Thank you Allen. What you have said is very good.
The fact that WO, like legal elective abortion, only came to the fore when the feminist agenda gained ground, is no coincidence. Both the old and new testament church did not subscribe to such teachings, especially in terms of the concept of female headship in the family and the church. Feminism is of a secular construct and is based on the agenda of a permissive culture and not supported by scripture nor Ellen White for that matter. WO is a direct result of the feminist agenda gaining ground. Much of this done so through indoctrination, led by secular institutions and govshop – and lobbyists of course. To deny that feminism is the primary agent involved in the move to force WO on the Adventist church is being rather naive I would say or simply a case of spiritual blindness.
Trevor,
WO first came to the fore in the Adventist church in the late 1800s. The GC officers have been studying this question for over a century since it was first referred to them from a Session. Every cognizant theological body that has studied this since, has concluded that the Bible can properly be used to make a case for or against WO.
I would not want to defend many of the lobbying tactics on either side of this issue. Both feminism and misogynism are deadly evils. They go all the way back to Genesis 3 and they tend to reinforce each other. Ditto for racism, nationalism and many other things that divide humans from one another. In the Sanctuary bult by Moses there was a single courtyard for the priests and the worshippers. Solomon divided the courtyard into one court for priests and another for the other worshippers. Zerubbabel added a separate court for the women. Herod added another court for the gentiles.
Jesus came to break-down every wall of separation that had been erected by the spiritual leaders of God's people. Adventists claim to have the purpose of "finishing the work" on earth that Jesus started. This is not the work of Redemption that Jesus finished at the cross (where the veil was rent asunder). The work that needs to be finished here is the work of restoring the Body of Christ to the unity that Jesus Himself prayed for in John 17. In Christ there is neither rich nor poor, slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile, Male nor Female.
Both the "male headship" and the "feminist" agendas are of Satan. Christ's antidote, as with every other human form of domination, is the attitude of service and submission that He Himself modeled. We are all to be servants to Christ and to each other. Yes that means men are to serve women, and women are to serve men. And men are to submit to women and women to men as unto the Lord.
If you look very carefully in the NT you will find multiple examples where Jesus voluntarily submitted to the requests of women and also of men, even where He was not under any moral or ethical obligation. In some cases He first gently reminded them that He was not obligated to them, and then voluntarily and lovingly proceeded to do what they asked of Him. His submission to others was based upon love rather than upon authority.
The Gospels of Luke and John especially contain examples of how Jesus related one-on-one to people of both genders in a variety of circumstances. And these examples are treated extensively in the book Desire of Ages. I could cite them for you but I think it would be better for you to search them out for yourself, and especially consider how Ellen comments on them. You might yet learn some new things there 8-).
There is a very strong case to made that the very practice of "ordination" as adopted into Christian practice from Roman civil practice, inherently violates the New Testament teaching of service and submission. The separation between clergy (kleros) and laity (laos), with the laos in submission to the kleros, did not arise until after the Apostles had passed from the scene. In the NT both of these words are used to describe the entirety of the Body of Christ on earth, they do not refer to distinct sub-classes within that body.
Beware when accusing others of spritutal blindness. You need to consider the possibility that there might still be one or more "planks" in your own spiritual eyesight as well 8-).
Mr. Hammond, not to get into a controversy with you but elective abortion has been around every since women have had unwanted pregnancies; it just wasn't a safe practice. As stated very clearly by the White estate, Ellen White was ordained in 1871 by both the Michigan and General Conference. I am not sure when they stopped ordaining women, but the fact remains that Ellen White was an ordained minister of the gospel This means that in speaking about the history of abortion and woman's ordination in the Seventh-day Adventist Church your information is faulty.
"To deny that feminism is the primary agent involved in the move to force WO on the Adventist church is being rather naive I would say or simply a case of spiritual blindness."
