Woman Pastor is Elected Conference President in Southeastern California
by Monte Sahlin
By AT News Team, October 27, 2013
Delegates to the regular constituency session of the Southeastern California Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church voted today (October 27) to elect Pastor Sandra E. Roberts as conference president. 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.
It is the first time on record that a woman has been elected to the office of conference president in the Adventist denomination, although women have served temporarily as the top officer on a number of occasions, even in the 19th century, and on many occasions as treasurer or secretary of a conference. And women who are ordained ministers serve in similar leadership roles among Adventists in China where the national church does not have the same relationship with the denomination that it does elsewhere. Denominational policy specifies that a conference president is to be an ordained minister, and Roberts is an ordained minister because a year ago the Pacific Union Conference in a constituency meeting established a policy ending gender discrimination in the ordination of clergy. She was the first of this new generation of ordained women to be nominated as a conference president.
When the nominating committee report was presented to the delegates, the chairman of the session, Pastor Riccardo Graham, president of the denomination's Pacific Union Conference, shared with the delegates a request from Pastor Ted Wilson, president of the denomination's General Conference or world headquarters. Wilson had phoned at 7:30 the prior evening, Graham told the assembled delegates, and asked that the session not move ahead with the election at this time because the denomination's international governing body is currently studying the question of the Biblical basis for extending ordination to both women and men.
If the delegates elected a woman as conference president they would be in "confrontation" with the General Conference, Wilson told Graham and asked that this be repeated to the delegates. A number of delegates went to the microphones to support the nomination of Roberts. Included were Dr. Randy Roberts, senior pastor of the largest congregation in the denomination, the Loma Linda University Church, and Dr. Randy Wisbey, president of La Sierra University. Both institutions are located in the conference. Very few delegates spoke against the nomination.
Those who spoke against electing Roberts stressed the issue of "unity" and conflict in the worldwide Adventist denomination. One delegate mentioned Roberts' "lack of pastoral experience," but another delegates pointed out that she had served as primary pastor of the Corona, California, Church for a number of years, as well as in several youth ministry roles.
The many speakers who urged the election of Roberts stated that discrimination against women in ordination and clergy leadership roles was wrong and unbiblical. It was pointed out that the Southeastern California Conference has been a leader in ending discrimination against women clergy for several decades and that this was a natural step. "There are times to move forward despite the hierarchy and this is such a time," stated one speaker.
In some ways this is a routine development. Roberts has served as executive secretary of the conference, the second-ranking officer, since 2004. When a conference president moves on or does not want to continue in office it is common for the number-two officer to be selected as the next president.
Pastor Gerald D. Penick told the nominating committee at its first meeting on September 8 that he did not want to be considered for re-election. "Nine years is enough," he told the committee. Later he told one of the pastors in the conference that he did not want to retire yet, but had not made up his mind as to what he would do next. It is well known among veteran denominational employees that the work of a conference president is exhausting.
For five years prior to Roberts' election as the second officer in the conference she was director of young adult ministries and she was pastor in Corona from 1995 to 2000. She served as chaplain for the church school in Loma Linda from 1992 to 1995 and prior to that as director of the conference's youth camp. She was called to the conference from Central California in 1987 where she was Bible teacher at Modesto Adventist Academy. She started denominational employment in 1982 as a teacher at Cedar Lake Academy in the Michigan Conference. Roberts has a master's degree from Andrews University and a Doctor of Ministry degree from the Claremont School of Theology. She is the daughter of Adventist missionaries and has spent considerable time traveling around the world.
The Southeastern California Conference is the largest local conference in the denomination's North American Division (NAD) and one of the largest in the world, despite the fact that its territory only covers five counties east and south of Los Angeles, including the major cities of San Diego, Riverside and San Bernardino. It has more than 70,000 members and it is estimated that there are probably 300,000 Adventist adherents in the area. Its growth rate in the last decade has been about the same as the entire NAD.
California has the largest number of Adventists of any state in the U.S., a total of nearly 200,000 or 17 percent of the total national membership. It includes four local conferences of which the Southeastern conference is the most southern. It includes 143 local churches and at least ten women pastors who are ordained ministers. Some have served in the ministry for decades.
It was a very good day in Southeastern California today! So happy to have been a part of it!
I was reared in an Adventist home where I was taught that the Lord ordained, and we the people recognized that ordination through a service in which by laying on of hands, we covenanted ourselves to recognize and honor that ordination, both spiritually and legally. In that sense, I was taught that the service itself is "a simple recognition" in which primarily the ordainees and their friends and families rejoice that they are deemed to be worthy vessels of God's Spirit.
Now, in that context, to say, "We of the Adventist Church believe that the Spirit of God in ministry is withheld from females and therefore we will not perform a service to recognize the presence of God's Spirit in a female" is by all means unbiblical and makes us appear grossly discriminatory to the rest of Christendom, since it is well known that we claim that of the the most spiritually endowed persons in the early church was the woman Ellen Harmon White.
If we believe that ordination is humanly conferred, then by all means let us with human fallibility choose for any reason under the sun to deny one individual and ordain another. That's human nature. But insofar as the laying on of hands is a recognition of God's ordination, by all means the recognition not only of pastoral but of administrative gifts in women is long, long, overdue. God has been giving these gifts for centuries; but we have been very slow to give him the credit and recognize those women on whom they have been so abundantly conferred.
I give up! So what is next? Ordain homosexual and lesbian pastors to do away with discrimination? The way it is going, it won't be long right? Refraining from electing women to pastor post and now conference president has nothing to do with discrimination if you stick with Bible principle instead of the trendy opinion of today.
I suggest to those who feel that this nomination is unbiblical, please raise your voice, after all only 72% voted for it, not 100%. There are still a few good souls who withstand.
A good soul? Next, it will be ghosts and reincarnation in the church, if members can find out how many souls are left. Oh no. And after the gays, it will be mind-reading monkeys in Ape controlled earth. Ok lets foolishly decide, good or bad souls to vanquish to a non-existent myth of hell.
And since when does the Creator have authority to send His Son to die so all human beings/sinners could serve and be called? Early Christians and Paul may have had women occupy leadership positions in church organization w/ more respect than any contemporary co-gender institution at the time. But surely now, we are worthy to call them "bad souls" and ourselves- good?
Maybe the world will finally come around to our futuristic message of "only people born this way can serve in that capacity and not by spiritual calling" Only spiritual heirs of Christ care about the Spirit while blood descendants of Abraham can bravely stop women called to God for being … women. Exclusivity has its price. Good thing, Christ paid for everyone who accepts His method of payment. I need it and my mortal life accepts it, women serving God need that payment, believers need that payment.
A good soul doesn't need that payment or want women to serve. Yep, a good soul doesn't have to love and serve God and His people but, vote to stop women because they are women.
DISCLAIMER
Whomever needs Christ, do not stop women serving Him!
Or else we might serve God in all His grace and glory next…
SDAclub,
The slippery slope argument is not conducive to the discussion and I understand it reflects your exasperation. A well qualified female Pastor was elected not the people you refer to in your comment. It also makes no difference if 28% did not vote to affirm Pastor Roberts as an overwhelming majority did so. Thus, its done. The bible has been used by some in the past to support personal slavery yet we have abandoned that paragigm have we not? People use the bible and various texts to assemble a spectrum of views. What I find is that when texts are read in light of the precedent and antecdent texts and within the context of the time written, the interpretation changes.
SDAclub,
The slippery slope argument is not conducive to the discussion and I understand it reflects your exasperation. A well qualified female Pastor was elected not the people you refer to in your comment. It also makes no difference if 28% did not vote to affirm Pastor Roberts as an overwhelming majority did so. Thus, its done. The bible has been used by some in the past to support personal slavery yet we have abandoned that paragigm have we not? People use the bible and various texts to assemble a spectrum of views. What I find is that when texts are read in light of the precedent and antecdent texts and within the context of the time written, the interpretation changes.
Froos, please speak for yourself, For some of us it was indeed the saddest day. Watch this space this is just the beginning of new changes. La Sierra University still has lecturers who teach evolution and nothing has been done about that. The churches in Loma Linda have invited speakers like Desmond Ford to preach in their churches. Most churches do not believe in the spirit of prophecy anymore. The leadership knows this and allows it claiming that churches have a right to teach what they want, The main idea is for all to be liberal and inclusive.
I am amused that someone would oppose Sandra Roberts as a conference president because of her lack of pastoral experience. She has had considerably more experience as a church pastor than "Pastor" Ted Wilson. For Wilson the church should use its historic title for clergy "Elder Wilson" rather than the trendy "Pastor Wilson."
It is clear that "Elder Wilson" is losing credibility with the North American Division, especially here on the "left coast." So sad. He needs our prayers, as the Church, for the glory of Christ, under the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, continues to move past him, around him, over him, beyond him.
YES!!!!!!
Long overdue!!!!!
God bless Sandra Roberts.
The Holy Spirit is winning!
This probably comes as a surprise throughout the land of Adventism…in the "olden" days if the GC President expressed his opinions on an issue that pewsitters were unfamiliar with he would probably pervail. In this case, it is apparent that at least in South Eastern Conference the constitutency is immune to the reach of a "fundamentalist" leader on the eastern seaboard.
I have a friend of deep theological understanding and training. He tells me that this is a wonderful example of how the Holy Spirit works or influences the direction required to make it across the line in time for the Second Coming. He starts by saying somethings have to change…you cannot expect to go on doing the same thing with poor results and expect the Lord to come blazing across the sky. Even if a vice president or the president of the General Conference wants to maintain the old direction it won't do any good to throw his body into the works while trying get a different ring in the bell of atonement…that was what he said…and I took it that my theological friend knows what he is talking about having been around 40 or more years in the church watching how voting is done. My theological friend says it is time for a new direction and energy…not the old 30s – 50s style of leadership. Makes sense to me as a business person. When a business is not keeping pace, it is time for new CEO leadership to get off the dime. I presume that his theory is based on his knowledge of how the Holy Spirit works because it could be confusing to have multiple requests coming in from different view points, some for and some against a woman president. My friend who seems to know these matters says the Holy Spirit uses a different calculus for counting votes.
My friend thinks Elder Wilson should gain a lesson here and start leading like a modern individual giving equal rights and fellowship and authority to the best conference president whether male or female. Based on my own childhood memories listening to sermons from the pulpit I tried to convince my theological friend that men are more religious than females based on the story of Eve in the Garden. But he took me to task over that explanation saying that if that is what or why Wilson opposed the election of a female president for the conference he fails the first test of a genuine religious leader.
Cheers
tjoe
It just amazes me that the GC President dares to interfere in an election where he has no business. I am glad that the answer to his pressure was a 72% of approval for Pastor Roberts.
His argument that, "the denomination's international governing body is currently studying the question of the Biblical basis for extending ordination to both women and men" was just another attempt to trick the constituents. If he referred to the TOSC, well, we all know that it's just another big farce to just reach no decisions again – as it has happened several times in the past.
I am glad the SECC is not wasting time waiting for things we already know are not going to happen. Let's move forward, and those who want to stay stuck in time have the right to so.
I don't have an opinion whether a woman being a pastor is right or wrong. One thing I agree with most of the comments is her qualifications. Pastor Robert's eduation, pastor, youth, teaching, and administration experience more then qualifies her for the job.
We can perhaps hope that this action of the overwhelming majority of those attending the SECC constituency meeting is a harbinger of a bright future for the North American Adventist Church.
While we should honor the concerns of other parts of the world-wide Adventist church community, perhaps this is the beginning of a trend in North America which recognizes that the church family is composed of different subcultures and that the only way to avoid the negative effects of forcing a spurious “unity” is to allow different parts of the church to exercise autonomy in such important areas as gender equity for its clergy and freedom of thought and expression for it theologians and scientists.
For example, this might mean that if the 2015 General Conference session sees fit to forbid the ordination of women to full equality with men, that the North American Division consider such an action only as a recommendation that it will seriously consider and then, with kind words, reject.
We trust that the political realists at the GC will find some way that will not require the NAD to exercise its right to conduct its affairs in a manner which it decides regardless of the desires of certain unnamed GC functionaries.
Ervin,
Your comments reflect an opinion that Sandra Roberts herself might not subscribe to.
By tying women's role in church leadership to an agenda which denies fundamental SDA beliefs you provide ammunition for those Fundamentalist SDAs who dee this as a dangerous slide into apostasy.
I see this specific issue in terms of the Spirit empowering whomsoever (s)he will. I think that the same Spirit who empowers (wo)men in China, SoCal and elsewhere, is the Spirit who spoke through the OT and NT authors. The very difficulty of writing this paragraph using English pronouns which assign a gender to deity illustrates how deeply this discussion is mired in human culture.
Disclaimer – I am not hereby endorsing all 28 FBs as being the voice of the Spirit. They are the "consensus" of the majority of SDAs from all over the world. Last time I checked they did not not speak directly to the role of women in church leadership.
Unfortunately we have a lot of men in leadership who seem to conflate institutional working policies and FBs. I think that Elder Wilson and his close associates stand on much sounder footing when they speak in support of the FBs than in support of the working policies.
I appreciate Mr. Hamstra's concern which is a legitimate one. However, I can't locate in my comment about the election of Elder Roberts any denial of a fundamental SDA belief. Perhaps Mr. Hanstra might do me the favor of pointing to the specific wording that denies a fundamental SDA belief in the comment above.
Sorry Ervin,
I guess I must have mis-construed many of your comments on this site. Please forgive me for reading between the lines of "freedom of thought and expression for it theologians and scientists" something that you may not have intended.
Two observations: 1) President Wilson should fire his political advisor – or hire one. He looks exactly like the Republican Right did with the government shutdown. He generally loses whatever credibility he may have with those who might be open-minded – all over one issue. Doesn't he have any other battles to fight where he may want to have some crediblity with moderates? Those who support him can only marvel at his fecklessness. And to the extent that he may gain support from the far right by trying to hold this hill, he is exacerbating the very problem that he ostensibly wants to prevent – disunity and divisiveness.
2) This event has taken on far greater significance than it should have. Who holds political power within the institutional church should be relatively unimportant. The gender of that person should be even less important. We live in an age of symbols and slogans, which drive an obsessive quest for equality that we imagine will usher in the Kingdom. It will not. It will only reveal new, unconquered, demon-occupied frontiers of power and wealth inequality, to distract us from following Christ in servanthood and self-sacrifice, the true sources of Kingdom power. Let's not let the understandable moral thrills we experience from this symbolic victory create an addiction to more internecine political battles.
I support this appointment. In the mainland China, we noted the appointments of woman pastors since the early 1900's. Anything wrong with the SDA for refusing ordination of woman to the ministry?
"Anything wrong with the SDA for refusing ordination of woman to the ministry?"
Everything is wronng with that because it's the way the church discriminates against women. The issue was never spiritual. It's all about POWER & CONTROL, that males want to keep exclusively in their hands, totally ignoring that there are more women than men in the church. But, again, they are just…… women….
That statement is based on attitude and emotion, not on Biblical evidence. Our baattle is spiritual, and God had a reason for placing men above women, even if we do not know exactly why. And really, how many women have suffered abuse because on male dominated leadership in the SDA church?? Talk about over reaching with the bigotry card.
True. Woman's ordination is to be based on Biblical mandate, not on emotions and arguments about equal rights. This is the way God, in His divine wisdom, set up order in the Bible.
Granted, in our modern femenist culture, male leadership simply seems outdated and "unequal." But we are not of this world. Our kingdom functions under the masculine rule of the Holy Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
John 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come."
Did God discriminate against women in not allowing them to be priest.? Or did Jesus discriminate against women by not calling them to be disciples?
Just a question of thought.
Nothing has been said regarding the real reason I oppose this election. And that is, we as members of the SDA Church have placed our confidence in a person we have elected as president of our Church organization. Just because we don’t always agree with his stand on an issue does not allow us to go contrary to his belief as to what is right for our church. The saddest part is that we are divided and God cannot bless the corporate church that is going contrary to its leadership. As we study the experience of Aaron and Mariam in ancient Israel we clearly see the importance of unity. In fact this is Christ greatest desire for His church. (John 17)
Soon there will be a great shaking in our church, the sealing will proceed and it will be based upon whether one is willing to call sin by its right name. Those who are sealed will be seen even crying and sighing. It will then be seen who will have genuine love for others and faith in His word, qualities of character God longs to develop in each of us.
Oh that we might have spiritual understanding that comes through the Holy Spirit to the truly converted (1 Cor 2:14) and those willing to obey (John 7:17).
"…placed our confidence in a person we have elected as president of our Church organization"
Being elected is one thing, especially in that type of an well orchestrated "90-second election."
I have no confidence in any person that supports discrimination against other human beings – which is actualy the only issue at stake in all this controversy.
Imagine: a controversy, among Christians, about continuing or eliminating discrimination against women!!! Nothing but shameful. Isn't it time to eliminate this sin from the "remnant church?" Past due!
Appreciate your refreshing thoughts and scripture references. Let us continue to uphold God's chosen leader for this last generation before the dreadful day of our LORD.
This is such a puzzling reason to oppose this election. The Christian church has a long long history of Holy Spirit led rebellion against leadership. This arguement says that Jesus who openly rebelled against God's established leadership must have been in the wrong. It is clear that it is possible to be elected or appointed to any leadership position in the church including the presendent of the general conference and be a bad leader, or perhaps just be wrong about certian things. (Look at some of the racial discrimination that perpetuated by the mother church).
What I find most troubling is the arrogance of we humans telling God who he can and cannot ordain for leadership.
In the grip of grace
Steve Moran
Remember Jesus attended faithfully the very church where the leadership laid plans to put Him to death. Christ's last plea for his church leadership in Mat 23 was given from a grieving heart, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"
God's church is the catalyst where character develops to be among the 144,000. Both Moses and Jesus were willing to die for the church. What kind of love was this? …a supernatural love that is impossible to self generate. "Love one another as I have loved you."
dborser said, "Just because we don’t always agree with his stand on an issue does not allow us to go contrary to his belief as to what is right for our church.
This statement troubles me. It seems that the logical extension of this idea is that anyone anywhere in the world church is under the command of the GC President, based on what he thinks is "right for our church." It wouldn't matter what constuencies thought or voted or instructed their officers to do. The only thing that would matter is not to go "contrary to his belief." The other side of that coin is to adhere to his belief without regard to the views of others. Is that indeed what you are saying, dborser?
dborser,
For my part I have placed my confidence in Jesus Christ who is the true leader of the church, His body on earth. Jesus Christ speaks to us through the Holy Spirit, a voice that no single human being can monopolize.
Elder Wilson does not automatically speak for the Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit on every matter of faith and practice. Though I do believe him to a godly man, he is not infallible. Like every other fallen human being, he himself and the church at large, must allow for the possibility that he is not always correct on every subject. That is the reason why important questions are put to a vote – this is one way to listen for the voice of the Spirit when otherwise you would only hear the voices of the most prominent leader(s).
I hope that we get to the place where we can all hear the voice of the same Spirit on this question. But it might not happen. It is also possible that the Spirit wants us to deal with women in leadership differently in different parts of the world.
I pray for divine wisdom for Pastor Sandra Roberts as she navigates through the respective religious/political mine fields of West Coast and East Coast SDA politics.
I also pray for Elder Ted Wilson as he navigates through the many religous/political mine fields of international SDA politics. As his own personal views on this and other topics recede in his rear-view mirror, he has inherited the challenge of how to keep an increasingly assertive mixture of authoritarian male-dominated leadership hierarchies from every nation, kindred, tongue and people working together for common causes.
Twice now Ted's personal appeals to NAD constituencies have been rebuffed by large majorities of the delegates. Doubtless this must shock his supporters from the more authoritarian parts of the SDA galaxy. When tried-and-true methods for "guiding" constituency meetings fail, how should leaders respond? As a teen-ager I sat in a constituency meeting where the delegates voted against the position of Ted's grand-father (whom I happened to agree with on that particular matter). He accepted their decision with genuine Christian grace and dignity. He left a lasting positive impression on my own youthful mind in a time when I had serious doubts about other SDA leaders. He remains for me one of the most admired SDA leaders that I have personally known (and yes he took the time to get to know young people who had no status).
Perhaps Ted could take a page from his grand-father's play-book along with those he has taken from his father's play-book? Might this not speak volumes to the more authoritarian contingent he has to deal with, regarding humble servant-leadership, than all of the resounding appeals for revival and reformation which are doubtless also needed? I can tell you from my own leadership experience that if you want people around you to change then you must also be willing to change.
I hold no animosity toward this gentleman and I prayed for him and other church leaders (by name) when I awoke this morning. I do wonder how the votes on some of these matters might go in the more authoritarian parts of the SDA galaxy if the delegates at every level were more representative of the actual gender and age composition of their constituencies? Of course that would require the mature men who dominate the church power elite to accept the demographic implications of Joel 2:28-29.
The dangers of a family dynasty has now been demonstrated. Too long in power in worldly kingdoms results in dictatorships. This is what we are, unfortunately, observing today. A name, long in the leadership role, carries a certain cachet which gives an unrealistic assumption of power: both from the one in power and those who too highly respect the name and office.