This sentence is interesting on two levels. First, no one will "force" women's ordination on the church. If it occurs officially, it will be voted by people from around the world who are free to vote as they see fit. The Annual Council by a large majority took the position recommending voting at the GC Session. Presumably delegates will vote based on their convictions, not coercion.
As to "naive" and "spiritual blindness," your position completely ignores the possiblity of the leading of the Holy Spirit. It would seem that you are so narrowly focused on and committed to your position that seeing the woods may be hard because of the feminism tree on which you are focused. Is that akin to spiritual blindness?
Notice I did not say there is no such thing as black or white. Sorry if I did not make my point clear. My point is that it is not required that we make ALL THINGS BLACK OR WHITE.
Clinging tenaciously to our understanding of scripture when a significant number of other serious students of the Word, who are fellow believers disagree, must cause us to pause and ask, why is this not so clear to others as it is to me? It is clear Heaven has not thundered an answer/solution.
Add the feminist movement or remove it. We must come to a conclusion that allows for all to practice their faith following scriptures as they understand it. If MY UNDERSTANDING and YOUR UNDERSTANDING do not agree OUR options are simple aren't they? We agree to disagree and love each other or we force the issue to the point of no longer being a part of the same fellowship? When a serous effort has been made, and it has, to understand all sides, and still consensus has not been reached, what wins love for each other and our common ground or love for being right in our own eyes?
Just saw this post, 15 days later. The question is who would leave? Is one side of the debate more likely to leave than the other? The ones on the conservative side of the discussion seem to automatically assume that those of us who see it differently are the ones who should be "shaken out."
In answer to your question who will be shaken out: the people who are not willing to stand on truth and truth alone. You see Brother Edward, there is no conservative truth and there is no liberal truth. There is no woman's truth, and there is no man's truth. There is no black truth nor is there a white truth. There is only one truth. That truth is Jesus Christ. Accepting truth, the pure unadulterated truth of the Bible (the word of God) which is Jesus (the word of God) is the cross we have to bear. As we accept God's truth, we become unified. Al these "terms" of the world cause divisiveness. Throw them out. The Bible must be what we use to measure every thought, every action, every facet of our lives not terms like conservative or liberal. If we do not learn to use Jesus as our only measurement, we will be "shaken out."
Matno, i agree. We have two, and only two sources, from which to know of our origin, our being. Sola Scriptura, and the Holy Spirit. Mankind is male/female. Galations 3:27-29 "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ". "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all ONE in Christ Jesus". "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Mark 12:25 "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven".
So there we have the truth, there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus…. we are ONE. Also there is neither Jew nor Greek; African nor Asian, European nor Native American; Indian nor ???; Black nor White; Red nor Yellow; etc etc. We are all ONE in Christ Jesus.
Very well said, Brother Earl.
I've noticed many times in the discussions about WO that feminism has been referred to as "Satanism" and an evil equal to misogyny. Why? Feminism was born out of frustration of women's rights for equality, beginning with the right to vote and progressing to the right to equal education, equal pay for equal work and respect as an equal in every respect to the male.
Those use see "Feminism" as something to be demeaned should study the history of women through the centuries to see that Machismo has ruled the world, but it wasn't called that, just that it was the tradition–as if tradition should make it sacrosanct. "It's always been done this way" is the phrase that kills all new ideas, good and bad.
BTW: Many men claim to be "Feminists" because they support equality for both sexes. Those that do not should be called "male superiors" for lack of a better term. The secular world is far ahead and setting the example for equality and non-discrimination while most religions who claim to follow Christ who treated both men and women equally, are still arguing about equality.
Well said Elaine. I'm a man but I like to consider myself a "gender abolitionist" because I don't believe in discrimination based on gender. Much like those SDA Pioneers who were racial abolitionists had the present truth of opposing racial discrimination. I'm also incedentally white, but I support equality of races as well. In fact, the notion of racial, gender and class equality is the essence of the Gospel message, as Paul explains in Gal 3:28. There are numerous other examples as well.
Whether you are a man or a woman or a child, whatever your ethnicity, the desire to place self first as opposed to God first and others equal, is the root of all evil. As Ellen wrote long ago, the spirit of competition is indeed the spirit of Satan.
The antidote to evil is the two great commandments quoted by Jesus from Deuteronomy, and modeled in His life.
True Jim, but I somehow feel that is a bit of a cop out answer. It reminds me of Paul telling slaves that they should be good slaves, and in that way they will win over their masters. All very true and all very much in the spirit of the Gospel.
Yet for we who are not slaves, don't we have a duty to oppose slavery? Is that not what Paul himself encouraged in Philemon? Is that not what our abolitionist pioneers taught?
As it was and is with race and class, so it is with gender. Those are the three great equalities of the Gospel enshrined in texts such as Gal. 3:28. Either we believe the raddical egalitarian message of the Gospel or we don't. If we don't, then we might as well ensure we have circumcised Jewish men as our ordained leaders, because that is the racial-class-gender identity of the original Apostles.
Yes we do have a duty to oppose every form of artificial separation within the Christian church.
Either we as Adventists abandon ordination as another pagan tradition or we permit women to be ordained in those places where the prevailing culture can accept it.
Steve
Your arguments are simplistic for a variety of reasons. The issue is primarily about authority and not about ordination per se. God himself established differences in gender roles and this was before there was even a culture! Unless you are like some who believe that the Garden of eden was a system of patriarchial repression and oppression?
Please show me where in Genesis 2 that Eve was in any way subordinate to Adam. Why form Genesis 2 only? Because that is where Adam and Eve first appear. And in Genesis 3 they have departed from God's plan for them. So that leaves you exactly one chapter from the Bible to prove your assertion.
Then you might want to read (in Patriarchs and Prophets) what Ellen says about the change in the status of Eve relative to Adam as a consequence of her disobedience. How Eve went from being fully equal with Adam to being in a subordinate role as a consequence of sin.
And don't argue from Paul because his own explanation invokes Genesis 3 rather than Genesis 2. Clearly Paul was talking about their fallen human condition, not their original condtion in Eden as you wrongly claim.
That word subordinate comes from the same Latin root as ordination. Inherent in the concept of ordination is the notion that the un-ordained are subordinates. Compare that idea to what Jesus Himself said to the Discples about Christian leadership principles. And about how these principles stand human leadership heirachies on their head. Remember that ordinatio was the Roman organizational practice of the time when Jesus instructed the Disciples NOT to lead like that.
It seems that your claims regarding Women and Ordination fail on both premises. First being the Biblical creation status of Women and second being the extra-Biblical practice of Ordination.
Firstly you have to ask why they were not created simultaneously. Then you will have to ask why God asked Adam first when Eve had sinned first. I believe in ontological equality but not functional equality which is where the debate actually is. Equality does not mean duplication of roles or their interchangeability. The fact is this, the problem of sin is that an individual wanted a position that was not ordained for him (pun intended). Biblical leadership is different from Christian leadership. In Christian leadership it is the subordinates who gain and not the leader. The fact that people are jostling for the position of pastor and elder when the majority of surbordinates (adventist laypeople) only ask for bible based leadership is testament to the kind of leadership pro WO are seeking.
You have not refuted my points regarding either Genesis 2 or ordinatio. Where in Genesis 2 is Eve subordinate to Adam in any way? There is absolutely no notion in the Bible of gender subordination before the Fall.
I believe in ontological equality but not functional equality which is where the debate actually is.
This desperate rhetorical attempt to shift the debate is terminological nonsense (though I do recognize its source 8-). Do you actually know what ontological equality means? How can you invoke order of creation and then claim ontological equality? These are mutually exclusive philosophical propositions.