Any president is solely dependent on his constituents who grant him powers. And when this power is abused and excessive, rather than gaining permission from those who are led, trouble results. We are seeing it today when Ted is determined to ignore, and even overthrow the legitimate decision, voted according to church policy giving unions autonomy specifically so as not to be dominated by the GC, there will either be a schism or worse. The SECC and the other unions voting for women in leadership will not retract, nor should they.
Wilson actually threatened the unions with "grave consequences" if they ordained female pastors. We are seeing those consequences now, but words will not cause the unions to back down.
I pray for divine wisdom for Pastor Sandra Roberts as she navigates through the respective religious/political mine fields of West Coast and East Coast SDA politics.
I also pray for Elder Ted Wilson as he navigates through the many religous/political mine fields of international SDA politics. As his own personal views on this and other topics recede in his rear-view mirror, he has inherited the challenge of how to keep an increasingly assertive mixture of authoritarian male-dominated leadership hierarchies from every nation, kindred, tongue and people working together for common causes.
Twice now Ted's personal appeals to NAD constituencies have been rebuffed by large majorities of the delegates. Doubtless this must shock his supporters from the more authoritarian parts of the SDA galaxy. When tried-and-true methods for "guiding" constituency meetings fail, how should leaders respond? As a teen-ager I sat in a constituency meeting where the delegates voted against the position of Ted's grand-father (whom I happened to agree with on that particular matter). He accepted their decision with genuine Christian grace and dignity. He left a lasting positive impression on my own youthful mind in a time when I had serious doubts about other SDA leaders. He remains for me one of the most admired SDA leaders that I have personally known (and yes he took the time to get to know young people who had no status).
Perhaps Ted could take a page from his grand-father's play-book along with those he has taken from his father's play-book? Might this not speak volumes to the more authoritarian contingent he has to deal with, regarding humble servant-leadership, than all of the resounding appeals for revival and reformation which are doubtless also needed? I can tell you from my own leadership experience that if you want people around you to change then you must also be willing to change.
I hold no animosity toward this gentleman and I prayed for him and other church leaders (by name) when I awoke this morning. I do wonder how the votes on some of these matters might go in the more authoritarian parts of the SDA galaxy if the delegates at every level were more representative of the actual gender and age composition of their constituencies? Of course that would require the mature men who dominate the church power elite to accept the demographic implications of Joel 2:28-29.
Finally!!!!
Another big step forward toward equality in our denomination. The ruler of the universe who created us male and female is smiling down on the Southeastern California Conference and its leadership.
Congratulatons and lots of blessings to you, pastor Roberts!!!!!!!!
Note to Atoday webmasters – I have finally discovered how to get duplicate comments posted (something I have long wondered about 8-).
It was God who told Eve that her husband ould rule over her (Gen 3:16). He never delegated ONE woman to serve in the temple services, nor was there one to be priest in the sanctuary for the people. Of all the women who followed Christ, not one was made an apostle. When Paul spoke of elders and deacons he never mentioned a woman. The only time a woman had strong influence in Israel it was aalways a time of apostacy, or they were apostate queens. How can a woman be the husband of one wife? (1Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6) God will cleanse His church. We have been assured of it. Watch and pray that you are not cleansed out with those in opposition to Him. This apostate move shows the condition of the church and how it parallels the condition of the world, showing the end is truly upon us.
Thanks for sharing these thoughts and scripture references!
What else could we expect in a male-dominated society?
Is eliminating discrimination agains women a sign that "the end is truly upon us?"
BMWagner,
Does the NT concept of the priesthood apply to all of the believers or only to the male believers?
Do you insist that your pastors must be circumcised? Or only your conference presidents? I am sure that you realize that all of the OT priests and all of the NT disciples were circumcised.
I know of a SDA church in South Africa that will only allow circumcized males to preach. If you are a visiting pastor you have to drop your pants so the elders can be sure that you meet the proper standard.
Well at least they are consistent.
Do they also check for linen underwear?
I do not think any woman will want to preach in this church 8-).
I made NT references, yet you seem to ignore them. Very convenient on your part. No one has answered my question: How can a woman be the husband of one wife? If the wat was open for women to be in this kind of position in the church, there would not have been the restriction placed on it as they were from the beginning. Remember, Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and they had no issue with women leaders in that society at that time, so you can't say it was the era. And there are plenty of things a woman can do to minister to the world at large, she does not have to be an ordained pastor to do so. She should not seek to be a head when God said that the male gender was to be the head. After we have all been changed incorruptable, then we will be genderless, and absolutely equal, but not until!!
Not to mention that your pastors and conference presidents are prohibited from wearing any woolen garment – even their underwear must be made of pure linen. And wear tassels on their baptismal robes.
And be certain that they do not clip the corners of their beards. They must emulate the example of the OT priests and NT disciples and wear full beards. Clearly no woman could be a priest or apostle because how could she comply with this rule? This was definitely a source of confusion for SDAs in the late 1800s because first they voted that all pastors were required to have beards, then shortly thereafter they voted to study the ordination of women. Why are we still studying this more than a century later? Perhaps because when we allowed our pastors to shave without GC approval we headed down a slippery slope toward theological chaos.
A woman would have to certify that she is not experiencing her menses or it would pollute the church.
And if she had given birth to a female, she would have to remain home for at least two weeks; only one if a male child was born.
It's so exciting to think we must research all the Levitical rules to make sure we are in compliance or else our prayers and God will not accept us.
What a sad day for God's appointed church. Man's opinion including mine is nothing. What God says in His word is all that matters.
Let us pray for unity within the worldwide church as we move humbly in the fear of the LORD.
Are the Unions and Conferences setting a example that is dangerous, which local congregations will emulate in regards to advice and admonitions from them on issues that they and the local churches are not in agreement.? Remember local churches are autonomous and not employed by none of these entities. This is in reply to letter that was read by the Union from the General Conference. Just a thought question.!
Clinton,
At the 1888 General Conference in Minneapolis, Elder J H Morrison (Iowa Conference President) read a letter from the GC President Elder G I Butler who was ill and could not attend. (In the 1988 re-enactment at Minneapolis I played the role of Elder Morrison.)
There was much disagreement among the delegates regarding the issues being debated. No consensus was reached. Over the ensuing century most (but not all) of the church has come to the views of Jones and Waggoner as opposed to those of Butler, Smith, Morrison et al. (You can learn more about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1888_Minneapolis_General_Conference_%28Adventist%29.)
It was appropriate for Elder Graham to relay the comments of Elder Wilson (conveyed to him the previous evening by telephone) to the SECC constituency delegates. However to claim that the comments of Elder Wilson should be taken as the voice of the Holy Spirit in this latter meeting is no more valid than to claim that the letter from Elder Butler in 1888 should be taken as the voice of the Holy Spirit.
It is the job of the GC President to represent the consensus views of the worldwide church as best he understands things. As shown in 1888, the consensus view is not necessarily God's view and sometimes needs to change. People then were accusing Jones and Waggoner of rebellion, a charge against which Ellen White defended them.
Whenever there is change someone must make the first move. Whatever entrenched powers disagree with that move will charge the "innovators" with rebellion. I would encourage you to re-read the book of Acts very carefully. Every major advancement of the church from the Day of Pentecost onwards, was met by fierce opposition from those who were defending the status quo.
You see those who oppose women ordination as fundamentalists. How funny that the same words are used to describe those who keep the commandments of God. I am willing to be called a fundamentalist if that means following the scrptures as they are. The bible is clear about women and leadership in the church.
mayaka20,
I do not know anyone who has kept all of the commandments except Jesus Christ. For me the two most difficult are the Greatest commandment (love the Lord your God with all of your heart) and the Second cammandment (love your neighbor as yourself). Compared to these it is easy to go to church on Sabbath and honor my aged parents. I totally accept that "if you love Me you will keep My commandments". Unfortunately my love for Him is imperfect. Fortunately His love for me is perfect and unconditional.
I do not see where I used the term "fundamentalists"? Perhaps you assume that "fundamentalists" are "those who were defending the status quo"?
I also do not find the word "fundamentalists" in my Bible? In Revelation 14 the patient endurance of the "saints" is commended. These "saints" are keeping the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. "Saints" as used here would refer to all the faithful believers in Jesus who have been consecrated to His service. They are the spiritual "Holy nation and priests to God". I pray that you and I may be found faithful to Him.
I submit that this church is not my church nor your church, rather it is Christ's church. Revelation teaches that Christ will perfect His church in His own way and His own time. I happen to see this episode as part of the process of restoration of the complete image of God in His church as predicted in Daniel and Revelation, but I will forbear to further explain as many readers of this web site have little interest or faith in Bible prophecy. I trust that He who began a good work will complete it.
Finally, it is wonderful that the Adventist Church has figured out that the other half of the population is just as talented. We need all talent in our leadership to move this church forward and spread God's word. Thank you to my wonderful Mom who believed that women have an important and equal role to play in God's church. Without her much of these exciting events would not have happened.
It isn't a matter of talent, it is a matter of obeying the will of God and not being in rebellion to Him.
Here is a statement from Ellen White that bears directly on this situation, Ponder it carefully,
“In the commission to His disciples, Christ not only outlined their work, but gave them their message. Teach the people, He said, "to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." The disciples were to teach what Christ had taught. That which He had spoken, not only in person, but through all the prophets and teachers of the Old Testament, is here included. Human teaching is shut out. There is no place for tradition, for man's theories and conclusions, or for church legislation. No laws ordained by ecclesiastical authority are included in the commission. None of these are Christ's servants to teach. "The law and the prophets," with the record of His own words and deeds, are the treasure committed to the disciples to be given to the world. Christ's name is their watchword, their badge of distinction, their bond of union, the authority for their course of action, and the source of their success. Nothing that does not bear His superscription is to be recognized in His kingdom (Desire of Ages p. 826)
Yes David, but like I said over at Spectrum, in the case of male headship the policies of the church are upholding the Word of God. I think it is clear particularly in this conversation that the crusade for women's ordination has largely blended itself with similar campaigns for the liberal perversion of Adventist beliefs and practices—e.g. evolution, homosexuality. The statement made earlier about granting "freedom to our theologians and scientists" reeks badly of this agenda.
The problem here is that the cause of women's ordination is being driven by higher criticism and theological liberalism, not a high view of inspired authority. Like so many other doctrinal aberrations that have misled our people in recent decades, it must be repudiated. Revival and reformation must call us all the way back to the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, away from both evangelical and liberal departures from the written Word.
I don't know that I agree with you, Kevin. Certainly those "progressive" forces you reference are strident voices on the issue. But I do not see them as the drivers of the cause. I agree that many who support women in political leadership do not have the best interests of the Church at heart, just as many on the other side do not. But the ability to find parallels between the partisans on either side of a number of issues does not mean that there is cross-pollination – that those who share positions on one issue are therefore likely to sahare positions on other issues.
You can't use the slippery slope argument to oppose all change. Opposition to the homosexual lifestyle and support of Creationism are fundamental beliefs of the Church. Male political leadership is not. You would undoubtedly see far more than 72% of the SECCSDA constituents opposing changes to those fundamental beliefs of the Church. So I think it is questionable to claim that the opening of high political office to a female was driven by "progressives." Let me ask you something, Kevin. Female pastoral leadership has been a fact of life in NAD institutional centers for quite some time now. What, if any, evidence would it take to falsify your opinion that God is opposed to such leadership? Is the actual impact that these female pastors and leaders are having on the churches and conferences they serve of any evidentiary significance to you in deciding where God stands on this issue?
Kevin, with respect to the policies of the church upholding the word of God. I don't see them upholding the word of God by allowing women to be pastors. Headship theology says that women cannot have authority over a man but a woman pastor is having authority over men. Ordination does not change her role in the local church. It only allows her to organize and disband churches and ordain elders, other than that she can do everything the male pastor does. You and those who support you should be arguing for the church to rescind its action allowing women to be pastors.
By this rationale we should also unravel the decision made some 30 years ago to ordain women as local elders. If you search the Bible carefully you will find no distinction between the qualifications of a local elder and those of a pastor.
And probably we should also rescind the action taken by the GC in 1891(?) to study the ordination of women. Since the ordination of women is clearly un-Biblical (according to some commenters) then this action was un-Biblical and should be rescinded.
Any SDA who has been baptized by a woman will need to repent and be re-baptized, but that is a small price to pay for Biblical holiness.
And we should kick-out of the SDA fellowship the large number of Chines congregations and confederationso f churches that are led by women. Let's root-out this insidious heresy before it can do any further damage to church unity and the authority of scripture. And while we are at it we should check the soil carefully for any other tares to up-root. Stack up all the tares and dry them out so they can be burned.
Wait! I think it is the Angels that are supposed to do that?
I think the idea is to follow what the bible says. No where in the new testament do we see Paul or the other disciples ordaining women as leaders in the church. In the almost 1500 history of Jewish nation there was not a single woman priest. God talked of Aarons sons as being priests not his daughters. We are only doing this because the evangelical churches are doing the same and we want to conform. This is not a the same decision as wearing of clothes or beards. It is about a bible principle instituted by God. I am a woman and I am do not feel that having a woman pastor is going to be beneficial to our cause. The bible and bible only should be our point of reference. i have nothing against Ms. Roberts, she like many other able women have a role to play in church.
mayaka20,
The NT refers to specific women as a "deacon" and an "apostle" (in the Greek). The history of how these words were substituted by more generic words in English translations is interesting.
My Greek lexicon does not contain the word "ordain". The term "ordination" was borrowed from pagan Rome by the church bishops in the second century AD.
In Exodus 19 Yahweh declares His intention that all of His hearers would be a nation of priests. The restriction of the priesthood to the sons of Aaron was a consequence of rebellion as recorded later in the Torah.
In the NT we are taught that all of Christ's followers (not just the men) are priests. Christ our High Priest was not a son of Aaron. By adoption into the family of God we become earthly priests. At our baptisms we are (symbolically) cleansed of sin (going down into the water) and consecrated for His service (coming up out of the water). Do you believe that only men are adopted into the family of God? Or that women are cleansed of sin but only men are consecrated for service? Or that our baptism does not consecrate us for service as earthly priests to God? I doubt that you would believe any of these things.
Where in the NT do we find ordination replacing baptism as the inauguration of our priestly service to God? Answer – not in the NT but in subsequent church history as part of the establishment of a counterfeit priesthood.
I am not trying to tell you or anyone else how to minister to God. Let each person minister as he or she is called. I am a man but I do not feel called by God to be a pastor (ordained or otherwise). Yet the NT is clear that every believer is called to be a priest to God. Neither you nor I have any right to determine where or on whom God is permitted to bestow His calling. It is for each to answer His call to us.
The NT ritual that later-on morphed into "ordination" was the local congregation laying hands on those who were selected or affirmed for a specific ministry, and praying for God to bless that ministry. As a young man I was first ordained as a deacon and a few years later as an elder. Shortly after I was ordained as an elder two Godly women were also ordained as elders. I can tell you that in my years of service as an elder there were many occasions where the presence of women elders was highly beneficial, both in visiting people and also in deciding how to deal with various problems that arose in our congregation. There are many people who will confide in a woman but not in a man. There are many situations where equally gifted men and women will discern things differently. When confronted with difficult problems we need to allow God to speak from different viewpoints, not just one.
There are churches that can benefit from a woman pastor and others that probably would not benefit. I refer you to the church in China where much of the pastoral leadership is in the hands of Godly women and the church is prospering greatly. To remove these women from their roles would greatly harm the cause of God. And there are doubtless other places where interjecting women into those same roles would greatly harm the cause of God. That is why it is wisest to let each field determine who will make the best leaders rather than trying to dictate this centrally for everyone everywhere.
Oh, and even more important. Ordination as we practice it with its three levels cannot be found in the New Testament. It is a Catholic practice. So, again, you should be arguing against ordination of men as well since the way we practice it with three different ordination is a non biblical practice.
Would it be reasonable to dispense with the handwringing -and high-fiving – and acknowledge that if God is behind it, this local conference leadership experiment will prosper; if He is not, it will not prosper? This is what is so good about localism. You can find out how well something works, fix the problems where you can, and/or jettison it if it doesn't work. Why do we have to always universalize our values and impose them on as many people as possible as an absolute moral imperative?
I don't think the Church has seen any fleece evidence to guide it on this issue – other than the egalitarian spirit of the times, juxtaposed against the rigid, brittle containers of bygone revelations. Nor have I observed an unusual outpouring of God's Spirit on the "gentler sex" to indicate that women are leading the way in revival and renewal, though if that were the case, it would not necessarily suggest that their talents should be wasted on political leadership. Really – how consequential was Ellen White's ordination – or lack thereof – to her role and ministry in the Church? I never heard reports – though that doesn't mean there aren't any – that outstanding leadership and innovation was exercised by Pastor Roberts as Executive Secretary of the Conference. Nor would I expect to, given the inertial nature of church bureaucracies. Would she have been the shoo-in that everyone knew she was had she not been a woman? I doubt it, though I don't know enough about her accomplishments to say that with confidence.
In the geopolitical arena, the femaleness of political leaders has not perceptibly altered the course of history for better or for worse. For society in general, gender role evolution has neither been an unmitigated disaster, nor a godsend. And for individuals in personal relationships, the newfound "freedom" of gender equality has not – at least not that I can see – done much to turn hearts and minds toward servanthood, self-denial, following Christ and bearing crosses. So as best I can discern, from the very finite perspective that temporal life gives me, God is really not all that interested in the gender of those whom He calls to be various and diverse members of His body. Nor does He allow external circumstances and barriers (like status-based denial of access to political power) to defeat His purposes in the lives of those He calls.
Does anyone seriously believe that the ex-Adventists, inactive Adventists, and anti-religionists who interact with Adventists on independent sites like AToday will suddenly develop a renewed commitment to God or to church because SDAs now have a prominent symbol of gender equality? Does anyone think that more young people will now stay committed because the senior pastor of one of the largest churches in the Conference, as well as the Conference president are both female?
There are lots of wonderful things to celebrate in personal and church life that in the long run do not really impact the trajectory of either. This may be one of them. It is impossible to know right now, though the experience of other denominations would suggest that the effect of gender equality in the church is measured far better by career opportunities than by an outpouring of The Holy Spirit. If those who saw God's hand and will so clearly at work in the machinations of Church politics yesterday will now, as a result, be as compelled by the unmistakable evidence of His hand and calling in the quotidian events of their lives, then this election may indeed be a sentinel, transformative event for the Church. Anyone care to share, in a tangible way, how you are planning to recommit your life to Christ and follow Him more closely because the Southeastern Conference now has a female president?
If you don't mind, Would you please request in writings to your fellow SDA pastors, theologian, church leaders in your area, to ask about this discrimination issue? Please oh please…
Thousands of SDA women that against women ordination in California are NEVER being allowed to speak up against this issue, but our leaders there are keep lying and twisted the facts.
It's only because of the love of God and their sympathy to our worldwide
Adventist Church that yesteday they agreed not to have a massive open
demonstration outside La Sierra University Church among SDA women that are NEVER allowed to speak up.
Remember. No male involved. The pre-planned massive demonstration
yesterday was for SDA women only, which are against women ordination
(no SDA male recommended to join). Yet they agreed to peacefully cancel it.
Instead, they stayed whereever they were and each prayed for our Living God at the minutes of voting on that sunday, Oct. 27, 2013. Yet, this was supposed to be the real pre-planned massive demonstration. And nothing new about this.
Anti Woman ordination SDA ladies have about 52 closed groups in PUC and SECC area with 8700 active members as of Dec 31, 2011 in many social networking (202 closed groups in N.America with 48000 active members of SDA ladies that against women ordination)
The more SDA leaders in California discriminate them, the more they will keep growing faster. The basic reason is: Why the SDA women that against women ordination are never allowed to speak up? That's not fair…..and extremely discriminative.
However, if none of us speak-up against this kindda subtle discrimination
the same thing will soon also being happened in the more serious level: SDA Homosexual/Lesbian issue.
They are allowed to speak up about love and demanding to stop
discrimination while at the same time they are seriously attacking our
SDA EX-GAY / EX LESBIAN which are restored and claim the victory over sin.
Have we ever heard Ex-gay/ex lesbian to speak up about their testimonies in our very own church, The Seventh day Adventist Church in California area?
Unfortunately not.
So what's the next? I don't know. But I know in Whom I believe.
Melissa,
If your numbers are correct then you have persuaded perhaps 8% of the SDA women in North America to support your cause. Not quite a majority as best I can tell.
It's interesting to me that so many have prayed most sincerely that the ordination of women be prevented, and that the placement of women to positions of leadership be disallowed. Apparently, either God is no longer listening to these folk (something in their prayers is preventing them from getting through), OR, He has given His answer to them — HE is in favor of both the ordination of women and of their being placed in positions of leadership, even over men. HE has expressed His views on these matters through His Church. At some point, it should be obvious that His providence is at work here.
I truly appreciate your reply Sister Melissa Kh. It is greatly disturbing that there are so many voices on this page lauding the ordination of women. Glad you are not one of them. Why did they go ahead and ordain women when there are so many praying against it? For the same reason Israel and Judah apostacized even with so many were praying for reform at that time. God will not force the will, but He will allow the apostacy to have its full effect on the apostates.