Your argument from order of creation is seriously flawed. By your line of reasoning plants should have dominion over insects, insects over animals, birds and fish over humans, and humans over the Sabbath. In Genesis these do NOT have ontological equality. To the contrary, they are different kinds of entities with different degrees of importance. Actually in the Genesis narrative things that are created later have pre-eminence over things that are created earlier. Subsequent creative acts build upon earlier ones. As land builds upon sea and plants build upon land on Day 3 so Adam builds upon animals and Eve builds upon Adam on Day 6.
The significance of Eve being taken from the rib of Adam is notable. She was literally bone of Adam's bone and flesh of his flesh, and vice versa. She was neither above or beneath him.
Calling-out Adam as the spokesperson for the human family takes place in Genesis 3 after the Fall. So all you can argue that since Eve sinned first Adam took pre-eminence which is exactly what both Paul and Ellen say regarding this incident. They both wanted something not given them more than they wanted what God had given them. This sin was not unique to Eve.
Genesis 3 clearly describes Adams dominion and Eve's subordination as consequences of the Fall, as does Ellen. Whereas in Genesis 1 God clearly gives dominion over everything else on earth to BOTH the male and the female (them rather than him). They are co-regents with equal authority.
You have utterly failed to demonstrate any Biblical evidence of Male Headship before the Fall, because there IS NO Biblical evidence of Male Headship before the fall.
the majority of surbordinates (adventist laypeople) only ask for bible based leadership
Jesus did NOT teach Christian leadership based upon subordination TO leaders BY those being led. He actually taught the reverse which is subordination BY leaders TO those being led.
As with your argument from order of creation so with your argument from ordination, you are twisting the Bible to say the opposite of what it actually says.
Tapiwa; I have a few questions for you. Where there is no man to send, do we not send anyone? And, if we send a woman because she is all that will answer God's call, like Ellen G. White: we are told that God called two men who would not answer, do we not ordain her to give her the power that comes with ordination?
This is the problem faced by some conferences; there are simply no men available who love God enough to stop what they are doing to carry the gospel. I am relatively new to the gospel, but once I started searching I started attending a Seventh-day Adventist Church in Tracy, CA. No man wanted that location; a small, poor community with lots of migrant workers and women heading households of small children. A woman was sent and through her God took a small church body of 25 and enlarged it to 200. She baptized me. For one minute I want you to think about what would have happened to that community if she had not stepped forward to work in it.
This is truth. If a woman is doing the work she should have the credentials. God is merciful, mighty, loving and just. As I stated earlier, Sister Ellen G White was an ordained minister. With these credentials she raised up the church in Australia. In heaven Christ tells us there will be no marrying (Matthew 22:29,30). He also tells us that to God, there is no difference between man and woman (Galatians 3:28) and as long as we keep having these infantile arguments about who is or is not fit to take God's word to the masses, like we know what God thinks, the devil will continue to triumph.
If it werre not for that woman, I would not be a baptized member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Praise the LORD, she was willing to go into a place no man wanted.
Any one called to share the "good news" of Jesus Christ, as pastor, teacher,worker, should not be discouraged, but be allowed by the church to apply for a position. Ordination is not necessary, be it male or female. Recognition in the form of documentation only, required. Read matmo1949 above.
"This includes the blatant disregard of the Method of Bible Study document by many Adventist theologians in favour of a compromised culture driven interpretation of the Bible which keeps in line with the dictates of a permissive secular and ungodly society."
This is probably the most pervasive reason for the excessive pressure to ordain women. There may be a few who believe there is a Scriptural basis for WO; however, it has not been clearly shown to be Biblical.
Maranatha
Yes, except of course that it defies history. It is Roman Catholic culture, based on the culuture of Ancient Rome with its pater familias, which continues to dominate. As to the scriptural basis of WO, there is no clear scriptural basis against it. That is the clear conclusion of the various ordination committees.
The word "ordination" itself is an example of culture. It is a word derrived from Latin, from pagan Rome, where one ascended the orders, to equestrian and senator. It's first use was by "Church Father" Tertullian.
So even as you condemn the influence of culture on this debate, you use language dripping with cultural references to pagan and Papal Rome.
The issue is not even about ordination per se, but about the authority it affords. There is clear unequivocal evidence of biblical hierarchy in scripture. It is western culture that is trying to infuse unbiblical culture into adventism.
Have you considered the basis for attributing authority to various leadership roles in the church? That basis for the concept of ordination conveying such authority traces back to Roman Catholicism. Please be careful when defending the teachings of the power that is waging war against God and His church.
The headship principle is erroneously attributed to the RC church. If anything that is done in the SDA church that resembles the beliefs and practices of the RC church is untenable then we would have to banish much of our doctrine.
Christ saw fit to choose 12 only male disciples and not a few disciplettes to ensure gender representation. This is a cultural concept that the feminists are promoting vigorously. Even to the extent of attempting to become part of US Special Forces.
Christ as many have observed was not bound by human strictures and had it been necessary for the future of the church He most certainly would have had disciplettes.
Maranatha
Seeker,
You are seeking to develop doctrines by using analogies and arguments from silence which is a very risky process. You can pick and choose all kinds of practices from the Bible using these hermenutic principles.
We should only ordain circumcized Jewish males. We should observe Passover and Pentecost and Succoth and other festivals. Pastors should blow trumpets from the doorsteps of our churches 7 times a year at the new moon. We should eat lamb for Passover and fish for breakfast. We should only travel by walking or riding donkeys or rowing or sailing boats because Jesus and the disciples are not recorded to have used any other conveyances. We should travel to Jerusalem for annual religious festivals every spring and autumn (and walk or ride donkeys or row or sail to get there).
No wheeled vehicles can be used on Sabbath because they are meant for hauling crops or trade goods and other commercial activities. Your camels and donkeys need to be unburdened on the Sabbath. Rowing a boat is hard work so on Sabbath so you should simply stick to walking. Nor should any of us cook on Sabbath or even light a fire to stay warm. Be sure to turn off your stove and even your furnace on Sabbath. (You can buy a stove with a Sabbath Mode timer that prevents the oven from heating on the Sabbath. Apparently Orthodox Jews permit the use of the cook top to warm food so only baking in the oven is prohibited. Apparently they do not appreciate the persuasive power of arguments from silence.) The Bible does not mention air conditioners so maybe they are permitted on Sabbath. Or maybe becuse they are not mentioned in the Bible they are prohibited?
Surely if Jesus had intended that we use biccylcles or buses or rickshaws or automobiles or airplanes He would have mentioned them somewhere. He told His disciples to walk from town to town wearing sandals on their feet. So that is how our ordained clergy must go about their work. No bicycles or motorcucles or rickshaws or automobiles allowed for our ordained clergy. And if you do not make any converts in a town be sure to shake the dust off of your sandals when you leave. Enforcing these rules just might be enough to discourage any feminist from seeking ordination.
Men must not trim the corners of their beards. Exception – when fulfilling a vow men should shave their entire heads. And of course women must always keep their hair covered in public places. And their outer garments must cover their feet as well, that no man will be tempted by the sight of their uncovered hair or their toes sticking our from their sandals. If you look at a woman's uncovered hair or toes, well then one thing can lead to another and who knows where it might end?
Since women are not allowed to uncover thier feet in public, they cannot be seen shaking the dust off of their sandals. So clearly they are not permitted to serve as missionaries to other towns and cities. They must minister quietly in their homes or home towns, to other women and to the children, and see to the proper washing and embalming of the dead so that their menfolk need not become unclean. Speaking of the dead, you must bury them the very day that they die. You can hold a memorial service any time within the next seven days. After that you must get back to business as usual.
All of these things and many more were done or not done by Jesus and His followers. There are Christians today who observe many of these customs. Perhaps you might wish to join them or perhaps you already have?