If prayers were always answered, what is God to do when prayers are ascending for totally opposite actions to be taken? Perhaps, we should leave it to the Holy Spirit to direct human decisions, since I don't recall seeing God at a recent G.C. meeting (in fact, there are times He might have exited).
In context of the canvassing work over 100 years ago, the Lord spoke to us through His chosen vessel (a woman) "The experience thus gained will be of the gratest value to those who are fitting themselves for the ministry. It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God." Testimonies 9, 322. If it is the Holy Spirit who accompanies both men AND women to become workers/pastors to the flock, who am I to tell the Holy Spirit of God. . ."Oh no you haven't." I place my vote for the counsel of God.
To Ms. Kh: I obviously cannot speak for the editor of Adventist Today, but I would be very surprised if he would not publish in Adventist Today a reasoned, well-written article that presents your perspective on the issue of women's ordination. I would also be surprised that if you wrote a shorter, well-written blog-type entry that your arguments against women's ordination would not be posted as a guest blog on the AT web site. (I personally question the number of women which you cite are actively involved in the anti-women's ordination discussion , but that is beside the point.). How about it? Are you ready to present your arguments in an open forum? Hopefully you might have some new arguements which have already been advanced which have not already been answered.
On my previoius submission I placed the quote from 9T 322. The correct reference should have been 6T 322 instead. My apologies.
God sets up and tears down kingdoms and Rulers, and If you feel Elder Wilson is wrong and is not the one for you, then take Him to the Lord in serious Prayer, But Dont! go against what he has suggested that we should do as a Church. We should've respected the voice of our leader, and not take things into our own hands. For it is not by might nor by Power but by my Spirit sayeth the Lord that things are done decently and in order.
This Spirit of disregard, disrespect, fault finding, is NOT of God… Why couldn't we have waited upon the Lord? what was the hurry? And we think we are really going to hasten the coming of God by disrespecting the Leadership God has given to the Church? (SMH) How does that affect our character development for Heaven? Man has never been able to hasten the Coming of the Lord, never! for the day is already set, and no one knows the day nor the Hour…our part is to yield ourselves, yielding, allowing character development for heaven, and receive Gods Power to live by His Faith.
The trial here, in this case is not Womens Ministry, but, 'Are you willing to trust God with our world Leader and His suggestion for the Church at this time. He has asked us to WAIT! WAIT I say Upon the Lord!!
As I read the statements and disrespectful comments, toward our World leader, my heart hit the ground with such sadness. Wether I believe in Women Pastors, Presidents or not, the RED FLAG has flown for me, that this Process that has recently taken place in our Church was very untimely, dangerous and Not with the Spirit of God. The spirit pushing this agenda has an attitude and an ugly presence of Evil in the voices of those who are choosing to push forward with their agenda. It is subtle yet clear, and wrapped in pity,claiming the undermining of women, and setting her free. This spirit is NOT of God. Woman you are already free!! and equipped with the power of heaven as you need it. God does not disrespect leadership as He unfolds His plans for his Church, He doesn't even disrespect Satan, and we know how wrong and evil that old Serpent is.
This experience has taught us to disrespect leadership, while thinking we are fighting for a healthy cause. Now we have disunity among us, and the spirit of persecution and hate. Ask yourself do you truly Love those who disagree with your take on this? How do you see them? Do you have a name for them?
How can ANY of us look for respect in our own corner of leadership now, no matter how great or small it is. I fear for every Pastor and Every President in the Adventist Church. As some have disrespected the direction of our leadership, and chose not to wait, but move forward, YOUR leadership is now placed in jeopardy. And your example of disrespect toward leadership will return heavily upon you.
I am fearful for California and her decision to lead out in this particular case, against the world Church. This is not about women in Ministry, this was a simple test on Obedience, Patients, and Waiting upon the Lord through the appointed leader that God put in Place. Whether you believe or trust Elder Wilson or not you are to abide by Gods word until He moves and makes things clearer to all of us. Therefore trust in the Lord and lean NOT to our own understanding. Trust Gods Decision for HIS Church!
I have been Silent on this Matter, But it is now time to share my thoughts, after reading the ugly. disrespectful. and negative thoughts towards our Church world leader Elder Ted WIlson. Its on going and it is so wrong. Regardless of what you may believe and or who's side you are on. God expects us to conduct ourselves in a way that shows we wrestle NOT against flesh and blood.
We were asked to wait by our world leader, who was appointed his position as we believe all our Leaders in the Church should be; by prayer and supplication and most of all, Placed by the Holy Spirit. We are asked to respect our Parents, Pastors, Elders, Deacons and anyone in Spiritual Leadership or Leadership period. We teach our Children to respect their Elders… Therefore as a Church, the principal and right thing to do is to always respect our leadership whether we believe their direction for us is right or wrong.
We are to trust God above all with the outcome, and Wait upon God to act, to remove, to install, to redirect from a supernatural standpoint. We do not and should not vote on a decision that is contrary to what our leader has suggested we do otherwise. Thats a total disregard and disrespect for authority, and lack of trust in God that he will do what HE says He will do, in HIS time. do not move presumptuously and hastily forward to disregard the leadership of our Church. We are NOT a Political Arena.
esmieb,
Perhaps we should only vote in elections for the president of the General Conference, then whoever is elected should make every other decision for us? Does Elder Wilson by virtue of having been once elected President automatically speak for God on every issue of faith and practice? This sounds like the RC doctrine of ex cathedra to me. I do not find in the Bible where it is that any one person is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Disagreeing with Eleder Wilson on a matter being put to a vote is not inherently rebellion against God. Otherwise why bother to vote on anything? In every case we could just ask the GC President what we should do and follow his suggestions.
Ellen White whom you seem to respect (and whom I respect), warned in the late 1800s and early 1900s against church leaders exercising kingly authority. In response to this warning the Church reorganized and established Union Conferences specifically as a counter-measure to the General Conference and its President dictating on every matter of church policy. So who is to say whether it is the General Conference or the Union Conference that is speaking for God in this matter?
We got caught up fighting for Womens rights in the Church, and skipped over the true lessons God was teaching us, faithfulness in adversity, and operating right principals while feeling and sensing discomfort. It has never been about womens ordination or her rights in the Church. For every woman that works for the Lord and is dedicated to His service is already Ordained in the books of heaven. The anointing is upon her and it is seen and felt by those who are spiritual. Her life is her most powerful sermon preached from the Pulpit of Life. She is satisfied to be as she is. She blesses others throughout the world, leading them to Baptism and to the Marriage of the Lamb. She is Paid, and her wages is exactly what she needs to survive. These women do not advertise themselves, for their lives and their work does all that for them. If she is Genuine she will tell you to wait and make no votes for her until God speaks clearly through the General Conference while in Session. Now that is the voice of God… and Not these other voices that we are hearing. There are many red flags flying at the process through which others have taken.
esmieb,
By your line of reasoning there is no more need to ordain men on earth than to ordain women on earth. Both have already been ordained in heaven. Or would you say that the reason to ordain men on earth but not women is because the men have not already been ordained in heaven?
I would assume that we would all like to believe in the idealistic picture that Mr/Ms Esmieb paints of how corporate decisions should be made in our faith community and how God’s will is supposed to be exercised. I do wonder if he/she has even attended a General Conference session. May I suggest that Mr/Ms Esmieb never do that since his/her belief in how decisions about church affairs are made might be badly shaken. (We can recall what happened when Luther traveled to Rome and witnessed for himself what was happening at the religious center of European Christianity.)
Ellen G White had some interesting things to say about the authority of the General Conference
Voice of God (sometimes)
1875: "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." (Testimonies 3:492)
1898: "It has been some years since I have considered the General Conference as the voice of God." (Letter 77, August 26, 1898)
General Conference Bulletin CCl!, 25 April 1901, 457
"O, my very soul is drawn out in these things! Men who have not learned to submit themselves to the control and discipline of God, are not competent to train the youth, to deal with human minds. It is just as much an impossibility for them to do this work as it would be for them to make a world. That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be that is past. What we want now is a reorganization. We want to begin at the foundation, and to build upon a different principle…."
"The people [in the church] have lost confidence in those who have the management of the work. Yet we hear that the voice of the Conference is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought it was almost blasphemy. The voice of the Conference ought to be the voice of God, but it is not, because [1] some in connection with it are not men of faith and prayer, they are not men of elevated principle. . . . [2] Two or three voices are not to control everything in the [whole world] field." (Ms 37, April 1, 1901, pp. 1, 8)
In Sept-Oct of 2012 we published an article by Stan Patterson, a professor at the SDA Theological Seminary on Kingly Power. Here is the link. Everyone needs to read this. (copy and paste into yourr browser)
https://atoday.org/article/1375/magazine/print-magazine/2012-04-sep-oct-issue/kingly-power-is-it-finding-a-place-in-the-adventist-church
I realize that the link will not work for everyone so because this subject is so important I am posting the article below.
By Stanley E. Patterson
Current happenings in the North American Division are unexpectedly shining a new light on realities hammered out during the passionate process of redefining the organizational structure of the church at the General Conference Session of 1901. The present issue is parity between men and women who serve a pastoral role in the leadership of the church , but the context in which that challenge is being played out is the governance structure of the church.
The North American Division (NAD) was recently corrected by General Conference legal counsel, who reported that the division could not develop policy related to the role of women in church leadership if such policy differed from General Conference policy. Since the division is an extension of the General Conference and has no separate constituency, it has no latitude to authorize such differentiation.
But what about the next rung down on the organizational ladder: the union conferences? Since unions do have a legitimate constituency, would it be reasonable to assume that an action taken by vote of their constituency would have the right to alter policy and practice related to the place and authority of women who lead as pastors?
The answer is not as simple as one might be tempted to assume. Over the years, the latitude available for differentiated action on the part of the union conferences and local conferences has become increasingly restricted. A review of the model Constitution and Bylaws from 1980 to the present will reveal a gradual tightening of the restrictions placed upon union conferences and local conferences by mandating certain elements of the model constitution that must be implemented in order to comply with General Conference policy and procedure. Copies of the model document published in editions of the Constitution and Bylaws and the General Conference Working Policy after 1995 include required bold face type to identify the portions of the model that must be incorporated into the constitutions and bylaws of local conferences and union conferences. It should be noted that it appears that mandate has not been uniformly incorporated across the North American Division.
The prologue regarding implementation of the model Constitution and Bylaws of 1980 referenced as C 70 05: “This model is to be followed as nearly as possible by union conferences.”1 In 1985 it was recorded as follows: “Model Union Conference Constitution and Bylaws for use as guidelines to be followed as closely as possible pending final consideration by the 1987 Annual Council.”2 The trend becomes clear by 1995, when the same item reads:
“This model constitution shall be followed by all union conferences. The model bylaws may be modified, with the approval of the next higher organization. Those sections of the model bylaws that appear in bold print are essential to the unity of the Church worldwide, and shall be included in the bylaws as adopted by each union conference. Other sections of the model bylaws may be modified … provided they continue to be in full harmony with the provisions of this model. Amendments to the model Union Conference Constitution and Bylaws shall be made by action of the Executive Committee of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists at any Annual Council of that Committee.”3
The 2010 edition reflects some changes but reads essentially the same as what is put forth in the 1995 edition.
The model constitution that once was presented as guidance and recommendation has morphed into a document that carries significant mandate from the General Conference of Seventhday Adventists, which serves as the determining agent in regard to whether a policy initiative by a union conference or a local conference is in agreement or not. This assumes that the boldfaced items in the model constitution are supported by a vote of the delegates at a General Conference session and not simply the work of a committee at the General Conference office, apart from a session vote authorizing the mandates.
The question that remains unanswered is how the governance process will play out if a union conference receives (or is given) a mandate by its constituency that requires women to be placed on an equal footing with men when it comes to denominational opportunities and formal affirmations in the pastoral leadership role. What parameters are intended in the policy that grants authority solely to the union conferences to authorize ordination of pastors?
Since there is no formal prohibition against ordaining women to gospel ministry, then what existing policy at the General Conference would be referenced as reflecting the voice of the people (General Conference in session) regarding the ordination of women? Certainly we have guidelines for ordination, but do those guidelines explicitly prohibit the ecclesiastical affirmation of women? Or do they simply describe the process of ordination? Maybe legal experts will be able to uncover restrictive ordination policies that I have failed to discover, but I find no policy that is being defied by those seeking to establish parity for male and female pastors.
But regardless of the posture of either organization, it must be admitted that the Seventh-day Adventist system was designed to support an upward flow of authority from the people to the leaders who serve the church at the various organizational levels. We must be reminded that such leaders exercise authority loaned in trust by the people—our leaders do not own authority.
Policies were developed not by proactive legislation, but rather by recognition of what was generally or commonly practiced by the people. The Church Manual emerged in such a fashion, and though it sometimes seems like a patchwork quilt of ecclesial policy, it has the honor of representing the voice of the people rather than expert clerics. What we see emerging in terms of practice at the local conference and union conference levels will certainly be viewed by some as rebellion and a move toward disunity. Careful reflection regarding how our systems of ecclesiology emerged, however, will reveal an exercise of authority by the people that is legitimized through the representative process of the local and union conferences and ultimately at the General Conference Session. It starts at the bottom and is processed upward.
Accountability
Let’s take a look at who answers to whom in our beloved church. First, let me express a caution. We are culturally conditioned to think in terms of top-down hierarchy when it comes to accountability. We naturally assume that we are accountable to those above us, but this assumption doesn’t apply to the church. Take a moment and recall the words of the Master spoken on Thursday evening before his death on Friday: “He who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves” (Luke 22:26, NKJV). This excerpt is part of a larger discussion in the Gospels that challenges the top-down hierarchical model (Matt. 18:1-5; 20:25-28; Mark 10:43-44; John 13:12-17) that we intuitively draw on when considering accountability. Jesus turned it upside down, and so did the delegates to the 1901 General Conference session. Those who are loaned authority for their term of service by the people should be honored by those over whom they are given authority (Heb. 13:17), but it remains the God-given responsibility of the corporate body of believers to delegate the authority by which each level of the organization functions.
The intuitive assumption is that the “lower” organizations are accountable to the higher organization. This assumption is intuitive but wrong. Accountability in the Seventh-day Adventist system always takes us back to the people, for it is the church members who hold the divine gift of authority, and it is to them that all levels of the church ultimately answer. All positional authority is granted by the people on a basis that is limited by both time and scope—whether the position is General Conference president or local pastor.
The Consolidation Tendency
The tendency of human organizations is to move from a model of distributed authority toward a consolidation of authority—from authority exercised by many to authority exercised by a few (or, in extreme cases, one). Consider Israel’s persistence in pressing for a king (Judges 8; 1 Samuel 9), wherein God proclaims himself to be rejected in the process. Consider the dramatic consolidation of the radically distributed authority in the New Testament church as it raced toward a papal system that proclaimed the people to be the subjects of authority rather than the possessors of it. Multiple examples of this tendency can be cited throughout biblical history. God distributes authority; people tend to consolidate it.
What about our church? If you review the background leading up to the reorganization of the church in 1901, it will show that the reorganization was a solution designed in reaction to a process of consolidation of power that resulted in what Ellen White referred to repeatedly as “kingly authority.” The following quote was penned in 1903, and it provides a sense of time during which the leadership behavior problem was maturing:
“In the work of God no kingly authority is to be exercised by any human being, or by two or three. The representatives of the Conference, as it has been carried with authority for the last 20 years, shall be no longer justified in saying, ‘The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we.’ The men in positions of trust have not been carrying the work wisely.”4
Except As We Shall Forget
It has been a little over a hundred years since our ecclesial ancestors struggled with the issues of organization and leadership and came up with the church structure and the leadership guidelines that define our representative system of church governance. Up until that time, the organizational structure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church seems to have unfolded in response to practical needs. At first our spiritual forbears resisted organization; then in the mid-19th century they recognized a need for more order as our numbers and the complexity of the body increased. Finally, late in the 19th century, the church discovered that careful organization was absolutely essential.
The move to organize was not prompted solely by the issue of complexity brought on by growing churches and mission expansion; it was also a response to the leadership behavior of church officials at the highest levels. As far back as the time of the Greek philosopher Plato, humans have recognized the predictable and progressive change in leadership behavior that edged toward authoritarian and dictatorial patterns. In his discussion of rulership and tyranny, Plato wrote, “When he [tyrant] first appears above ground he is a protector.”5 The move from protector to tyrant is a common transition in human leadership behavior—one to which the church has no automatic immunity. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 both describe Lucifer’s journey of selfascendancy in similar terms but with tragic results.
Ellen White was engaged with the issue of leadership, authority, and power issues much of the time after her return from Australia in September 1900 until her death in 1915. Many Leadership reveal her positions on leadership and organizational behavior in reaction to what was happening during this period. Here is an example of the tone of her counsel:
“No man has been made a master, to rule the mind and conscience of a fellow-being. Let us be very careful how we deal with God’s blood-bought heritage. To no man has been appointed the work of being a ruler over his fellow men. Every man is to bear his own burden. He may speak words of encouragement, faith, and hope to his fellow-workers; he may help them to bear their special burdens … .”6
There are many such comments in her writings, to be found in context in the manuscripts of her work. She was clearly engaged in turning the church away from both behavior and policies that consolidated authority in one or a few, rather than distributing governance and leadership authority broadly throughout the body of Christ.
Reorganization
Ellen White was also engaged vigorously in the preparation and conduct of the General Conference Session of 1901. She was present in spite of her poor health and made the following statement in a closed meeting just prior to the session, which was quoted by A.T. Jones:
“But when we see that message after message given by God has been received and accepted, yet no change has been made, we know that new power must be brought into the regular lines. The management of the regular lines must be entirely changed, newly organized.”7
She was frustrated by the fact that organizational and leadership behavior issues had been addressed by her to church leaders for more than a decade but with no change realized. Consequently, the issue of change in this arena became part of the work of the 1901 General Conference Session.
The trend leading up to the 1901 Session was a move away from the distributed model and toward a hierarchical model in both leadership behavior and organization. Authority was progressively collecting at the top, to the end that both members and church employees were being made subject to the authority of those residing “above” them. The 1901 Session made a radical shift away from the hierarchical model, wherein power and authority flows down to those who are subject thereto, and instead focused upon the freedom and inherent capacity of the individual member and employee.
Again E.G. White speaks in favor of the distributed model: “Each is to have an individual experience in being taught by the Great Teacher, and individual communion with God.”8
Figure 1 : S D A Authority Structure
The delegates to the session and those immediately following 1901 brought forth a model of organization that tipped the hierarchy of power on its head. Instead of authority being vested in ecclesiastical leaders, it was laid upon those at the base—the members of the church. Authority flowed up through a process of delegation (see Figure 1). It was loaned to leaders at the various levels on a limited basis. No leader owned authority, but rather functioned as a steward of authority until the end of his/her term— and only within the organizational and geographical scope of the defined assignment.
The 1901 reorganization began a process that placed a barrier between each level of the church. This severely limited the personal authority of leaders beyond their immediate placement. The General Conference was limited in its authority over union conferences. Unions were designed as semiautonomous entities with limited ability to dictate to local conferences, and up until 1980 they were held accountable at their sessions by a constituency that included every ordained pastor in the union conference as a voting delegate. Conferences in turn had boundaries that limited their authority in the local churches. Leaders at each level, including the local church, answered to a representative constituency.
Again Ellen White affirms this model: “It has been a necessity to organize union conferences, that the General Conference shall not exercise dictation over all the separate conferences. The power vested in the Conference is not to be centered in one man, or two men, or six men; there is to be a council of men over the separate divisions.”9
This model is in stark contrast to the papal and the episcopal models, wherein authority is vested in an individual clergyman (papal) or group of clergymen (episcopal), who exercise it downward to a submissive constituency. The Seventh-day Adventist hierarchy of power was displaced in 1901 by a hierarchy of order that served the organizational needs of the church without consolidating power in any one individual. In so doing, the 1901 Session turned back the process that 1800 years before had led the early church down the path toward papacy.
The Representative System Today
God gave us an exceptional system of organization. It is the result of committed, God-fearing people who struggled with issues of organization and leadership in honest, open debate and produced a model that is “smarter” than any one of us. It’s a system that takes us back beyond the kings of Israel to a time wherein each son and daughter of God related directly to him as ruler. Gideon referenced this relationship with God in his answer to the elders of Israel when they requested that he become king: “I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you” (Judges 8:23, NKJV). Each person carried the responsibility of service before God. So it is that the 1901 reorganization challenged the concept of kingly power and won.
1903 GC Session Challenge
Proponents of the centralized model of authority challenged the newly adopted representative model at the 1903 General Conference Session. The delegates defended the idea that it was the people’s church and held to the distributed model of governance and rejected what was referred by some as “kingly authority.”10 It should not be ignored, however, that the tendency to control rather than to trust the voice of the body remains a temptation that has an insidious and persistent pull upon those called to lead. Remember Plato’s tyrant; he started out as a protector! We must ask ourselves and, yes, even assess our organization to determine whether controlling behavior is impacting the church in a systemic manner. Are we still honoring the spirit of the 1901 reorganization? There is evidence that the church is functionally moving toward an episcopal model as the representative structure crumbles from lack of maintenance.