Clearly any desire or impulse on a woman's part to spread the Gospel to men or to strangers cannot be from God so it must be from Satan. Which just proves the point I have made previously that the Feminist movement is of the Devil.
Disclaimer – I also wrote that the Male Headship movement is of the Devil. The desire for dominance by both men and women goes back to Genesis 3 and is condemned by Jesus. I was raised according to the doctrine of Male Headship and espoused it myself until I was 18 years old, when a series of things happend that caused me to seriously re-evaluate my own beliefs and biases regarding women.
Moses gave you these rules because of the hardness of your hearts. From the beginning it was not so.
There is also clear biblical evidence that God sees no difference between man and woman. (Galatians 3:28)
There is clear unequivocal evidence in the Bible for human subordination to divine authority, from beginning to end.
On the other hand, the major incidents in the Bible narrative where human authority is instituted over other humans, are each the direct consequence of a major act of insubordination against God. Consider these notable examples:
1) Adam and Eve are created as equals. Eve rebels against God and consequently comes under the authority of Adam. Note that Adam was complcit in the Fall. God recites the adverse consequences of this new state of affairs.
2) Before giving the Law at Sinai, Yahweh proclaims the Divine intention for ALL of Israel to be a nation of priests. After the rebellion of the Golden Calf the priesthood is restricted to the Tribe of Levi and ultimately to the clan of Aaron. Note that Aaron was complicit in their idolatry. God recites the adverse consequences of this new state of affairs.
3) The people rebel against the Theocracy. God appoints a King to rule over them. God recites the adverse consequences of this new state of affairs.
In these and other cases (eg the Tower of Babel, the Babylonian Exile) where human authority is instituted in response to rebellion against God, the consequences are a worse condition than existed before the rebellion.
For individuals and for nations, it is far better to volunarily submit to the authority of God than to be compelled to submit to human authority.
Essentially, as I see it, WO is mainly driven by culture and has no place in the SDA church. From what I have read over the years the best reasons about the issue come from those who do *not* support WO. So much of what I read supporting WO is merely out of the feminist playbook.
The pressure is on to ordain women and accept "practicing" gays.
This unity in diversity theme comes mainly from academia where the alleged "intellectuals" rule and there is no basis for the "unity in diversity" mantra other than its boring repetition by eggheads
Maranatha
Truth Seeker, I do not know if you have studied church history or not, but Ellen G. White is a woman, and she was ordained first in 1871 and she carried those creditentials throughout her lifetime. So the ordination of woman IS NOT and should not be compared to accepting gays.
We each see with the glasses we wear. Each claiming those who do not agree with us have not shown clearly from the Bible that “our” position is false. WE believe that “our” position is truth and clearly taught in scripture.
Until we can all agree that we cannot agree we will THINK this is a theological debate. The promise of Jesus is that HE would send ONE Who will guide us into ALL TRUTH.
Biblical truth is established within our fellowship by presenting scriptures and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide us in to ALL TRUTH. Taking a vote in GC Session will not establish what we collectively believe to be truth unless there is consensus. No matter which site you go to these exchanges can be seen. We do NOT HAVE CONSENSUS.
We have NOT been guided to consensus because this subject deals with a PRACTICE not a DOCTRINE. Practice is always determined at the level where it is practiced.
Is there any CLEAR evidence that the HOLY SPIRIT has spoken that the Bible is so clear to ALL that this is a battle to be fought, which WILL bring division if the vote fails? Is that a threat? Not at all. It is a statement of fact. When we deny a segment of believers from using the spiritual gifts they have been given and then say the Holy Spirit is leading us we have to honestly wonder what has happened to clear thinking.
IF we will allow the Lord to lead us at the next GC Session we will leave at peace and ready to work for the upbuilding of the church. If we are stubborn and prideful there will be a split in the church and those who want to argue their point can argue with themselves because the rest will simply vote with their feet. If we are not wanted we will go where we are. If our services are not needed we will go where they are.
The strong, those in positions of traditional authority, cannot abuse the notion of the Holy Spirit giving spiritual gifts to some and then telling the church body to refuse to recognize their gifts, affirm them in their work, and still in some way actually THINK the Holy Spirit is leading us.
I love this church and movement. I believe it is prophetic and has an end time work to do. I want it to stay united. If however, there are those who choose to be exclusive, judgmental, and determined to force their views on the rest of the Sabbath Keeping believers following the traditions and not the way the Holy Spirit has worked the Holy Spirit will have to work a miracle of grace to keep us together.
Please don't tell me the women in China who are fearlessly leading are not sent of God. Look around us. Some argue against women being affirmed in their service. Is this as a group? What happens when it gets right down to the actual women who are doing wonderful work for the Lord. Are we going to tell them they are mistaken that the Holy Spirit did not in fact give them the spiritual gifts they are using? Are we going to tell the people they have lead to Christ it was a mistake.
Come on brothers and sisters, lets stop using words to destroy what the Holy Spirit has been doing.
Allan Nash, I agree with you fully. As I stated, I was baptized by a woman pastor who was placed in that position I believe because there was no "man" who wanted the thankless job of shepherding a flock of 25 in a church that was dying, in a community made up of migrant farmworkers, single women head of households, poverty and despair. Under her guidance, however, the church has grown, the church school prospered. The growth is phenominal and now there are two services on Sabbath: 8 am, then Sabbath School, and again at 11:00 am. How many Adventist Churches have that distinction. Unfortunately, she has stepped down from her position as Pastor. I pray that the church continues to prosper once one of the "worthy" men step in to take over the fruits of her labor for Christ.
Matno,
Your direct testimony regarding how the Holy Spirit empowered a woman pastor to reach you for the Kingdom, speaks in a way that cannot be refuted by theological arguments.
This is exactly what happened with Peter and Cornelius. Once the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household, Peter could not refuse to baptize them.
So today the Holy Spirit has fallen upon women pastors. Once the Spirit has shown us the answer, there is no point in further argument. We cannot refuse to ordain women. Otherwise we are battling against God which even Gamaliel recognized is futile.
I say to women pastors everywhere. Be strong and of good courage. The Holy Spirit will ultimately prevail.
Truthseeker:"Christ saw fit to choose 12 only male disciples and not a few disciplettes to ensure gender representation."
You mean 12 circumcised Jewish men. If we use that as an argument for gender you have to use it for an argument for race. Race, gender and class are the three aspects of Temple exclusivity that were all abolished in the egalitarian message of the Cross (Gal 3:28).
I'd also say "Maranatha" but the truth, which truth seeker doesn't seem to seek, is that the Lord won't be coming any time soon at this rate, because we humans feel we can tell the Holy Spirit whom He can pick to be disciples.
There is a reason Jesus didn't choose any women to join Him as Apostlettes. In that setting, at that time it would not have been well received. It would not have been for the building up of the church. That is why the Holy Spirit did not at THAT time give women such gifts. Still He did give them the gift of prophecy.
Why does the Holy Spirit give gifts WHEN He does? Because HE sees the need for them for the upbuilding of the church. WE don't have to be in charge of the work of the Holy Spirit.
Very good point, Brother Nash. Thank you for bringing it out.
It is all a worldwide continuum, isn't it? Where do we fit on the continuum? Some are right there with the president of Turkey. He was cited by the BBC a few days ago as having said ""You cannot put women and men on an equal footing," he told a meeting in Istanbul. "It is against nature."
"His comments often seek to appeal to his pious core supporters, says the BBC's Mark Lowen in Istanbul, "but they anger more liberal voters."
Sounds kind of familiar.