Much will be revealed in the coming months relative to how the organized church will respond to the initiative by some union conferences in North America to take constituent action to address parity between male and female pastors regarding formal acts of affirmation. Is such action a legitimate move by the people to address issues that impact their sense of corporate and individual integrity? Or is such action a challenge to the General Conference, which is commissioned to implement the collective voice of the people on a global scale, and thus assure unity and in some sense ecclesiastic uniformity? Looking from the bottom up, it seems to make sense to move forward to address a problem with action affirmed by the constituency. Looking down from the top, it is understandable that anxieties might rise as the certainty of uniform beliefs and corporate behavior becomes less certain.
In the process of solving this problem, the church must renew its commitment to its root structure, wherein authority flows up from the people. In the end we must honor that collective voice, which over the years has grown faint. The denomination must refresh the concept of representative governance and build trust between the organized church and the body of believers by implementing concrete efforts to hear and value the collective voice of the body. The Master intentionally called his disciples friends rather than servants, and in that spirit the organized church must establish a relationship with the people they serve. God’s church is after all, the people’s church.
Stanley E. Patterson, Ph.D., is an associate professor and chair of the Christian Ministry Department at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan.
1 General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, NAD Constitution, Bylaws and Working Policy (Washington, D.C.: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1980), C 70 05.
2 General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, NAD Constitution, Bylaws and Working Policy (Washington, D.C.: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1985), p. 191.
3 General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Constitution, Bylaws and Working Policy (Silver Spring, Maryland: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1995), pp. 165-166.
4 Ellen G. White, “No Kingly Authority to Be Exercised,” from Manuscript 26, 1903, quoted in Manuscript Releases, Vol. 14 (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1990), p. 280; see also Christian Leadership (Washington, D.C.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1985), p. 26.
5 Plato, The Republic, quoted by J. Thomas Wren, ed., The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages (New York: The Free Press, 1995), p. 62.
6 Ellen G. White, “Individual Responsibility & Christian Unity,” from Manuscript 29, 1907, pp. 9-10, quoted in Christian Leadership (Washington, D.C.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1985), p. 27.
7 General Conference Bulletin, Twenty-fifth Session, Vol. 5, April 10, 1903, p. 152.
8 White, Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1923), p. 486.
9 White, “No Kingly Authority to Be Exercised,” from Manuscript 26, 1903, quoted in Manuscript Releases, Vol. 14 (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1990), p. 279.
10 General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, General Conference Bulletin, in General Conference Session (Oakland, California: GC Secretariat, 1903), pp. 149-166.
Thank you, David, for posting this essay by Stanley Patterson. His analysis seems accurate and very timely. And I think the issues he highlights are the real story here. The election of a woman as conference president is only a symptom of the fundamental issue.
The current dynamics in our church indicate that we are once again in a struggle over the issue of distribution of authority within our church. Perhaps it is not unlike 1901. It is a struggle that will move to resolution in some fashion. Resolution will likely determine how our church works (or doesn't) for generations. The question is how various influences in the church will play a role. I believe that the laity should play a vital role in achieving resolution. What is needed is a vehicle for the influence of the laity to make itself know.
"Granted, in our modern femenist(sic) culture, male leadership simply seems outdated and "unequal." But we are not of this world. Our kingdom functions under the masculine rule of the Holy Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Wayne Wilson
How true and this news obviously brings the liberals out of the woodwork. No basis in Scripture for placing a woman in such a position. A split may be inevitable. Heaven help us!
Maranatha
I don't think it just brings liberals out of the woodwork, Truth Seeker. I think even President Wilson would be embarrassed to have a statement like "the masculine rule of the Holy Trinity" offered in defense of his position. Extremist statements like your's, and like those of others who have commented, would have even my very conservative, fundamentalist mother shaking her head. I think if you will wake up and smell the Postum, you will realize that there are a large number of Adventists, fully committed to all of the 28 F.B.s, who do not share your perspective, and who, even if they did, would emphatically reject statements like "the masculine rule of the Holy Trinity."
Support for change – especially at the local level – toward which the church has been healthfully evolving over a long period of time, does not make someone a liberal.
What is the scriptural (or EGW) basis for your asserting "the masculine rule of the Holy Trinity"? I have read the Bible through amny times and in many translations and I have failed to find this. What have I been missing?
According to Genesis 1:27 the image of God is in both male and female. This passage strongly suggests that if you only look at the male or the female you will see an incomplete image of God. The intimacy that exists between husband and wife was meant to be an earthly illustration of the intimacy that exists within the Godhead.
I take this from EGW who wrote:
"The presence of Christ alone can make men and women happy. All the common waters of life Christ can turn into the wine of heaven. The home then becomes as an Eden of bliss; the family, a beautiful symbol of the family in heaven." (AH 28)
I do not read this as pertaining only to the male members of the family on earth being a beautiful symbol of the family in heaven (ie the Godhead). Her statement clearly refers to the union of man and woman. No member of the Godhead "rules" over the others in heaven. I do not deny that Christ on earth "emptied himself" and voluntarily submitted to the Father in heaven, but that was an earthly, not a heavenly relationship.
In the Bible the subordination of women to men arises as a consequence of evil. It was never God's original plan. How can a church that claims to be reflecting the character of God justify its actions based on sinful relationships? In my youth i vigorously debated the proper roles of men and women (with my sister and even with my girlfriends). Only after I began to realize how blindly misogynist were my own opinions was God able to lead me to the Love of my life. We are both strong-willed people and we have strong disagreements, but I would never claim that God has ordained me to rule over her (even if sometimes she may feel that way). It is sin that introduces power struggles between individuals – in our lives and in the church. I confess that I am a sinner but I do not blame God for it. Paul tells all of us (not just the women) to submit to one another in love.
"Our kingdom functions under the masculine rule of the Holy Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"
This is one the most absurd statements I've ever read/heard. It's a clear declaration of machismo. It's speaking for God, as if one is some type of god himself/herself. It sounds like God went out of vacation and left someone else in charge…
If it will take a split to stop this insane discrimination of women, so be it.
Is God male only? First, he is spirit and spirit has no gender. Second. Gen 1:27 says that we were created in God's image. " male and female.". It would seem then that if we insist on applying gender to God we need to depict God as male/female.
Until we become inhabitants of the New Earth, we must live in this earth now and not attempt to change it to our ideas of how heaven should be–as we cannot know. If someone is anxious to change things to the heavenly ideal, that will come soon enough at your death.
Sorry Schilt and Newman, approving of insubordinate action is most unfortunate and your attempts at proving your point are unconvincing. Don't you believe that "order is heaven's first law"? There is nothing at all healthy about appeasing the liberals who have allowed themselves to be caught up in the feminist culture.
There are more than you may realize who will not support a divisive and unholy decision. God will overcome and triumph and Wilson is, many believe, chosen for just a time as this.
Maranatha
Truth Seeker (really?)
There is no rebellion. The unions were specifically structured to prevent authoritatian dictatorship over them. The unions are only responsible for appointments within their area, and the G.C. has no policy or permission to interfere or dictate what or who the unions elect and choose for pastors and department leaders within their union.
Rebellion can only be when law has been flouted, and this has never been the case. If you are really a "Truth Seeker, go online and read the union's authority as designated by the G.C. Gary Patterson, a few months ago, pasted or copied it on the web and with a few clicks you can find it. Someone here may have the address.
It's the same as a parent "cutting loose" her adult children as they must find their own way; and then calling them down for disobedience when the adult child's actions are not what the parent might wish.
Seeker,
I would claim that love is heaven's first principle. Certainly God is a God of order, but law and order were never issues in heaven until Lucifer rebelled. Order became heaven's first law only when laws became necessary. Laws are passed in response to violations of love. In perfect love there is no need for law.
Too many times in my life I have heard authority figures claim that someone who disagreed with them or appeared insubordinate to them, was rebelling against God. This is the mental rationale for spiritual abuse. Unless I have been specifically called by God to speak-out (prophesy) for Him, I have no right to assert that those who disagree with me are rebelling against God. Whether or not they are rebelling against God must be between them and God – I have no earthly right to intrude in their relationship with God.
"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." (Matthew 7:1-2)
It is far more persuasive to explain what you believe and why, than to make accusations regarding the motives of others.
Sorry Truth Seeker. I am sure that you would agree that moral law trumps church policy. When the Church in GC Session in 1990 voted to allow women to be pastors they unintentionally set up a moral dilemma that was not apparent at the time. The moral issue is justice and fairness. The 1990 action discriminated against women on the basis of their gender. When we let a woman have the same qualifications for ministry as a man. When we allow a woman to lead a church just like a man (except for some very minor details) but do not allow her the same credential we have discriminated on the basis of gender and God does not discriminate. So we now have a moral issue which far outweighs any policy issue. If a mistake was make it was the mistake of allowing women to serve as pastors and further back allowing women to serve as elders and be ordained as elders. In the New Testament there is no functional difference between the elder and the pastor. The church has voted ordination for women as elders so we are not dealing with a theological issue. That has been decided. We are dealing with a discrimination issue.
Mr. Newman, are you just trying to wear everyone out?
Mr Newman-
How can anyone ever construe the issue of WO as a moral issue is beyond comprehension. If it were, certainly the Lord thru Scripture or EGW would have indicated such.
Discrimination as you describe it is a human construct and unrelated to the sacred office of Pastor.
It's mainly that church discipline and order have been usurped by dedication to a cultural issue — the feminist movement! Nothing more and nothing less.
Maranatha
Ms/Mr TS uses "Wilson" to refer to our current GC President. That is very disrespectful. He must be adddressed as Elder Wilson or Pastor Wilson [that's the PC way] or F. Wilson;, never just Wilson) Ms/Mr TS suggests that Elder Wilson has been "chosen [I assume by God] for just a time as this." May I suggest that Ms/Mr TS might be on to something. God decided that Elder Wilson should be the GC President to teach the Adventist Church a lesson. What is that lesson?
Ervin,
Perhaps the answer to your question can be found in my latest comments on Jack's blog regarding the need for leaders to be able to tolerate pain? This is why I continue to pray for Ted Wilson even when I do not agree with everything he does, and why I harbor no malice or resentment towards him.
Regardless of your personal views on this topic, or mine, or Ted Wilson's, I can assure you that trying to maintain a degree of harmony in a culturally diverse world-wide church family is a very painful process, both for the church and for its leaders. Few topics bear as much emotional baggage in any culture as relationships between men and women. This is why the issue of women's role in the church is so divisive.
I believe this is why Ted Wilson is pleading for more time to try to achieve tolerance if not consensus. In support of my belief I offer two observations –
First, the Adventist Review (a journal that I still read to analyze the party line) has for years featured articles on the various ways God is using women in the SDA church in different parts of the world.
Second, the hierarchy of TOSCs that has been created and the rules of engagement are designed not so much to unearth new theological discoveries as to disseminate what almost all serious SDA theologians have concluded going back into the 1800s. This is not a research endeavor but an educational and consciousness-raising endeavor. Please pray for Artur Stele.
Meanwhile most of us on the "left coast" believe that over a century is more than enough time for study and it is now time for action. Especially considering that for a generation in mainland China, beyond the reach of church working policies, women have proven themselves as successful (arguably the most successful) church leaders. One wonders if the Holy Spirit has used the "loss of denominational control" in China that followed the Communist victory, to provide a working laboratory for alternative models of church leadership?
In the NPUC where it is slightly cooler than in SoCal, the church has voted to ordain women, but to postpone action until after the next GC session. Sorry NPUC women pastors, but we are asking you to wait a bit longer to receive the affirmation from the church that you have already received from the Holy Spirit. We are delaying this for the sole purpose of not adding more fuel to a fire that after smoldering for many years, has now burst into open flame.
And this is also why I am praying for Sandra Roberts as her own level of pain will now be greatly intensified. I hope that like Jackie Robinson in MLB, the SECC has found a woman who will be able to bear with grace and dignity and Christian love and forbearance all the brickbats that will be hurled at her. Those who oppose women in church leadership are surely hoping (and perhaps even praying) that she stumbles. Those of us who favor women in church leadership need to pray that through her the Holy Spirit will dismay her many critics.
Well stated, Jim. Thank you.
It's interesting that first people pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance. Then when it happens, in their frustration they complain. So,… was their praying mere hypocrisy?
Well, undoubtely one lesson is that an election for a GC prez can be done in 90 seconds.
Provided, of course, that the appropriate "homework" has been done prior.
Jim. I hope your analysis of Ted Wilson's reasons for his actions are correct, but I wonder. Might what is going on is that he is playing to what he considers his prime constituency which is in the Third World. If there is political blockage at the next GC to prevent NAD to ordain women, that would suggest that your analysis of Elder Wilson's true motivations may not be entirely accurate. His father was a pragmatist. His son is not. The son does not possess other characteristics of his father, but let's not get into that.
It is too difficult to please constituents when they in complete disagreement. The far better solution would be to develop a PR campaign to explain to the entire world church that God has not always used exactly the same method to win converts. Such a method was clearly demonstrated at the very birth of Christianity when there were two groups that could not agree on what was necessary to be a Christian.
It was the Holy Spirit that led the apostles to make the most important decision of the church at that time, not to force Judaism's requirements on the new pagan converts: that it was not necessary that all Christians comply with the same identical practices. It was this decision that in retrospect allowed the church to grow rapidly and spread to the entire Mediterranean area and beyond. Had the Jewish leaders prevailed, and circumcision and their laws been made mandatory on the former idol worshipers, it would have died before the close of the first century; which is exactly what happened. Following the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. the Jewish Christian church fades from history but the Gentile Christians by the beginning of the fourth century had filled the entire Roman Empire.
God rules through the Holy Spirit. Attempts to muzzle the Spirit is to reject God.
Ervin,
I suspect that Ted Wilson is well aware that his largest constituencies and his largest donor bases only partly overlap. Regardles of his own personal views right now his biggest problem is to find a way to keep these two groups from hopelessly alienating each other.
At this time I think further escalation of this conroversy benefits neither of these groups. And both of these groups are ultimately dependent on the voluntary support of their membership bases. Unlike some other churches, the GC has no major independent revenue base apart from its constituent Union Conferences.
My, My, such hostility by the macho man to preserve the last vestige of his supremacy, by nature of his physical strength, only. He has been surpassed in every avenue of life by that ever uppity Amazon, the female heroine. In the church, in the home, in business, in the community, in every walk of life, it is the female who does most of the financing, and most of the heavy lifting, and the male figurehead pompously steps up to take the praise. i am witness to each aspect of the above for close to 90 years.
Two covenants, why? Why not a third covenant? Perhaps there is and it is being revealed through the Holy Spirit's leading the Constitutency of the SECC, as the male species has forfieted its self ordered mandate, by his absence in the home, and failure to be the Godly influence in the home & community, and the progeny are finding their pleasure and their role models in the God forsaken areas of the beautiful people, the demon posessed music styles, the opium dens of the corner hangouts, and the porn industry, blasting their Satanist advertizing in their eyes and ears constantly, through every possible computer age outlet. Generally the youth of the world are currently seeking every thrill, excitement, sexual perversion, and evil hell available, intoxicated in hedonistic passion. And the male dominated hierarchy has this indictment against them, as they have let it happen on their watch.
The SDA Church does not have a Papa, who is infallible, and should be making fallible FB's for the sheep. The Holy Spirit is not available only to GC officers. The church sits in the pews, teaches the youth starting at birth, has the vital responsibility for every conceivable job, that supposedly is beneath the "diginity" of the male species, but when praise is handed out, it most always is the smiling male who reports, front and center. With over 70% of the SECC having voted, the result is clear, the Holy Spirit "has spoken".
I am saddened by this event. I am totally against the infusion of humanistic morality into the 7th day Adventist Church. How are rule of faith is the Bible and not ambient culture. Besides the is no biblical precedence I know of where God told his people to imitate tenents or norms of the ambient culture around them. The biggest danger i see is the liberal hermeneutic used to arrive at this juncture. I believe there is a spirit leading this agenda but I highly doubt it is the Holy Spirit
Tapiwa Mushaninga
If so then the church has been on a downward slide for many years. I am assuming that there are no women elders in the division you have membership in.
So far, I personally do not see a reason for not allowing women to be pastors or conference presidents. I believe your elected president is a very capable woman, that she has a lot of experience and has a life dedicated to God. Having said that, I would like to share my main concern about all this discussion, and this decision, as an outsider of the US, and as a layman member of the Worldwide SDA Church.
I have the impression the main point was missed. We are part of a worldwide church, not a Southern Californian SDA Church. If the world church, represented in the last GC Assembly in 2010 did not decided yet for women as pastors, so, let us be more effective in our arguments in the next Assembly. Let us reason together and better the next time, in 2015. Let us speak up, and let us listen too. And according to discussions, let us step forward or step back, if necessary. But what is this decision? What if every conference in this world decides to do as has been done in Souther California? Was it impossible to wait the next GC Assembly? Just one yar and a half! What gives Southern California Conference more authority and wisdom than the worldwide church united in prayer in a GC Assembly? Instead of gaining support for women as pastors I believe that more opposition is going to be the result. I hope I am wrong.
Yes, women have an important role in church and probably may have even more important impact if they are pastors and conference presidents. But it is not by having or not having women as pastors that we are going to better witness the love of God to the world. This is not the point. Jesus was very clear saying that unity would be the way the world would see Him in us (John 17). Let us put aside our pride, our hunger for power, our desire to be like the others and think as one people, God's people.
I just ask myself: is rebellion the way God's Church historicaly solved its conflicts? I think in the book of Acts we may have some answers and examples. I am very sorry for the way this decision was made. From my perspective it was a shame. May God have mercy on all of us. May Jesus' words for unity in John 17 be the motto for our meetings and assemblies as a worldwide Church. May we exercise more love, patiance and respect with those who think different from us. May we be humble when we speak and even more humble to listen, so that we learn from each other and from the word of God.
I would like to respond to E. Muckenberger's post. First of I believe the request to wait until 2015 has a sense of reasonableness in it. However, this topic has been studied for almost four decades now and everytime the conclusion is the same. There is no Scriptural proscription regarding women being ordained. The scheme to wait until 2015 needs to be seen for what it really is–a stalling tactic. Unless we have received new Scripture, which I don't think we have, what do we expect to get by stalling for another two years. It is nothing more than paralysis by analysis.
Secondly, this move to ordain women is not isolated to the Southeastern California Conference. It has been voted Pacific Union wide and other conferences within the union have ordained women accordingly. We have seen the Columbia Union do the same, the Northern German Union has approved it as well as the Netherlands Union. According to denominational policies, unions have the right to ordain as they see fit.
Thirdly, one must not confuse unity with uniformity. The first century church was not uniform in their practices. But they were united. So we are on this topic. If a particular union chooses not to ordain wormen, I guess that would be their right. One does not have to travel too widely around this world to see that the SDA church is not monolithic in its practices. But we do have love, patience and respect for one another.
There are two points to be considered. Both of them are not a problem for me personaly to accept. But in both cases the problem is on the way things have been addressed here.
1. Women as pastors.
2. Women as conference presidents.
About women as pastors, it is well known that some unions ordain women. But we need to ask how many members of the worldwide church are represented by these unions? Is the worldwide SDA church only a Californian, American, European, Western Church?
The Church in past years has worked a way to allow women to be pastors and at the same time respect different cultural values respresented in our Worldwide church. So Unions have the right to ordain as they see fit. No problems, no questions with that.
But, there is a problem when one local church decides that the majority of the SDA worldwide church has to bow down to its opinions and time perspectives. If the majority of the SDA Worldwide church needed all these decades to think about women as pastors, what is the problem? And if the church needs more time? Let us be patient. Let us reason together. Let us love those who think differently. Loving them means to respect them. Respect them means to consider the impacts of our decisions on them. The Worldwide Church will not paralyse because women are not pastors.
About a woman as a conference president, there was a clear orientation from the GC, stated by its president, that was just ignored. The GC president played correctly his role, bringing up the concerns of the Worldwide Church. He must not be criticized because of that. He has done his job. He did not compromised his duty. He is there not only for NAD members. It should be considered that he might know better than most of us how the SCC decision may impact the church in other countries and cultures.
If I am not mistaken, Paul addresses, more than once, how to deal with these delicate cultural situations. He was very concerned about how we impact others with our actions. And this impact, is more important than being right, when we are dealing with these cultural issues. If he was concerned about this impact on that time, how much more we should be nowadays! We are not living in isolated communities anymore, like in the primitive church times. Does it mean that we need to be unifom? No. But it does mean that we need to develop a broader perspective and a worldwide sensitivity in our decisions as a church. We should be more and more aware of this if we want to reach the 10/40 window. Besides, again, let us be honest, the Worldwide Church will not be paralysed if women are not conference presidents. Lack of unity, on the other hand, surely will do so.
Finaly, one must not confuse diversity in unity with lack of unity. It is very difficult to identify diversity in unity when one reads most of the comments here. It is a mistery how can we possibly be diverse and still united, if each conference in the world simply decides to ignore GC Assembly. Again, why not wait one year and a half and find a way to accomodate the desire to have women as conference presidents inviting the church as a whole to consider that in the next GC Assembly? The Church has found ways before to accomodate the desire to ordain women. It could find a way again that would satisfay the Southern California Conference, if only there was the willing to talk and to listen to each other. But unfortunately, the decision was made in this myopic and unilateral way.
Are you aware of any local congregation that has ordained women wishes to impose its decision on the world wide church? Your statement gives that impression. Please tell us more as it has been made available to this site.
Even if that were true, it is impossible for a single church to even try to impose its plan on the world church.
Thank you for your input, E.Muckenberger. You have articulated your points well. But some of those points seem to beg the question. For example, what matters are legitimately within the de jure authority of the G.C. Assembly? That's been pretty thoroughly discussed on this website, and it is not at all obvious that the Assembly has been given the authority to make worldwide rules on this issue, any more than it has the authority to say whether a non-pastor or woman can be church board chairperson.
Your arguments also overlook a lot of history that was alluded to in comments above. Those who favor equal opportunities for women in church leadership have many times been told, "Just wait, just wait." This debate didn't just start, as you imply, in 2010. And it is increasingly apparent that top G.C. leadership is less concerned about spiritual unity within the Advent movement than it is with establishing and enforcing its authority to dictate policy at the local level. If Ted Wilson was really concerned about unity, it would be he who would step back and wait to see what, if any, disunity is precipitated by this action. Did ordination of women as pastors create the disunity that was prophesied? When Pastor Roberts became Executive Secretary of the Conference, where was the concern about disunity? Did it come to pass?
THERE WOULD BE NO REAL CONFLICT IF THE GC PRESIDENT WASN'T GOING AROUND TRYING TO MAKE DISUNITY A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. Please reference speeches where Ted Wilson has urged restraint, tolerance and understanding on the part of those who are opposed to women in leadership. Where are his Gamaliel speeches? He is not acting at all like a leader or statesman, but like a partisan advocate against equal opportunity for women in church leadership. Do you think for an instant that if he had gone around to conferences and unions and said, "Look guys, give us until 2015; we're going to make this thing happen," we would be seeing what has occurred since the summer of 2012? I don't think so. Local conference and Union leaders can read the tea leaves, and they know that continuing to wait will produce no movement. And in the meantime, they are looking at overwhelming majorities of their constituents who can't understand why their local actions on this issue should adversely impact the unity of the world wide church.
Now the issue, from your comment and others, seems to be that the unity of the church depends on Adventists and the NAD knuckling under to the dictates of the Assembly. Tell me, what do you think would have happened in 2015 if the actions taken by unions and local conferences over the past year and-a-half had not occurred? No matter what, you would be saying, "Obey G.C. authority!" Would you not agree that the illegitimate use of authority and the overextension of authority are just as problemmatic as disregard of such authority? Is ecclesiastical tyranny over church colonies preferable to rebellion against a particular diktat of that tyranny by the colonies?
Nathan,
While you and I mostly agree on this issue, I find your use of the phrase "ecclesiastical tyranny" to be unfortunate and unjustified. Authoritarianism, perhaps but tyranny, hardly. To cross-over the boundary to tyranny one would have to see the GC attmept to institue meaningful sanctions against the five Union Conferences that have now voted to ordain women as pastors. (I here include the NPUC which has decided to defer implementation of its decision, already voted by its constituency, until after the 2015 GC session.) Not to mention the others that will presumably follow after 2015.
I seriously doubt that the GC officers would actually attempt to sanction three of the four most powerful Union Conferences (in terms of membership and donor base) in North America, including the seats of the GC itself and of Loma Linda Unviersity, for "insubordination". I have not studied the GC Constituion and Bylaws recently but last time I looked there was no provision for sanctioning a Union Conference short of the extreme measure of voting said Conference out of existence at a General Conference session.
The only powers that the GC officers can wield in this scenario are the powers of private advice and public persuasion. You may or may not think they are exercising these powers wisely or effectively, but that hardly constitutes tyranny. Nobody has been excommunicated here and nobody will be excommunicated, as long as the Union Conferences control the ministerial credentials within their territories, and the local congregations control church membership.
Fair comment, Jim. I used the word "tyranny" because it seemed the most appropriate parallel to "rebellion," the term used by many to describe the action of the SECCSDA constituency. Both terms are hyperbolic.
Yes, as an US outsider, I do not know all the details of this discussion. Yes, I may have missed some points and historical aspects. Yes, I probably could have used better words. But there is no need to know all the details and backgrouds to see that the main point was missed: Like it or not, we are a worldwide church with a worldwide mission. Not because of GC or its president, but because Jesus has told us to be that way. It is not easy to be a worldwide church. Sometimes we have to wait for things we think should happen faster, sometimes we have to accept things that we think are strange. Being worldwide demands worldwide discussion, worldwide vision and worldwide sensitivity. Being worldwide has lots of good things that we barely sense because we are just too much worried about our own local idiosyncrasies. May God help us to overcome labels and preconceived ideas. May He, His will and the good of the whole church be the center of our discussions. May he softened our hearts so that we learn to listen each other. May He be exalted in the decisions we make. I still think the way things were done was a shame. But, despite that, I wish the best for the Southern California Conference and its elected woman president. But most of all I hope and pray that we may be as one, like Jesus is one with the Father, so that the world will know that Jesus is in us.
Some keep beating a dead horse, but there needs to be no dilemma because there are differences in a worldwide church. If everyone was in 100% agreement there would be a question of how it was implemented. Never are there millions who will agree on important matters.
The early church has given us a model if we read the Bible story of its inception. Disagreement was almost as early as Pentecost. The blessing of the Holy Spirit did not suddenly bring everyone into complete agreement. It was not long before the Jews were pushing for all the new Gentile converts to submit to circumcision and observe the Jewish Laws. The Law given by God forbid Jews eating with other races and even visit them. Rather than making either position mandatory on all, it was decided by the Holy Spirit that the Jews should not prevail in forcing their wishes on the Gentiles.
For those who look to the Bible for principles of life and handling disputes, this principle was established with the very birth of Christianity.
Why not turn to the Scriptures, which is the usual method, and follow the early Christians example?
"Meanwhile most of us on the "left coast" believe that over a century is more than enough time for study and it is now time for action."
I know of no study about WO that has encompassed a century. Please elucidate. Action that is very obviously illegitimate can hardly be inspired by the Deity.
Maranatha
Truth Seeker,
Study this document carefully:
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/wo/haloviakchapter.htm
The matter was first referred to the GC officers for study in 1881. By my reckoning of time that is more than a century ago. (It must be noted that other SDA historians differ regarding whether this motion to refer actually was voted or whether it was disposed of by consent, as motions to refer often are disposed of this way.) Since the GC officers did not return a report from this referral (that I am aware of) it must be presumed that they are still studying the matter.
Meanwhile the North American Division authorized the ordination of women as local elders in 1975. Since the scriptural qualifications of elders do not distinguish between local elders and full-time employees (the early church at that time having very few if any of the latter), this action is a tacit admission that in North America there is no theological objection to ordination of women pastors.
In 2015 The North American Division will have been waiting 40 years for the rest of the world to recognize their decision, having previously waited 94 year for the GC officers to complete their original study of the question. Only after the NAD took action almost 40 years ago, did the GC Executive Committee take up the matter that it had ignored for almost a century before (if you will allow me to round-up 94 years to a century).
Seek and ye shall find.
Mr. Muckenberger asked: "What if every conference in this world decides to do as has been done in Southern California? The answer is that the Adventist Church will be a much more mature church where adherence to principle will outweight the dictates of a call for "Uniformity or Else." The General Conference president has lost his credibilitty. I hope that his advisors might see what damage he has done and help him to move to the center on this issue. It will be very interesting to see how the Adventist Review and Adventist World spin their reporting on the action by the Southeastern California Conference.
I have seen a great deal written here (this outing, with this article) on the fact that we live in a "feminist" culture (the word "feminist" apparently can alternately be spelled "femenist" but perhaps the two words have certain codes attached to them, producing subtle distinctions).
That for economic reasons as well as the compelling need to fight world words, far more women have been forced into the workplace than before 1940 is fairly obvious. Few of us are making it financially anymore on one income. But I don't blame feminists for this change; yes, there are some women who prefer to work outside the home, always have been. But the emergence of women in the secular workplace for purposes of maintaining a middle-class form of livelihood is driven by economics far more than the emergence of a tribe of amazons determined to take over all power here in America, or abroad.
I'm wondering if some capable user of the term "feminism" could explain to me why the common Christian should fear for the church in an age when women have been forced by economic necessity to be more assertive. Is God or His church thereby imperiled? Will these women escalate in power to the point that they will detain men and put them to death, or otherwise incapacitate them as men?
In our family, we have encouraged our sisters and daughters to become highly educated and to be able to compete intellectually and spiritually with men, at every turn. We have not been able to find in Scripture any passage that excuses women from developing their knowledge, skills and influence to a lesser degree than men do. So I'm puzzled by the presumed threat of feminism to the Church. This is an absolutely honest question…..Is it that perhaps some feminists are non-practicing Chriastians or may be agnostic or disinterested in organized religion?
Ed, I'm glad to see you defending Pastor Roberts appointment as president of SECCSDA. I do not agree, however, that defense of "feminist culture" is a necessary or helpful route. I question whether economic necessity has forced women into the workplace. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the notion that feminism as an ideology should be taken lightly by the church.
To the extent that economics has been a driver for women in two-parent households to enter the workplace (there have been other non-economic factors as well), it is economic desire and family instability – not necessity -that have driven women into previously male dominated vocations. Purchasing power has increased tremendously over the past 60 plus years. With improved quality and quantity of goods and services, we have become more materialistic, and leisure time has increased.
If teachers and pastors were willing to live as I did growing up, spouses would not need to work. But who wants to wash clothes by hand and hang them out on the line? Who wants to do without a dishwasher or air conditioning? Who wants to make their kids double up in bedrooms? Who wants to forego eating out -ever? Who wants to do without T.V. or smart phones? Who wants to get by with one car for the family that is at least ten years old? I don't say this to condemn anyone. But in America, we have really developed a warped sense of necessity.
While I do not necessarily view the elimination of workplace gender bias per se as "feminist" turf, I am aware that there are many, both pro and con, who do. So be it. Personally, I am not willing to cede the appointment of Pastor Roberts to the feminists. It strikes me as monumentally naive to ignore the danger that feminism as an ideological movement poses to Adventist values. Historically, the leaders of the feminist movement have denigrated the notion of complimentary sexuality, and have done much to destroy both the family and the dignity of full-time homemaking as a fulfilling choice. You, Ed, ignore this reality in order to water down feminism. To me, minimizing the very real destructiveness of feminism as a cultural ideology is no better than blaming feminist culture for common sense elimination of irrational gender discrimination in the area of church offices.
If teachers and pastors were willing to live as I did growing up, spouses would not need to work. I have to say Nate that this sounds very insensitive to the real economic hardships faced by so many in today's economy. Kind of a "let them eat cake" sentiment. Teachers and Pastors in particular are grossly undervalued in our society, except in those cases of independent pastors who set up megachurches and make heroes of themselves. In those unfortunate cases they are grossly overpaid. But the vast majority of clergy and teachers live frugally by most objective standards. Besides sounding grossly sexist, your reasoning throws sand in the face of many who toil in low paid positions because they feel called to do so, and who contribute much more to our society than they ever get back. Where would we be as a culture without teachers? We would be nowhere.
It is certainly refreshing however to see the church membership in the SEC Conference move ahead with the reality of our time and give equal opportunity to women working for the church.
I agree with your last paragraph, Mark. But you obviously did not read my comment carefully. It was neither sexist nor insensitive. And it had nothing to do with the fairness of compensation. Why is it insensitve or sexist to suggest that most women's decisions to be employed outside the home, in married relationships, is a choice to have an improved standard of living rather than a necessity born out of the want of food, shelter and clothing? My point – and my only point on this issue – was that wives in the workplace is generally not a matter of economic necessity, but lifestyle desires.
I am most senstive to the real and perceived hardships imposed by family incomes which provide for little more than food, shelter, and clothing. That's how I grew up. That's how humanity has lived throughout all but a tiny fraction of history. To the extent that people chafe and grumble at the very predictable lifestyle limitations imposed by their choices of relatively low paying careers, they are merely victims of their own choices. Society is not blame, any more than thermometers which register subzero temperatures, are to blame for bitter cold. Unsatisfied wants should not be an occasion to suspend the laws of economics, any more than cold weather should be an occasion to mandate that no thermometers be allowed to register temperatures below 0 degrees centigrade.
Nate, I doubt that when you were growing up you were responsible for the laundry over a washboard and all the many things that women had to do then. It's always when one is getting older that he looks back fondly at his childhood years. But I have never seen a woman, living during those times who would like to return to such a life. I remember the first washing machine my mother had; I washed all the baby diapers in a wringer machine and hung them out on a line in zero weather to freeze! Would I like to return? You can bet all the money in the Federal Treasury–not on your life!
There is no reason for a family today to forego the available conveniences. Women who have received an excellent education may take off a few years when the children are small but children grow and develop even better, many times, by being responsible for housekeeping chores and not depending on "Mom" to do them all. I had to go to work when my first child was 6 mos. old and she also worked all her life, taking off a few months for her daughter who later learned to be independent and responsible by doing many household chores.
There is no religion in deprivation. Asceticsm is not healthy or holy, although it has been practiced since before Christianity as the ideal for reaching perfection. Adventism has not been immune from this ideology; yet it relies on those who have more to support the church.
There is nothing about feminism (a very overused word) in appointing Roberts, but a recognition of her leadership capabilities. Homemaking and mothering is not a lifetime job; it has never been a concern for those who are fathers that a job may be encroaching upon fatherly duties.
Your incessant gripe about feminism and "wives in the workplace" should be only for economic necessity is rather 19th century. There are many professional wives today: psychologists, physicians, nurses, even engineers and policewomen. Work is honorable and "staying home" while the kids are in school is not a happy thought but it seems you would prefer to keep them there. Women will never go back to being ONLY housewives again.
When, Elaine, have you ever heard me gripe about wives in the workplace? What scrambled thinking led you to conclude that I believe women should only be in the work force out of economic necessity? I said nothing remotely close to that.
"Feminism" is not the equivalent of "wives in the workplace." I do not look back fondly on the deprivations of my childhood years. It was quite painful and unpleasant to see other kids enjoying luxuries that were not available to me. But I had food, shelter, clothing, and most of all love! Again, you, like Mark, completely missed the point of my comment to Ed, and are creating straw men by the bale to vindicate your ideology.
I have two college educated daughters – one of whom is a licensed Attorney – who love being stay-at-home moms. They are not – to use the derogatory phraseology of feminism – ONLY housewives. They are moms and wives, deeply and creatively involved in making their kids' lives in and out of school all that they can be. They don't simply "stay at home." They have busy, fulfilled lives of service and love. Because their husbands are physicians, they can have both their needs and wants met without gainful employment outside the home.
Your ideological blinders prevent you from seeing the possibility of a life to which many girls and women will always aspire. Of course work is honorable. We also have a daughter who works far more than full time as a neonatologist. She would never want to completely give that up to raise her wonderful little boy. She loves medicine and she loves research. And my wife ("Amo") is the beneficiary of the need for a loving, doting, trustworthy grandparent to provide child care. We 100% support our daughter's career choice, and are eager for her second baby (our eighth grandchild) to be born in five months. Unfortunately, too many women who go to medical school find spouses among their classmates and choose, after getting their medical training, to drop out of the workforce, depriving society of badly needed medical professionals. The notion that I am philosophically or culturally stuck in some kind of mid-Twentieth Century time warp is a straw man fallacy you have created in order to vindicate your extremist views.
I do agree with you on one thing: "There is nothing about feminism in appointing Roberts."
Hmm. Those who disagree with Nate have "extremist views." Interesting.
Nathan,
I have no daughters but I have three wonderful daughers-in-law who have chosen different paths. One graduated magna cum laude in Biology. She chose not to follow her room-mates (now physicians) to medical school because she wanted to marry and raise a family. Another graduated magna cum laude in Spanish and is now doing her residency in Dermatology. One reason she chose Dermatology is that it offers her the chance of a "reasonable" home life without having to "drop-out" of clinical or academic medicine. Another is pursuing her chosen profession outside the home after completing her graduate education. Meanwhile her MBA husband works from home and cares for their son who is his "best buddy".
Our extended family can thank God for the dedication of four sets of Christian parents who placed a high priority on educating our sons and daughters so they could have more choices in life than did our grand-parents. And we can thank God for an SDA school system that (despite claims to the contrary) prepared them well for their chosen professions. Not to mention living in North America where there are an abundance of choices for women.
Unfortunately none of the above anecdotal evidence answers some very important questions regarding life choices for women. What would you say to the millions of men (and their wives) whose jobs have been "down-sized" or "out-sourced" in the economic upheaval of the past few years? In the current climate of relative paucity of traditional "male" jobs and ongoing availability of traditional "female" jobs, do you maintain that families with stay-at-home men whose wives are the "bread winners" are making a lifestyle choice that has nothing to do with basic survival needs? Should these women choose to throw their families on the mercies of the social "safety net" that many conservatives dislike so intensely? Should the various governmental and government-regulated insitutional employers of many of these women (eg schools and hospitals) significantly down-size so the taxpayers and rate-payers will have more freedom of choice?
In my experience most parents will do everything in their power to improve the lot (as they understand it) of their children. Not every family (or even the majority) has the luxury of the life choices that you and I have managed to pass along to our offspring. In our own case my wife was able to stay home and home-school our children in large part because by the grace of God my own income was at least twice that of the "average" US adult, but clearly that cannot be true for most people.
Fyi – Yours Truly, my wife and one of my daughters-in-law could match you story-for-story regarding growing up "poor" and of the sacrifices our parents made so we could gain an education. I prefer not to go there. I also prefer not to repeat the Great Depression which is where many economists believe we would now be had not our much-reviled Big Government and Federal Reserve intervened aggressively in "morally hazardous" fashion. (This is quite a mouthful and very hard to swallow for one who has voted for the Libertarian.)
Jim, I am making a generalization, as did Ed, regarding the reason women have increasingly entered the workforce over the past century. I disagreed with his opinion that this phenomenon has been driven by economic necessity. I think lifestyle desires have been the real driving force. Mark Bauer and Elaine completely missed or ignored my point, causing me to go off on another tangent to expose their flawed arguments. And now you want to go still further afield. Thanks, but no thanks.
I'm not sure why, in your responses to my comments recently, you seem to try and pull me from areas on which we agree – usually the topic – to tangents where we probably disagree, like politics. I must decline the temptation to get sucked from tangent to tangent on this thread. This news piece is not about feminism, government assistance, monetary, or economic policy. It is about Sandy Roberts breaking the gender barrier in SDA political office. Let's celebrate that. I am sorry for my role in taking this off topic.
I learned in eighth grade that Advent black leader Sojourner Truth was one of the founders of movements both for women's and racial rights in the United States, as early as the 1850s. The movement toward equalization of rights between genders was active in the church at least four generations before Gloria Steinem was born. The kind of radical, pugnacious, bras-in-your-face methods and manner of the neo-feminists of the 1960s has few if any natural bonding points with mainstream Adventism—then or now.
Bottom line, Adventism was a mover and shaker in legitimate drives for equality from its incipience as a strong element of the abolition movement. Let us not give up the high ground on this issue and defame ourselves by crediting secular, radical elements with our efforts and accomplishments. Yes, our performance in this endeavor has been spotty at times, but Adventists did and should continue to rightly claim authorship rather than followership in the drive for equal opportunity, equal pay, and equal recognition of abilities and achievements in Christ, by the Spirit.
Excellent points, Ed.
Why fear to follow Gamaliel's advice: If it be from God it will prosper; if not, we will know soon enough. God can, and has worked even when Jonah disobeyed.
It's usually quite difficult to reason with liberals and generally useless to try. The matter of ordaining women has *not* been an item at the forefront of Adventism for more than a century just because someone introduced the issue a century ago. To maintain that seems quite disingenuous.
I've been around long enough to know that most committed SDAS had no problem with the Biblical example of male headship in spiritual leadership matters until the feminist movement reared its ugly head.
It was the introduction of the feminist movement that brought the issue to the fore; there is no question about that. Then there also was the matter of money. See: http://tinyurl.com/k7mrdoj
Maranatha
Seeker,
Might I suggest that you do a poll of "committed Adventists" selected according to some neutral criteria, to avoid selection bias? Then you could present your results. I suspect the reults would correlate very strongly with the person's cultural heritage, age and level of education, which in itself would tell you something important about this issue.
And even if you are correct about how most "committed Adventists" would respond, that does not mean that you know the will of God, or that the majority speak for God.
For my part I find trying to reason with conservatives or liberals about equally difficult. Both sides keep asserting their beliefs and are very reluctant to respond to contradictory information.