There have always been and will always be people who determine that the way they feel is the way God feels. This why God tells the Israelites the following; "These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes." (Psalm 50:21)
The reason why the Lutherans never advanced any further than what Martin Luther knew; why the Methodists advanced no further than what John Wesley knew; the reason why the Baptists never advanced beyond what John Smyth knew is all the same: a refusal to understand that in God's eyes we are equal and He will use whoever is willing to be used of him to fulfill his purpose.
I pray that everyone who enters the discussions on this site will be willing to accept the God's truth in all its fullness, and not be hanging on to the false traditions of the past.
'The reason why the Lutherans never advanced any further than what Martin Luther knew; why the Methodists advanced no further than what John Wesley knew; the reason why the Baptists never advanced beyond what John Smyth knew is all the same: a refusal to understand that in God's eyes we are equal and He will use whoever is willing to be used of him to fulfill his purpose.'
But have or can Adventists go beyond Ellen White and the SDA pioneers?
I'd like to think they would want us to, given their progressive spirit, emphasising progressive revelation and present truth. Nothing says that more clearly that Mrs White's statement
"We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed" (Selected Messages, Book One, pp. 416 and 37)
But what proof of this is there of this progression and unlearning? We've add new FBs but I can't see significant progression in a significant theological way. We're still debating women's ordination, despite it being first raised at the General Conference session in 1881. When you consider that was 130 years ago, but only less than 20 years after our official founding in 1963, it shows we have really lost our "pioneer spirit". To be a pioneer means to venture out into the unknown.
The conservative tendency to defend everything the pioneers said and did as 'historic Adventism', and not to progress a step further, seems very similar the Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists and a whole host of others. I suspect if we don't change God will eventually have to raise up a new organisation to complete the work. If He can raise up stones, and rejecting both His own people Israel, His own immediate family, His own original Church (which is the Roman Catholic Church), we are kidding ourselves if we seek to rely on institutionalised succession. That's what Catholics and Jews argue.
By prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving lelt our requests be made known to God… he will show us which is present truth and which are lies.
What if we are defined not by sterile belief but by living community?
If so, there may not be any such thing as an AINO.
Morgan Hartley is not a Seventh-day Adventist.
Seventh-day Adventists may well be Morgan Hartley.
We all may be.
After an epic journey … this is Morgan's experience of being home …
https://medium.com/@morganhartley/why-the-hardest-part-of-traveling-is-coming-home-bea44f4b36aa
One take away is that one does not find one's self alone, no matter the vistas or the distance or the contrasting culture.
One not only finds, one is … one's community.
For God so loved the world …
Our Father who art in heaven …
Paul did not leave behind truth, he left behind communities, congregations. When he wrote, Paul wrote to and about community and when he touched on theology it was always in the service of community.
And when Ellen White wrote about the need to undertake doctrinal engagement, she advocated that it would be contained by the community, rather than define the community. See the rest of Steve's EGW quote just above.
What seems at the core of the struggle over who we are, is whether to understand ourselves in the context of the community in which God has enwrapped us as Seventh-day Adventists … no matter when in life we come to be in the community of Seventh-day Adventists … or whether to try to reform the community into some arbitrary image.
In a very real way, we do not know ourselves until we know our selves in the context of our community. Our community does not change us, it revels us to ourselves in ways that nothing foreign, isolating, or private can ever reveal.
We are created in the image of God as community rather than as individuals, are we not?
The Three Angels Message is the Gospel to the world, the Gospel that shatters Babylon's reductionist mirror that has turned love into mere fornication, the ultimate atomization of the creation, the Gospel that reveals individualism as trudging aimlessly through an endless hail of brimstone gravel
This Gospel is in contrast described as the community of those who are patiently, as in peacefully persistent in, trusting God's forthright assertions of our secure place in the universe of His love, and doing so with the gift of the faith of Jesus.
… or something like this it seems …
I misposted this here … please go to the Adventists in Name Only column where it actually should have been.
SEE COMMENTS 18 HRS, 9 HRS. AND 4 HRS, NEAR TOP OF BLOG.
Hear, Hear, Earl!