PS – Do you intend to study the paper produced by the GC Office of Archives and Statistics to which I referred you? Are you still seeking for information that might modify your opinions or only that which would confirm them? (This is an honest question as I do not know you.)
Have you done any poll yourself? I will tell you of the poll in my multicultural church. It is 87% for no women ordinaton. The number of women equaled the number of men. So I kindly ask you to state which criteria you used to decide that you were right and everybody here against the ordination is wrong.
"Have you done any poll yourself?"
I am not the one making the claims about how the majority view this question. It is for those making this claim to offer supporting evidence.
"I kindly ask you to state which criteria you used to decide that you were right and everybody here against the ordination is wrong."
I would kindly suggest that you read everything I have written on this thread. Then if you have specific questions or comments about what I have written I would be happy to discuss them with you. I do not see where I have asserted that I am "right" regarding this subject, but I have stated my views and attempted to explain them clearly. I have offered supporting evidence from the history of the early Christian church as related in the book of Acts. I have offered supporting evidence from the early SDA church as researched by the GC Office of Archives and Statistics. I have offered my analysis of how I see God working in the SDA church today, as reported in the Adventist Review. And most importantly I have urged everyone regardless of their own personal views to pray for those who are taking the most heat in the current dispute.
I might add that I personally have followed this topic closely for 40 years. As it happens I knew the Benton family and also two of the male pastors at Sligo church in the early 1970s. So I had a personal interest in what was happening to and around them.
http://www.columbiaunion.org/article/1173/news/2012-news-archives/november-19-2012-josephine-benton#.UnDx3lMnWmA
Long before Josephine Benton, there was Dr. Leona (Glidden) Running who blazed a difficult path for women teaching at the SDA Theological Seminary. You might also want to read about her experience. And of course long before her there was Ellen (Harmon) White who also encountered a lot of opposition because of her gender. This issue is as old as the history of the SDA church.
For me personally the most decisive moment came when I first read in the Adventist Review years ago about how God was blessing the church in China and the amazing stories of some of the women leaders. Immediately Acts 11:17 popped into my mind and it has never left me since. The Jerusalem church was stunned by this event – it went against everything the OT taught about assimilating Gentiles into God's chosen people. I think that SDA men have been "in the way" too long. It is time for us to get "out of the way" so God can pour out His Spirit upon all flesh (Joel 2:28-29).
In the end it is not about whether I am "right" or you are "wrong". It is about what is Christ's will for His body on earth. Until we are willing to put away our own pre-conceived opinions we cannot know the will of God. If you and I are unwilling to admit to ourselves and to each other and most importantly to the Lord, that we do not have all the answers, we leave no room for the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Perhaps you have completed that journey but I have not.
But is anyone forcing your multicultural church to agree with women ordination and forcing you guys to accept them?
Well, in my multicultural church it's the opposite. No stats here, just the congregation's votes – which elected a female Senior pastor despite the pressures from the GC against women ordination. And she has already been ordained as well.
So who has it right? You want your freedom, we want ours. We don't want to dictate what should happen in your church, and we don't want you to dictate what should happen in our church. Fair?
The 13% that are at odds in your church will always be welcome in our church at La Sierra University. They can count on us for good!
"Truth Seeker" I don't want to draw the ire of the site by mocking such an ironic title description. "Truth Seeker…"
Evil feminists are responsible for this evil women's movement of ordination… Have I paraphrased that correctly. Ok, I added the "evil" part but it is truly evil to suggest it is wrong for a person to serve God.
Then it gets worse, if one interferes and denies a person because they were not born- male. That to serve God in whatever capacity He has called a person- that person must be born a certain way- is a satanic lie. I wasn't born worthy but Christ made me worthy by grace as He did for everybody. I am afraid to imagine how the church shamessly treats those who were "born eunuchs". Former Adventists could not conceive women as physicians, leaders of state, leaders of industry, and as being equally yoked to men.
Women can be human beings, equals, and women all at the same time. If you're comfortable referring "them" by traditional roles, then they are your stereotypical multitaskers. FYI- women don't have to be yours or belong to anybody, in order to belong to God.
Adventists are NOT blood descendants of Levi, born of Abraham, born of David- Adventists are all equally tied and born out of the death of Christ. Let all who He come before Him w/o interference. All of US, male and female, are spiritual heirs from Noah to Solomon b/c of Christ. All can serve according to our faith.
And yes, women have earned MDs instead of permission to be midwives under threat of witchcraft prosecution. The only witch/wizards are people who think we serve according to how we were born and not the fact Christ died so we could all equally serve!
We don't have to be male to seek the truth, "Truth Seeker"
It's usually quite difficult to reason with (a) conservatives and fundamentalists or (b) liberals, and generally useless to try." Which is it (a) or (b)? Neither? Both? It depends?
It is both extremes, because at both extremes adherents are totally convinced they are right. Therefore any reasonable person woudl agree with them. Therefore anyone who disagrees with them is simply being unreasonable and not worth trying to reason with.
Thus the "truth" is always in the middle . . . somewhere? And those "in the middle" are always reasonable individuals? You will be happy to know that the Adventist Theological Society sees itself as a moderate, middle-of-the-road Adventist organization (It's in their constitution), possibily in the same sense that the KKK saw itself as "moderate" on the race question in America.
"in media veritas est"? Often but not always.
My comment was not about where truth lies, but the relative ease or difficulty of reasoning. Sometimes unreasonable people are actually right.
Hey this is not politics. It is a servant of God answering God's call. And nobody, especially a male born of female, is worthy to deny a person from serving because they had to be born a certain way. Christ died and made anyone worthy of His grace and His law convicted everybody of sin to not interfere w/ the Spirit.
The most difficult ones to reason with are the "gods" that we often meet in blogs… They appear to think that God went out on vacatons and left them in charge of all His Universal business….
"God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work.” 9T 260, 261
“Brother A, your experience in reference to leadership two years ago was for your own benefit and was highly essential to you. You had very marked, decided views in regard to individual independence and right to private judgment. These views you carry to extremes. You reason that you must have light and evidence for yourself in reference to your duty.
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. Your error was in persistently maintaining your private judgment of your duty against the voice of the highest authority the Lord has upon the earth. After you had taken your own time, and after the work had been much hindered by your delay, you came to Battle Creek in answer to the repeated and urgent calls of the General Conference. You firmly maintained that you had done right in following your own convictions of duty. You considered it a virtue in you to persistently maintain your position of independence. You did not seem to have a true sense of the power that God has given to His church in the voice of the General Conference. You thought that in responding to the call made to you by the General Conference you were submitting to the judgment and mind of one man. You accordingly manifested an independence, a set, willful spirit, which was all wrong.” 3T 492
I believe that while we acknowledge the cultural challenges that exist within our worldwide movement we should acknowledge that God as the Head transcends all cultures and has established guidelines for administrative practices within His Church. The Bible is replete with such examples.
It is obvious that what constitute right and wrong, God’s will versus what is not, cannot be left up to our independent judgment, the action or inaction of the General Conference, Conference Presidents, Pastors or lay members. Anarchy would exist within the body of Christ should this be the case.
It is not safe to adopt the “wait and see” approach to determine whether this was not God’s will. I will hasten to add that I don’t want (neither am I praying) for Sister Roberts to fail to embrace the position that her selection was wrong. Rather, I am praying that she will allow God to use her as He pleases.
May this event at least lead us to do some introspection, reflection and implementation while contemplating the salvation of our souls and others!
I can hardly help but to reflect on the following verse:
“And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, where art thou?” Genesis 3:9 (KJV)
A female SDA member shared the following verse with me. Thought-provoking though it may sound, please allow me to share it with you:
“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” Isaiah 3: 12 (KJV)
By this line of reasoning we will have reached the deplorable condition of Israel in the days of Isaiah, when we elect the first child to be GC President 8-). Beware the pitafall of determining your doctrine based primarily upon poetry or prophetic imagery. You must carefully consider the context of these passages. Remember that both Joash and Josiah were boy kings. As recorded in the Bible they each did both good and bad things, but their records as children who were dependent on God were better than their records as adults when they trusted their own wisdom.
If you read the OT prophets carefully, you will find that the people were subjected to earthly rulers (good and bad) because they rejected God as their King. It is my fervent hope that the SDA church will follow Chritst as the head of the body. No earthly person can legitimately claim this title. If we as members are moving farther apart it is because some if not all of us are moving away from Christ. If we are unwilling to change our individual courses, how can we expect Christ to draw us unto Himself?
Great comment Jim,
Christ is the head of the Church not Ted Wilson or any other Adventist saint. And Christ unifies His Church just as He unifies all of humanity. A woman has been called so praise the Lord b/c by His power she can do His will. Wilson does not unify Christianity and to turn away an appointment b/c she was made female by God is absurdly vain. God works spiritually and is not confined to gender, race, politics, and whatever divisions we find. She is a human being and a sinner and has accepted God's grace to follow Him and humbly serve His children.
It is absurdly vain to think I have been born "this way" and I am worthy to serve. There are no Levite tribe of our pastors, no Davidic lineage for our presidents, and no Israelite homeland for our church or temple. Christ died for us, He died for Phillistine and Sadduccee just the same.
No one was born worthy and righteous to serve it is by His grace that He died for us and we are called . If The Lord calls His daughter to ministry, who is worthy enough to deny her. Not even an entire church body can challenge who the Lord called. Nobody can interfere w/ the will of God. And nobody can justify that males are more worthy than females to serve in ministry.
It is absurdly vain to think I have been born "this way" and I am worthy to serve. There are no Levite tribe of our pastors, no Davidic lineage for our presidents, and no Israelite homeland for our church or temple. Christ died for us, He died for Phillistine and Sadduccee just the same.
No one was born worthy and righteous to serve it is by His grace that He died for us and we are called . If The Lord calls His daughter to ministry, who is worthy enough to deny her. Not even an entire church body can challenge who the Lord called. Nobody can interfere w/ the will of God. And nobody can justify that males are more worthy than females to serve in ministry.
Sad that the people advocating for the election of Ms. Roberts are not concerned by the disunity this is going to cause. I see the spirit of defiance and rudeness. How does she feel she won this seat when no other name was presented to the delegates? The view of the majority was neglected just to make a point. Probably to just tell the world church we can do it because we can and we do not care about what you have to say about it. I am sick to my stomach and consering leaving the conference. Can I be an absentee member of another conference. I could pay my tithe and support my local church.
While I was not at that meeting, I have participated in many other constituency meetings. I have also had a major hand in drafting and revising conference by-laws as they relate to the nominating process. Whether or not you agree with it, it has been the practice in the SDA church for at least a century, that a nominating committee is appointed by the delegates to deliberate privately and bring a slate of candidates back to the delegates. This has been considered less harmful to the reputations and relationships of persons who will be working together regardless of which one "wins" a particular office.
One disadvantage of the nominating committee process as originally practiced, was that in a one-day conference session, the nominating committee was under enormous pressure to go along with the recommendations of its chair (usually the President or Secretary of the next higher level organization). About 30 years ago the constituencies of many conferences instituted reforms in this practice to give the nominating committees more time for deliberation and consideration of various alternatives. To facilitate this it is necessary for the delegates to be able to choose a nominating committee well in advance of the day of the session. In my conference I was the lay person mutually selected by both the officers and the lay delegates to draft these changes into the by-laws.
Given that the SECC follows this plan, I believe that there was ample opportunity for consideration of the pros and cons of Sandra Roberts vs other potential candidates in the nominating committee. From two reports I have read regarding the session itself, it appears that the pros and cons of electing a woman as President were also debated on the floor of the session. The resulting vote tally would appear to strongly (though not unanimously) affirm the recommendation of the nominating committee.
There was "disunity" when the church began; but they did not demand uniformity, allowing the Jews to practice their former rituals and not forcing the Gentiles to undergo them–an absolutely necessity for Jews.
Has anyone shown good reason not to have ordained women where the culture is more than ready, and not forcing the rest of the world which is not ready, to begin ordaining women? WO is not a doctrine, but only the way a church functions and currently, all SDA churches around the world do not function in exactly the same manner.
Most of the areas that are firmly against WO are the ones that are practicing as they have for thousands of years where the women are second-class citizens unable to vote, hold property, go anywhere unaccompanied by a male relative, etc. It is understandable that having a female pastor would not now be acceptable to them and they will not be forced to do so as each union selects it pastors and they have the autonomy to choose as they wish. But please, give those unions who are ready and waiting for women pastors, the freedom to make their own decisions just as you make yours. It is a rude form of selfishness to want to force others to live by your rules, and there have never been any "rules" set down by the SDA church against women pastors or leaders.
Elaine,
The issue is not disunity. IT IS ABOUT DIGNITY. Jews in the Early Church continued their former practices freely but, their issue was could a person be a Christian w/o circumcision and other Jewish rites? Yes, even without Jewish rites of Abraham- Christ died for the world and we are free to be Christians along our Jewish brethren.
Today it is dignity! It is ludicrous to suggest there are femi-Nazis coming to throw men off the pulpit and take over where Ellen Gould left off. Women are NOT imposing anything. Women want to exist as equals amongst male brethren and servants of God. Instead, it is the patriarchal cabal of Adventists and purported "Christians" forcing others to follow their control. People want freedom for everyone not selfish control and arrogance to deny. These men are the Jews that attempted turn away Christians who were NOT circumcised.
Women can't be circumcised unless we are like barbarians of partriachal sects in Sudan, maiming baby girls. Women like true Christians are circumcised by heart and free to serve God. Men should not interfere and IMPOSE upon people that want freedom.
Freedom to worship is not imposing on sexists in the church. They can remain in the gender divided churches. But this is about TOLERANCE! Men and self-degrading women WILL NOT TOLERATE a woman that wants to serve and honor God in the ministry. This is not a liberal vs. conservative battle. But a spiritual battle in the church for who is worthy to deny a person's call to serve God.
Who is worthy? The legally circumcised or those born males or the circumcised by heart?
mayaka20 stated "that the people advocating for the election of Ms. Roberts are not concerned by the disunity this is going to cause." The old saying that "It takes two to tango" could be adapted to say that "It takes two to have disunity."
Those opposing the election of Ms. Roberts are not puppets on the ends of strings held by those who support her election. They have decisions to make too. Will they react in a disharmonius manner because their preferences were not honored? Or will they say that maybe the Holy Spirit was leading the majority of the constituents and therefore accept the result in a spirit of unity? We all have options as to how we will react, no matter which side of the argument we advocate. Unity/disunity result from choices people make when they do not otherwise agree.
May God bless and guide her. Praise God and may He forgives us for interfering His truth for men and women sharing ministry together and equally yoked. We are so limited and utterly confused, we must stay close to His light.
Hey I've been realizing…
Women can be human beings, equals, and women all at the same time. If you're only comfortable referring "them" by traditional roles, then "they" are your stereotypical multitaskers. Hooray women still need an excuse so men can let them serve God just like their the good 'ol days of 19th century America!
FYI- women don't have to be yours or belong to anybody, in order to belong to God. God has appointed them to serve and women are not made to subjects that give birth to blood but, servants under the Spirit w/o any concern of trivial gender.
Adventists are NOT blood descendants of Levi, born of Abraham, born of David- Adventists are all equally tied and born out of the death of Christ. Let all who He come before Him w/o interference. All of US, male and female, are spiritual heirs from Noah to Solomon b/c of Christ. All can serve according to our faith.
I can't imagine how we've treated those who were "born eunuchs" (neither fully man or woman). Is it blessing or our curse that we waited so long making service to God open for all people has He intended by making a promise of eternity for all.
And yes, women have earned MDs instead of permission to be midwives under threat of witchcraft prosecution. The only witch/wizards are people who think- we serve according to how we were born and not the fact Christ died so we could all equally serve!
So sad there are those so steeped in traditional chauvinistic thinking, saying in advance, there will be disunity, caused by a "WOMAN", any woman, appointed leadership role in God's church, that has been voted into office, by a contituancy majority of 70%, after praying for the Holy Spirit to give guidancy.Who are you to question the Holy Spirit's guidance in this selection? Why, by your negative outlook, would you desire to cast doubt about a person called of God to leadership in His Church, His Holy temple, manKIND?? Would you not feel in a dangerous position, questioning a decision made by the Creator of all?? Do you venture to know GOD'S MIND?? By these negative comments, you are prejudging that which God has ordained, perhaps "HOPING" there will be disunity. Holy writ: Matt 18:20 "Where two or three are gathered together in MY NAME, there AM I, in the midst of them". GAL3: 28 "there are neither male nor female:for ye are all in one in CHRIST JESUS"; verse 29: "And if ve be CHRIST'S, are heirs according to the promise. The saints are all children of God by adoption, neither male nor female in the eyes of God. All believers rescued by their Creator, not because they have earned it, but by His grace and perfect love.
Congratulations to Elder Sandra Roberts. May her tribe increase.
It is shocking the church could accept a woman that wants to divorce, has children out of wedlock, and forgives the adulteress as Christ did.
And yes, DIVORCES and SINGLE MOTHERS around the world cause more problems and disunity than even those Jezebel priestesses corrupting our sweet and male seminaries- some churches would condemn such people. But people have that right! People, which women are, have dignity! This is a disgrace to … dignity not disunity.
But condemn the woman who wants to connect w/ God through ministry? They would stop the beautiful loving act of serving God because a person was born "woman". This IS NOT ABOUT DISUNITY. It is about DIGNITY, Adventists rather see women as victims than partners. To Adventists- Women are mostly victims to their weak emotions, lustful men, illogical behavior, mood swings, and submission to the pride of husbands. The devil fooled them so this a just consequence, right?
I can make these terribly irresponsible catergorical statements towards Adventists, because they have done so by catergorical generalizing all women has unfit ministering God's message and treating them unequally. And, Christians there is only husband- Jesus Christ w/ His bride, the Church. All of us can only be brides, so women have an advantage of humility to teach about brides in our patriarchal institutions. A patriarchal church married to Jesus sound absurd unless Eve's nickname was Steve. A church should have everybody follow example of matriarchs- women would kind enough let men minister, as gentlemen we should do the same.
We rather see women as victims and/or background noise when they are fully capable of leadership and responsibility outside breast-feeding. Ellen Gould probably would be stunned to know women graduate from that school of Loma Linda elites. Women don't have to be second-class, we don't need the blood lineage of Levi and circumcised to be Christians. Women lead just as well as men and they deserve the dignity of not having to hide being a male facade. It is dignity because Christ loves us all, equally! Not disunity, women are not seeking revenge only dignity. And women DON'T need the permission of the church to say they can't serve as its leaders- they only need God's permission and His son said He died for them too!
Women serve just as well as men and they are just as Christian.
We were told that the GC would not seat Sandra Roberts at any of its meetings. Well the NAD has found a way around that. They have just elected her to be a member of the NAD Executive Committee with all its rights and privileges
Fantastic!
If it keeps going in that direction, soon it will be Ted Wilson that won't have a chair around to sit on, since he may end up "unseated"….
I just wonder, Will he even pray at those meetings since there will be an ordained woman present?
Will he stay in the room if she is invited to pray? Or will she need to wait while the gets his stuff and leaves before she asks for God's blessings?
It's embarassing to watch how low some people in church have gone in order to perpetuate discrimination of women in the Remnant Church!
Well that's just fabulous, David! Thank you for the news. This is definitely gratifying. I was beginning to be concerned that too much "spiking the ball" and "end zone celebrations" might deepen divisions and harden hearts. Who knows how the world church will react. But this move, coming so quickly on the heels of the SECCSDA decision, puts North America firmly and unequivocally on the right side.
Here is a pompous suggestion from a sanctimonious Internet sage to the worldwide church corcerning the ordination of Sandra Roberts… try not reacting at all.
Why are Adventist Christians reacting to Roberts' presence like a woman w/o a burka in the village mosque? We don't have imams or popes, there are even female rabbis. If I was vaguely thinking about voting versus our controlling establishment, now at wits' end I would happily seek to throw out these patriarchs like moneylenders pretending to care for people and the Temple. Women should be on Executive Committee for the church they help build as much as men.
I guess I'm too liberal to see what is so right about overreacting to women being people and equals. Harmless advice: don't react at all b/c they are serving God, not demanding people to do the same. Not uniformity but the conservstive/Americana love of choice is there so people can decide to function in whatever capacity they choose. Wilson and his cabal want absolute authority w/o biblical basis. While these women and leftists say it is harmless to freely behave despite not having explicit biblical instruction.
We are free to be free and not free to control and deprive others no matter how undeserving we lampoon them to be. Left or right, let women be equal b/c they alwags should have been and we never should have had that choice to begin with.
I have little idea of what you just said, Lynn. But let's be careful about worshipping at the secular shrine of equality or using the term too broadly as a justification for generalized disregard of very real gender differences. Those of us who support the election of Pastor Roberts often have different nuanced reasons for doing so.
I have little interest in carrying the ideological banner of equality along the parade route. I believe that there are profound differences between men and women which thankfully make us very unequal in many important ways (My wife and I love the fact that we are unequal). But none of those differences justifies denying women access to any political office within the corporate church on the grounds of gender. Nor does anything in scripture offer a principled reason for denying such access.
Nathan,
You're equally yoked to your wife. And I concluded my point- that men never were supposed to have the choice to make women, equals. Men did not create Sandra Roberts and sinners cannot deny her being moved by the Spirit.
To be clear, I didn't mean a Guys vs. Chicks competition of cooking and arm wrestling. Or knitting and log rolling, or whatever makes us unequally gifted.
Men and women are equals before God. In terms of spirituality, your lovely wife and your love for her as the sinner/human being makes her no different. She is equal to all human beings because she should love sinners as much as loves herself. And love God w/ all her heart.
She is a woman and human being at the same time. And w/ the death of Christ she can serve in same capacity as holy order of all male Levites did once. Is it even possible that men can be heirs of Abraham and Levi b/c of Christ but not women. No, it is not.
And love of that wife of yours will not last forever and eternity- we are spiritually destined to become wives to Christ. So expect a giant polyamorous setting w/ all of us being wives to one husband. Even the great and manly Ted Wilson is bride awaiting his groom. Women can still be people… Women equally serve along men in terms of spirituality. And women cannot be denied spiritual positions in a spiritual church b/c they are women. God does not see gender only sinners that He sent His son to die for. Someday your love of a stranger in Heaven will be as your wife's b/c that the husband (Christ) of the servant in Heaven is your husband too.
What a coincidence – I happened to attend a liberal Jewish wedding officiated by a woman Rabbi.
Of course the canticles were canted in Hebrew. The program printed them in Hebrew with the parallel translations into English kindly provided by the officiating Rabbi. Not being expert in Hebrew I nonetheless noted that while there were references to the Divine sprinkled througout the Hebrew text, there was virtually no reference to the Divine in the (apparently very dynamic) English translation. Remarking on this observation to a mathematics professor who was there (and was fluent in Hebrew and English as well as Mathematics), he mumbled something about the difficulty of translating the Tetragrammaton. We dropped the subject, but I was left wondering what else may have been added or elided in this dynamic translation?
Orthodox Jews on the other hand generally eschew women Rabbis and generally do not translate their Hebrew unto English. If you want to understand them you will have to study Hebrew.
I would be hesistant to extend the analogy of the woman Rabbi to Sandra Roberts. I suspect she is theologically more orthodox than many of the writers on the Atoday web site.
My comparison to Imams and Orthodox Jews schism w/ liberal minded Jews is only intended to show why Christ had to die for us, a death that equally shared by all mortal beings/sinners.
Christ died so we could have the promise of Issac/Ishmael w/o the blood. We have something more powerful- the Spirit. In Galatians 4:21-31, both law-abiding faiths of Islam and Judaism are not in the same light as Christianity where people are born of spiritual promise.
Jews do not embrace Christ's death as a saving grace for humanity and cannot be legally righteous especially w/o a lawful Temple in Jerusalem. And some liberal sect in Judaism can justify females having a equal call to God. So how have Christianity forgotten Christ died for all? If they, like Orthodox Jews condemned by the law and rejecting the Spirit, cannot reconcile the Spirit makes equals out everybody- are they even Christians?
No one who believes Christ saved them from law is ever Orthodox. Not even Orthodox Jews w/ their strict Sabbath can be orthodox without a Temple. Christ did not end the law, but he ended real orthodoxy and introduced Biblical spiritualism.
Liberal Jews and liberal Adventists have a lot in common. They cling to their community bonds while ignoring the inconvenient or embarassing particulars of their cultural and spiritual heritage. But they can bring out their culture when needed for festive occations like weddings. Did I forget to mention the canticle that gives thanks (to God in the Hebrew version) for the grapes and the wine? Might not some liberal Adventists consider that canticle for inclusion in their psaltery?
I am quite certain that few if any of the Jews who were in that synagogue on Sunday for the wedding had been there the previous day for payers. When I remarked to one of the family friends whom I had met the previous evening that I had gone to my church for prayers on Saturday and wondered whether they had gone to their synagogue, he replied by saying that we each meditate in our time and way.
Did I forget to mention the canticle that gives thanks (to God in the Hebrew version) for the grapes and the wine? Might not some liberal Adventists consider that canticle for inclusion in their psaltery?
Did I forget to mention that both the bride and the groom (raised in Jewish and Christain cultures) profess to be Agnostics? They have a lot in common.
It is easy to be an Agnostic and cultural Jew b/c Judaism becomes an ethical tradition w/o a living and personal spiritual relationship.Traditions make God, a distant legal arbiter and not a compassionate loving God that had sent a messiah to die so the world could live and spiritually claim everlasting lives .
Jews are truly an elusive group to define and incredibly diverse even during the time of Christ. Because they are not a monolithic group. It is easy to see why they are culturally and behaviorally similar to Adventists. In truth they are a diverse group, so we are bound to find someone we like— we are not similar ourselves to her Christian denominations. But the death of Christ literally shaped western civilization, so all of use are in this together.
I hope to attend a Jewish wedding of a friend someday., crashing one would not attach me to the experience.
If, in fact, China has been ordaining women for several years now, and this has not been considered disunity of the world church by the GC, why would the same action being performed by the NAD now be considered disunity? Divisions should have long been given the autonomy in the ordaining of women to the gospel ministry.
Gloria,
See my comments elsewhere regarding Plausible Deniability. It is convenient for both the GC and the local leadership in China (many of them women) that there is no strong organizational connection.
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.
How many Adventists in the rest of the world do you think really care about what happened in SECCSDA? Furthermore, the only way most of them find out is if their leadership makes an issue of it. Given the pathetic level of political awareness that people have, I strongly suspect that, to the extent that disunity is threatened, it is created by Adventist leadership, not by the laity who trust and follow their leaders.
Leadership can make disunity a self-fulfilling prophecy by beating the drums back home. Or they can ignore what has happened, recognize that it poses no threat to them, and get on with the work of the gospel. They are not the hapless victims of the potential wrath of the folks back home. Unity is a straw man to conceal the reality that most world leaders in the Adventist church apparently think they have a divine mandate to impose their view of the role of women in ministry throughout the Adventist world. That is not a good sign.
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.
Great post, Jim
The early church w/ Arians, Donatists, Manichean struggles had fateful decisions for the future of Christianity. And by not having biblical basis to impose their controls, the early church stifled other groups w/in for merely acting outside their conventions. Creating our mortal habit of forcing acceptance of what the Bible has no intention to administer over. Our mortal flesh and inevitable misconceptions are not meant to interfere w/ spiritual matters. Rendering us incapable and unworthy to judge deny people this shared connection.
Issue like does your baptism count if your priest was a bad guy, totally miss out on what is really powerful about biblical spirituality.
We are spiritual sons and daughters of Abraham via Christ. And not bonded by blood, so to impose denials upon people born "woman" is such overreach of power it mocks our use spirituality to make traditions, real and personal. Spiritual traditions from the Bible, codify equality and humility as being ideal.
How to establish and maintain doctrinal coherence without imposing absolute conformity of practice?
Chruch history shows us how NOT to achieve these goals which are inherently in tension. The Christian church went upside-down and inside-out – incoherent doctrines and uniformity of practice.
But it is neglectful to not see Catholicism as being remarkably successful. They broke off w/ Orthodoxy and spawned the foundations of Western Civilization after Rome's implosion. Reformations were always inevitable and in truth, that church in Ol' Rome is stronger and more solidified through ranks from top to bottom.
Absolute conformity is meaningless without absolution and absolutism. The Early Church abandon doctrinal and biblical basis for spiritually serving under the Godhead. Authorities are supposed to examples of humility, servitude, and equality- but authority is reserved for selfish interests, and vanity, and wrathful people. Catholicism evolved w/ a quartet of deities rather than the universal Trinity as One. (The Son, Father, and Holy Spirit) are enjoined along other deities and most likely the Trinity is under it- the Papacy.
The Pacific Union and the Southeastern California Conference have been legally organized under applicable law. As such, they are bound to operate under their Constitution and Bylaws. If a General Conference, meeting in session, votes that a local Conference and Union should do something that violates their Constitution and Bylaws, those documents must be changed. Until they are changed the vote of the General Conference does not rule.
Too many members have been blinded by the authoritarian stance of G.C. leadership. And too few are aware that the unions are operating legally, just as the consitution has been structured, giving them full power to elect their own leaders. The G.C. is doing its best to intimidate the unions as well as members and they should be called to explain why they have chosen to ignore their own written constitution. Should the be an SDA Supreme Court to adjudicate in such sticky situations?
Elaine,
I bet the next move will be to eliminate all Unions, with the convincing argument that they are too expensive to run and have no actual pragmatic value. Bingo???
What is taking place is of no surprise for those who have been reading the signs for a while. Everybody knows what is next: endorsement of the trend by the world church; ordination of gays and lesbians and their subsequent election in leadership positions… Some will strongly protest here that I claim to know the future, but let's be honest that many said predictions of the same nature about what is happening today and it happened! Those who will be discerning will recognize that this is not a simple matter of leadership and discrimination. The real issue is how WE, as a Church read the Bible. Did I say WE? One of the biggest facts that is visible is that there is no more A CHURCH we can cohortatively refer to as WE! Listen to the debate! It turns to be about the authority of a local conference vs the GC. Very soon, Africans will use the same defiance and go for Polygamy (because the New Hermeneutic will allow it!) and nobody outside Africa will have the right to interfere; simply because there is no more worldwide unity! This prediction will be a minimal damage because, sooner or later, the new liberal reading of the Bible that simply follows the wind of world will lead the historic Adventist theological system to fall apart. When people of the GC talk about unity, this is probably the threat they have in mind. And of course nobody cares! We all applaud the liberation from the worldwide church bindings, because it will help each part of the church to implement its own agendas!
Funny how "we" is the under a future one person has determined. A church stops being a church when one person starts to determine a future that everybody has a hand in. The future is so abstract and immensely captures everyone's actions w/o providing anything but more ideas of future possibilities after the next.
If anyone ever finds the future and keeps it exactly where they found it- they will be in that future that was once so distant.
Your apocalyptic collapse happens when one person shapes everybody's future. When people remember to share the future together- nothing is lost.
Interesting, your description says how polygamy is akin to women serving God. To be clear, polygamy is not evil itself but is evil w/ tribal society dominating unwilling women. Polygamist societies remain tied to tribalism rather than more humane individualistic societies. Tribalism can be oppressive to the conscious of individuals that value blood ties over universal humanity and respect. If polygamy respect women's dignity and choice then it is humane. But of course IT NEVER CAN DO THAT.
Polygamy is not evil itself but, facilitates a tribal and blood based society and w/ the death of Christ- there are no tribes or blood worthy of Him. It is not polygamy but everything surrounding polygamy- forced religion, forced marriage, female circumcision, individual education and dignity. God needs free people to decide to follow Him and being moved by the Spirit- not force which polygamists tend to use.
I do not think one person has determined whatever he sees in the future. I think that as President of the GC he has to represent the views of the majority who voted him into office and also have voted strongly against ordaining women as pastors. If he is not seen as strenuously opposing these actions then what will happen the next time a local or union conference steps way outside of policy as does occasionally happen in a far-flung confederation of organizations. Usually but not always this involves financial improprieties and it is the Division of the GC that has to step-in to deal with the problem. But in this case the Executive Committee of the Division is refusing to enforce the policies because they also represent their own constituencies. I am not sure if there is any precedent for this in SDA "canon law".
I do suspect that it may be a while before the world church elects another leader from NAD as GC President.
Yes but it is absurdly un-Christian to believe a body "elected" because of the "flesh" and for matter related to "earthly power" and the "flesh" could mediate on "spirituality".
Yes, all earthly believers/sinners only transcend the flesh b/c of the power of the Spirit. But for a body of flesh, an executive or individual body, to deny spiritual equality in the spiritual body to women- affront to Christ's death and why Adventism once opposed established Christian authority. It is even ridiculous to have votes on such lofty matters and the fact it is almost two centuries since founding of SDA and women have not held leadership positions. But man is continually sinful and carnal minded, that we use physical gender to disqualify not spirituality. Providing women's equality is not for them but, for the entire church humbly seeking God's forgiveness and a desire to reconnect w/ spiritualism that Christ won and created.
Funny, how identical we are to patriarchal Islam, Orthodox Judaism, and Catholicism in terms of women to secular communities. If TW wants to unify the entire Christian church as anti-women than he is on the right track. Secular communities probably see our Sabbath worship being just as a tribal and mythically blood related to Israel like 13th tribe of Mormons or another misshapen narrative. People fail to see Adventism w/ all its legalies and legalism as a spiritual church.
We spiritually inherited the Sabbath not physically. And spiritually God made us equal to the righteous Jew and successful Catholic. And yet, women are not spiritual equals for being made woman? This is another extended opportunity to recognize God's grace, spirituality for everybody, and to bring the Advent message to both secular and 3rd world nations.
Adventists are irretrievably linked to Judaism. While calling themselves Christian they resemble Judaism much more than Christianity. The priesthood is straight from the OT sacrificial system while in Christ we are all equal, and all are priests. Don't we believe in the priesthood of all believers? There are no subordinate places in Christianity, that was the Jewish system where women could not enter the temple at certain times and were prohibited from other religious activities.
Mormons subordinate their women as they are not eligible to inhabit the planets promised all the males except as wife, or one of many wives.
The Bible summons us to accept and respect every body. If one branch of our denomination decides to nominate a woman as president of a Division, let it be known to all that Christ's return is near. Soon and very soon, this same branch of liberals will introduce same sex marriage and gay nomination.
Maybe for some it's already a time to run for the hills when women are given equality. Should Paul's letter to the Galatians read like this:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free man, all excepting females who are not considered "all one in Christ Jesus." Women were given infereior status in Judaism, but in Christ, all are equal: not are superior, none are inferior.
To God be the glory
And in case the law or entire Bible even matters- being a woman is not a sin. And being a man is not the standard of righteousness.
MD1,
Ironically I find myself agreeing with you that this may be a sign "that Christ's return is near", albeit a different sign than what you think.
Many SDAs like to apply Joel's prophecy to the Latter Rain and believe the Latter Rain must fall before Christ's return. Taking for the moment this line of reasoning by analogy, then one should not ignore the rest of what Joel said, that God's Spirit would be poured out on ALL flesh. I do not have to speculate regarding his inclusive statement because he expands it to include both young and old, men and women, slaves and free.
If you believe that in the NT the laying on of hands was a means by which the church affirmed a calling conferred by God; and
that ALL believers are Priests unto God and Christ, that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, Male nor Female, Slave nor Free (notice here the parallel with Joel); and
that according to Peter the leaders of the church have no right nor authority to refuse to affirm what God has already ordained, just because it is not what they had expected from God (see his vision of the sheet and his baptism of Cornelius and his defense to the officers of the GC of his time); then
who are we to deny to women the affirmation of the gifts and ministries that God has already ordained, just because it is no what some of us had expected God to do?
By refusing (stalling and studying) since 1881 to affirm as a church what God has been calling and equipping women to do for Him, I submit that we have been standing "in the way" of God completing His mission for us. I believe that what we are witnessing now is as big a breakthrough for the SDA church of today as the baptism of Gentiles was for the SDA church of the first century.
In China, beyond the reach of the "Jerusalem church" God has already answered the question of the role of Women in the church, just as in Antioch and Anatolia and Macedonia he answered the question of the role of Gentiles in the church. Would you denounce the work of God in China as being the work of Satan?
Jesus warned the SDA (keeping the Sabbath and looking for the Advent) leaders of His time, that the only sin that could not be forgiven was the sin of attributing to Satan the work of the Holy Spirit. When did He issue this dire warning? When said leaders refused to accept that His works were from God because they violated "church policy". These very leaders went on to crucify Christ in the name of "church unity".
The "perfecting work of the latter rain" must begin with our leaders. In order for this to happen ALL of us must be willing to admit that we are sinners in need of a Savior, and stop insisting that God must operate according to our rules and prejudices. And stop denouncing those who are working for God outside of said rules and prejudices. God is able to determine who are His. He does not need our help in this regard.
Disclaimer – I am NOT claiming that our church leaders are in rebellion against God. I AM urging them to stand aside and give God the opportunity to act as He chooses, not as we presume or legislate that He should act.
Yes let God lead. The church is not unified by men or even the great Wilson but the Spirit. Let the Spirit work freely in all people because in truth, no power can stop it. Regardless of women's ordination- God loves women and they are servants like men. So whatever the vote, women will still be in the church of God.
This vote is not for women, but whether for Christians that are prideful enough to defy the Spirit w/ their own power agenda. Freedom is not an agenda but a testament of faith- that God liberates men and women to be equally loved.
I thank God for the three top Officers of the G. C. for reafirming the historic stand of our world Church . Today we may sometimes be tempted to make our own decisions, but in giving in to this impulse the genuine power of truth is set aside and self can take over. Let the Bible be our guide. Ephesiens 6: 13-18.
Ted Wilson is thankful for unity has an excuse to deprive others of dignity. You're thankful for making up a narrative that Wilson knows doesn't exist. There is no narrative in Christianity to deprive women of equality. It is a lie to call that Christian just as having to circumcised in order to be Christian.
There is gender and circumcision in legalism of Orthodox Judaism which, we are descendants of.
But there is no different gender to spirituality, only one gender (the Church is Christ's spiritual bride). And circumcision isn't physical by cutting flesh but spiritual.
Read the conclusion of Ephesians 6:21
We do not need to bash on Ted Wilson. We need to pray for him.
It's becoming evident by the day that the real need is actually to pray for forgiveness for allowing a 90-second election to happen, and keep praying for a proper replacement asap.
Those people in charge of voting should have been given some time to at least learn who Ted Wilson was, and make comments if needed. Asking questions is also pertinent.
(Well, it seems evident why the 90-second rush…)
George,
Those who voted for Ted Wilson had years to learn who he was. He was no stranger in the building or in the field. He was nominated for the post 5 years before he was actually elected. I can assure you that his pros and cons as "heir apparent" were discussed by many from the highest to the lowest within the organization before he was elected, not to mention by two different nominating committees, perhaps more thoroughly than any of his predecessors. It may have been a 90-second vote but it was hardly a 90-second election, more like a six or seven-year election.
Was the plenary of delegates offered an opportunity to participate? Those are the people tha should (should…) have the last word.
Beeing in the system for quite awhile and knowing how SDA politics work, I won't be surprised to hear that 90 seconds was more than enough time for the plenary's "considerations" being …. considered.
It sounds like Glacier View, where his (TW's) father had in hands the refusal to Des Ford's positions before the plenary of theologians actually voted on it.
Some traits run in families… and it seems that the crowds can become used to certain practices, even to defend them.
Therefore, maybe the next "election" should only take 43 seconds and all will be fine.
There seems to be here a bit of circular reasoning. TW may or may not have "engineered" his own election – that would be difficult to prove or disprove. But the process of selecting niminating committees at this level in the organization is very methodical and representative. Each region of the church caususes and chooses its own members for the committee. And I stand by my assertion that TW's many years of service on the GC Executive Committee and many other church committees would make him well-known to vitrually every Union Conference president who are de facto the majority of "cardinals" of the SDA church.
I did not talk to anyone on the nominating committte from the past session but I did from the previous session after the re-election of JP. There were many stories going around about what happened in the nominating committtee and I can tell you that the walls seem to have ears. There was no shortage of deliberation and discussion over whether to stay with JP or go for TW.
Since TW chaired neither the nominating committtee nor the floor session where the vote was taken, if the whole thing was rigged it was a conspiracy of many persons and not just a few. And if he managed to rig the last session he utterly fialed to rig the previous one. Personally I do not take much stock in conspiracy theories. They usually emanate from people who are unhappy with the results and need someone to blame.
This is not to deny the existence of various factions within the upper echelons of the church hierarchy nor to deny that they can and do butt heads and try to out-maneuver each other behind closed doors. But most of these people have a fairly common ideology and their disagreements are more about methods of operation. They well know that in the end they will all have to work together regardles of whom is elected to any particular position. And to win election to one of the top offices you have to have a fairly broad base of support among the "cardinals".
On the matter of rapid decision-making, I as a fifth-generation Adventist have seen and heard of numerous occasions when the very swiftness of a discussion and vote was declared to be strong evidence of the Lord's leading (the logic being that the Holy Spirit does not have to deliberate long and hard, as we humans do, and that when the Holy Spirit is clearly in charge, the decisions will come quickly and assertively, and all the people will marvel). Brother Ted has a unique tendency to "run" when he really should be walking through the many minefields out there. He's been doing this all his life, and his movement from one position in the church to another tends to support the view that his time in office will not be exceptionally long. He will be about 65 years old by 2015, a ripe old age even today for a man of his vintage and 19th-century philosophy. I don't believe for a moment that he "knew from the beginning" the tough nature of the challenges he has faced….They have been exceptionally difficult for him, without a doubt…..
"Brother Ted has a unique tendency to "run" when he really should be walking through the many minefields out there."
Really, Ed, I have to doubt whether your being a fifth generation SDA gives you any special privilege to be critical of our General Conference President whom, I believe, God placed in that position for such a time as this.
I can easily comprehend that those on the "left" dislike the direction in which Ted Wilson has gone and is going.
What is particularly sad is the clumny that has been heaped on him by persons often calling themselves SDAS.
Maranatha
Thank God for those three people, CUC prez, PUC prez, and SECC prez. Today we (men) may be tempted to just keep the status quo of discriminating against women because it's a way to feel having POWER & CONTROL. And those three men promoted the beginning of the collapse of this shameful practice in the church.
All the commentators above are simply giving out their opinions. Your opinions and mine don't matter; what matters is what Bible and the Spirit of Prophesy say .Please give Bible verses to support your views/comments.
As Paul says, please let us be mature Christians not to be blown to and fro by every wind of doctrine. We know from reading the scriptures and the Spirit of Prophesy that the Devil will plant Pastors, men and women in our church. How are we going to know them? To the law and to the testimony, if they do not speak according to this word, it is because their is no light in them. Even if it was an Angel from heaven coming to give us "new light" different from the word of, DO NOT BELIEVE him.
Have the people now understood the scriptures on the role of women better than all the christian people who have lived in the last 2,000 years since Christ's birth?
Don't trust theologians to be your spiritual guides, for most of them think that they know the Scriptures (Bible), when in fact they don't know anything, just like the Pharisees during Jesus' time. -The Great Controvery page 595
With all that sense of justice, what is your biblically-based view about the current status quo in which the church practices discrimination of women?
I hate to be the one to suggest to "Zz" (hmm. Another individual who will not use his real name) that all we have is your opinion and my opinion and everyone's elses opinion about what the Bible and "Spirit of Prophesy" (otherwise known as the opinions of EGW) say. Unless Zz has a talking Bible or talking EGW source that says "This is what you are suppose to believe about what is in my pages . . ." opinions are all we have. Why is that so hard to understand?
Dear Zz
1844 was only 182 years ago not 2,000 years ago. How could it be for 1,844 years- Christians would not worship on Saturday but on the Lord's Day?
W/ theologians like Augustine, Pius, John Paul, even Wycliffe, Luther- why did these rebel Americans come up w/ Saturday…? Other than Paul and early Christians- ALL THESE LATTER THEOLOGIANS worship on the Lord's Day.
So should we be like St. Augustine or saints or Joan of Arc? Or should we be like Paul, that early Christian. Paul that early Christian that had men and women share everything. Paul that early Christian who was the finest of Jewish church leadership, never serving w/ the uncircumcised or women, and was changed by the Spirit. Paul that early Christian who served equally w/ women. Paul that early Christian who did not worship on Sunday or Saturday but on the Sabbath (Friday evening to Sat. Evening.
Should we be like Paul and be Christians or theologians that neglected women like empty vessels only filled w/ children and a mind to handle a broom?
and… 1844 was a rebellion but it didn't go far for women. 1844 was rebellion from modern Christianity that didn't follow the Sabbath and mistreated women like witches among other things. 1844 was supposed to be a return to Christianity as God intended it. A Christianity that Paul followed. A Christianity for women too and not for them to be 2nd rate in the eyes of God and His service.
I guess, we Adventists can pat ourselves on the back saying "at least we don't burn 'em on stake for knowing how to read/write in the Name of…"
Former Millerites did not come up w/ the Sabbath, the Bible. And men didn't create women, men didn't die for women, men don't forgive or expect women to obey them (unless you're self-righteous enough to expect them to obey b/c they're women).
God did these things equally for women and men, that we can all equally serve. It is spiritual b/c it was won by Christ and not the old Jewish law.
… Pharisees don't believe in spiritual guides only the LAW. And law punishes women for being women. Punishes the uncircumcised for being uncircumcised. Punishes believers for not following over 600 mundane and great Commandments of the Old Covenant. The Law punishes.
But a spiritual guide, guides people to the One that ended the Law killing everybody. The Law would kill so the Spirit saved all.
To then say the Spirit saved me but didn't save her as much as it saved me- only mocks the power of the Spirit. The Spirit saves everybody. Or then say, the Spirit saved me so I can serve but not her as much as me because she is woman and the Spirit is not powerful enough to lead her to serve. There are obstacles that might deserve scrutiny but, being a woman is only an obstacle to sexist believers and not women itself. Women can be fully conscious of Christ's love, willing give their own lives, and still be women.
Yes don't listen to theologians who are not pointing to Christ and salvation of everybody. Don't point to theologians that use Jewish law which would kill everybody (man or woman) (uncircumcised and even circumcised). Theologians that use Jewish law, use power, use unity under man not w/ God as a reason to deny women. Don't listen to anyone who doesn't point to Christ and His equal death for everybody.
Everyone is mortal, Christ died for them, and is equal. No one should force this truth and let people realize everyone is equal for themselves.
Zz,
I try to offer Bible texts in support of my comments that are addressed to my conservative brothers and sisters who actually claim to follow the Bible. So far they have not responded in detail to any of my Bible references – they appear to simply ignore things in their favorite Book that they might not like to confront.
When commenting to my liberal brothers and sisters I generally do not bother to include Bible references because they mostly have abandoned the Bible as anything more than rleigious myths and legends that may be informative but have no authority.
Which is worse – to deny the authority of Scripture outright or to simply ignore it when it reveals inconvenient truths? You might want to consider Jesus' parable of the two brothers (Matthew 21:28-32).
Hey nothing I've said is political (neither liberal nor conservative). It's biblical Christianity and is based on Paul's adherence to Christianity (Sabbath keeping, spirituality, forgiveness, and recognizing God in all humanity w/ humble obedience).
Its a myth to say Adventists are equal to law-keeping, male dominated, tribal bloodlines of circumcised Orthodox Jews, who follow over 600 commandments and have NO Temple for holidays and sacrifices for sinning. In fact, to even suggest Orthodox legalism of Old Covenant is an affront to Christ. That same proudly un-Christian Orthodox Jew denies women because of tribal blood dominance. Men give seed, women bleed, and men have authority over women given by God and women have children from God through men.
In that society- nothing is worse than a man to be an emasculated servant w/ nothing to hold over a woman. And nothing is worse than a childless and barren woman, no value to a man. But then a virgin had the Son of Man, everything should have changed… But somethings stayed the same. Our hearts are hard and necks are stiff.
IT SHOULD BE THAT NOW… (before it was men seed/ women bleed)
Now everyone emascluates themselves from pride and serves. Unlike Judaism, the strong are told to serve the weak b/c everyone is weak in the eyes of God. There are no strong tribes or nations just people. There is no holy seed that holy men give to women, only scripture can save people not the seed. Only the Spirit saved not the Law or the seed or being circumcised. Now nobody claims strength over people but, humility to serve all people b/c the Bible tells them so. Men don't need their own Joseph Smith myths or be in the lineage of Davidic kings to serve God. All who accept the death of Christ for their sins, can claim and serve God as their Father. That's spirituality not legalism- everyone is saved by the same Holy Spirit and we die w/ our ethnic blood and legalism.
Now everyone is a child of God, and takes care of each other. Unlike Judaism, people do not have born from Christian womb to be Christian. Even the fertile men and women should be mothers to all children b/c they are God's children. Women do not have stay from Temple when they bleed b/c the Son of Man bled for them. Now nobody claims to be childless in a world full of God's children waiting to hear God's message w/ motherly love from men and women. Matt. 12:50 "Whoever believes is my mother, father, sister, brother" all in one. We do not need blood mothers and the barren woman can be rejoice b/c all of us are children of God in a human tribe. Now there are no longer genocidal missions to destroy tribes. And no orphans b/c we have the Son of Man bringing us to the Father.
The law is still matters- but, ALL can freely approach God like His children b/c of Christ's death. All are equal children under God and there is no longer a priesthood that belongs to a tribe, or men or circumcised men. But it's for men, women, and sinners of all over can serve God spiritually through His Son who died so we could have spiritual life after the flesh returns to dust.
To deny anybody that wants to serve God is a Jewish act b/c those who sin and fail to meet Jewish rules cannot serve in Judaism. But Christians bring a message of God loving everybody. And everybody, even the most righteous Jewish men are sinners that will die in Christianity and only saved by grace. If everyone has grace from over 600 Jewish commandments that all humanity must follow- then no one can deny anybody that wants serve b/c no one is sinless.
This is not me, it is simply biblical. It is Christianity.
Having some experience in nominating committees over a period of 16 years, i always, in every case, felt the proceedings were engineered by the heirarchy of the Ontarario conference, with the selections pre ordained. Stacked with the majority of committee members being employees and sycophants, toadies. Church politics is always to be contended with in its present form of practice. As we are all members of God's Holy Temple, and receivers of the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, we should have participation to select the church leaders, directly, with individuals casting their individual votes. Every church could select "the" majority nominee by
votes of every member, in business session, forward it to the bean counters selected from every Union, the individual church members vote again to reduce the final selection of three, then a third individual church member vote the final nominee, selected by popular vote. This should be proof to all, of the Holy Spirit's
choice. The heirarchy would fight this tooth and claw, as they love their insidepower, but the membership should insist on placing this on the agenda, at General Conference. This is too important, and not accept the excuse that it takes too long. With the electronic expertise available today, the General Conference could be handled electronically, without the millions of dollars wasted in travel expenses (From all global districts), housing and food, and celebration expenses footed by the folks in the pews. This would minimize the creation of celebrities in the church. Celebrate God Jesus.
It is much easier to stack the deck on local conference nominating committees because the Union Conference exceutives who chair them are pros who do it for a living, whereas the other members are only in the game for one or two days in several years. As you move up through the hierarchy this trick becomes harder to pull-off because all of the participants are pros who are in the game for life. At the GC level the chair is someone from a lower rank so the tables are turned.
For those who have served on conference committees, they all report it's a farce: everything is stacked, members are there merely to cast pre-ordained (pun intended) votes; and the most critical and arguable topic on the agenda is the last to be brought up–when many have to leave for several hours travel late in the evening.
There are two main issues here. The first being whether this is a biblical theological move or a purely cultural secular based worldview and secondly whether this is a sign of rebellion that will eventually lead to some form of apostasy. The fact that this was so hurried by this a voting frenzy 'before' the next GC is ample evidence that this was done with an agenda not in line with the Adventist world church. Again, the loophole found by these Conferences which they have used for WO is just a technicality rather than a constitutional mandate. I wish to point out also that those in parts of the world were the church is already waning largely due to Adventists buying into the cultural scene, are the very ones who are now desperately pushing for WO and making the same cultural choices which have messed up Adventism in these areas already in the first place. Exercising caution and heeding counsel and guidance from the world church via GC or our GC President is seeing as 'delay tactics' and 'dragging its feet' in the matter when prudence and reason should prevail instead of the remonstrance of a frenzy voting throng who are forcing the issue and demanding they want to have it their way – or else. I think that this can be rightfully seeing as the arrogance of the cultural camp.
Hurling insults at the Patriarchal system of the OT and claiming that the NT has given carte blanche to all and sundry to do as they please as per cultural socio-political dictates is more of an insult to God rather than just emboldened snobbery against the world church. They have failed to grasped the fact that it was God who designed the roles of women and men after the Fall and last time I checked both genders were still very different. Secularism has giving birth to many babies, feminism being one, and this has had a direct impact on marriage, the family and the home. Whilst on the pretense of protecting and empowering women, it has broken down the home, the family and marriage; but more than this, degraded women by changing their roles into that of men. Yeah, sure there are many 'butch' women out there in the first world who would clobber most men at any given day but although this may be an overdone example it illustrates my point that women have through imperceptible means, largely due to the heavy influence of secularisation, lost the qualities, dignity, and womanliness of being the special valued people they are in the Church and in society as a whole. This is not a result of discrimination, abuse, or attempts by men for women to be disempowered (as many would have us believe and accuse the church of) but it is what women have done to themselves through the feminist agenda and in doing so have shot themselves in the foot.
Secular society won't admit it but it is in a mess. The divorce rate in these areas where secularisation has run its course speaks for itself. I have seen articles regarding the global recession where is was found that many women were divorcing men in order to look for greener pastures and doing so purely for financial reasons. This is the mindset and worldview of those influenced by secular systems which undoubtedly would include feminism and women’s rights epitomised in my opinion by their right to abort their offspring – the height of sexual emancipation. To rephrase Malcolm X in this regard: "the feminist agenda’s chickens will come home to roost."
I would also point out that there are many women who aren't in favour of this move by the Conferences and for good reason too. That should be noted and they should be recognised as credible contributors to this discussion as it is without doubt that Adventists do love, value, and respect the women in our churches but moreover value them as women and not wannabe men. I think that the sentiments and guidelines found in the Bible for Christian living express this more eloquently than I have done here. Secular freedom always comes with a price. This time its the women who sadly will have to pay – again!
Trevor Hammond
Well Trevor,
I ceratinly agree that modern secular society is a mess.
But you seem to somehow imply that the OT patriarchal system was ordained by God? If you really believe this then we should buy and sell wives, concubines and male and female slaves, the oldest son should have twice the inheritance of the younger sons, and the daughters will have to get by on their dowries unless there are no sons. In that case the property will pass to the husbands of the daughters. Both the Bible and Ellen White describe numerous flaws of the patriarchal system (you might want to read Patriarchs and Prophets again, and read it very carefully). And may I remind you that Jesus said that Moses gave some laws because of the hardness of the hearts of those OT people.
Dear, Jim
Stop giving Trevor a respectable way out of his circular logic. The patriachal system and its legalistic foundations are not just flawed, as you've politely stated, but tribally and diametrically opposed to Christianity and spiritualism. It's abundantly clear why Adventism prefers w/ an arrogance for prescriptive "solve everythings" to social ills rather than act humbly and therapeutically console the inescapable tragedies of the human experience. A human experience rooted in sin from the very beginning and pain w/o any earthly solution other than humbly enduring and consoling each other w/ divine and spiritually based love. We have lost or may never had the grace to hold people's dignity as sacrosanct when addressing inevitable personal challenges and conveying the Message.
I am not personally disparaging Trevor but his views, which are purposefully inflammatory and shamelessly irresponsible. Despite whatever version of Christianity Trevor subscribes to, a fundamentally New Covenant was founded by a revolutionary apocalyptic figure against the socio-politico-religious establishment- renders his accusatory language as toothless digs tugging at an itchy burdensome robe we no longer have to wear. Instead, Christ gave us freshly made robes that no one can dare to remove. Christ gave all of humanity that robe of peace, love, and dignity. All of us- equally.
Christianity is about loving people and loving God as the author of creation and love. Not adherence to patriarchal authority for fealty, prestige, and honor- trumping over simple love for common folk w/ dignity for all things human, that's humility. Instead, Trevor would have us believe he studied w/ and not under Gamaliel, ordained w/ Levitical rites, member of exclusively male Sadduccean caste, circumcised on his 8th day and named thereafter of a dead ancestor in his Davidic lineage, an unflinching arbiter of murderously bloody tribal justice and was raised in a non-existent Temple beside the Wailing Wall.
Even Trevor's mythical Paul-like righteousness means nothing w/o grace won by the Death of Christ. To suggest the modern's world sinful nature is due to men no longer having tribalistic controls over birthing chambers they call "wo-man," is shamelessly wrong. Sin has been in place since humanity journeyed from their father loins and mother's womb. And it was the inevitable sinful and fallen nature of the most holiest of Israelites why the Divine sent His Divine Son. To suggest if man was more righteous we would not succumb to sin demeans exactly Christ had to die- we are perpetually sinful in mind and heart, our flesh is rooted in unyielding death, and cannot be tied to the Everlasting Spirit w/o Christ adopting us as spiritual children from our fate of continual sin and death.
To suggest, we could be more righteous than Ancient tribes of Israel, that we could be so holy and follow the Sabbath so diligently w/o any light switches or engines or distance walking denies Christ. The patriarchal system is dead along w/ the Temple. All have been made whole, a Gentile named Trevor or Lynn can come into contact w/ The Lord.
Adventism returned to 7th day worship but neglected to restore dignity for all people, which is want Saul learned from Jesus to become Paul. We have too many Sauls that are figuratively kicking women in the goads. When in fact women are no longer bleeding birthing vessels to wrathfully owned like worldly possessions and men are no longer sending seeds like vehicles to conquer and win envious appeal in the world of lesser tribes to rape, pillage, and execute. Because Trevor, that is exactly how Israelites had to live in such an unforgiving and violent world by their blood right. Blood is fleshy, dying, violent, and PATRIACHAL or even matriarchal in other tribes anthropologists study.
But the Spirit is eternal, true, caring, long-suffering and saving. I respect Trevor but his views are violently un-Christian and being pawned as being "Christian". This lack of spiritualism continues to plague Christianity from pagan Sunday to secularly demarcating between man/woman. Christ respected the Sabbath for humankind and died so all people would be His children not man w/ seed and woman who bleed. But children loving each other as we love ourselves and loving God in all divinity.
So rather than conclude w/ prescriptions, things to control, issues to win, votes to collect- let's therapeutically alleviate burdens and stumbling blocks we maliciously use on upon each other. Lets remind ourselves the battle is won, love God, love people and as we tarry in this world lets recognize our invaluable spiritual worth to the God willing to send His own Son to die. And stop the finger-pointing that's will damn us w/ doubts from taking what is freely given by the One who understands our deadly pain.
I take issue with the assertion that Adventism is the the problem. I submit that it is common to all religious Fundamentalists to have a simple prescription (return to the faith and practices of some mythcial prior "golden age") to solve all of the world's problems.
As originally practiced Adventism was very much a forward-looking movement. By the 1880s it was already expending too much energy on institutional preservation. After the death of Ellen the Fundamentalists consolidated their grip on most of the institutions and have been trying to hold on ever since.
I never said Adventism was a problem. It revolutionized Christianity w/ a revival to the preordained Sabbath instituted at very beginning before sin entered the world. Adventism told followers to be faithful as they challenged seemingly "Christian" authorities and dogma. Namely, Sunday worship was instituted by pagans and even secularists w/in Roman government. I applaud Adventism for taking a stand on the spirituality of Sabbath and not physical worship of the Sun.
But Adventism did not restore women to the place they had w/ Paul- Priscilla and husband Aquila were equals b/c Christ doesn't see gender only children. Adventists neglected this and by demanding pastors find subservient wives they perpetuate legalism and physical bondage and phony "sinless ness" instead of spirituality. Like Paul says everyone is equally saved Christ's death and women/men own each other as equals and finally the church should not demand clerical marriage for clergy who can remain as they are free of desire. The old ways tribal patriachs died in Old Jerusalem, Ancient Israel and on Calvary- where Christ made a new covenant.
Adventism faith was too weak in making Christianity actually Christian again. Adventists did not go far enough to proclaim God's church for everybody. Instead people want an exclusive church to keep as their own and NOT for God and all His little children. Adventists need to bring the radical message that Christ died so all humanity could freely know the true and caring God who understands us. We are complacent in exclusive circles, we have not gone far enough w/ the power of the Spirit that saved all of us from the law. We haven't gone far enough.
I also feel more strongly than ever, in light of the evident orchestrated attempt to destabilise the church and plot to oust President Ted Wilson that the world church meet this head on by keeping him in office – if he is willing to accept of course. Some are counting his years and hoping to purge the church of traditional Adventist leaders in order to make way for a highly secularised cultural biased ones. The traditional church has been walked over for far too long by cultural influences with its undeniable worldliness and its time we say as CD Brooks has said "I want my church back!" They shouldn't have allowed women the role as pastors in the first place until these issues concerning ordination were first sorted out. They were baited and now they are being reeled in. I say cut the line.
Who are the conspirators behind "the evident orchestrated attempt to destabilise the church and plot to oust President Ted Wilson"?
I prefer to place my faith in God rather than in conspiracy theories.
"I want my church is back" is such a classic line. And so shamelessly un-Christian that sinners in your church/Temple must sound like an " arar" only worthy for Gentiles and the unclean. Keep your church, but don't stop women from serving in God for your own sake. I can assuredly advise not to challenge the Spirit that made all of humanity equal before God and saved from the Law, b/c flesh/gender always die in relation to the Living Spirit.
Cling to the Spirit for everlasting life, I hope Wilson heard that message growing up and will stop his self-defeating attempt to deny women what Christ already won. His un-Christian efforts are futile as Catholics tried to quell 7th day worship that Paul followed for more than 1,844 years. And now Adventists day of denying equality by the Spirit ends after more than 150 years, which Paul equally served along w/ women. The Spirit is truly long-suffering and God is faithful to all His children giving them grace to serve Him spiritually. Christ didn't die so men could say women are too unworthy to serve but that everybody could serve and live w/ Him equally. Jew and Gentile and man and woman, equally loved by God
"I want my church back!" (attributed to CD Brooks)
With all due respect to Pastor Brooks, I do NOT want my church or your church or anyone else's church back.
The call of Revelation is to restore the church of Jesus Christ, not the church of the Patriarchs or even the Apostles or Luther or Calvin or Wesley or White. That is the only church I want. I suspect that these venerable saints would agree with me.
All of these good folk served God in their day. But we are not called to return to their day. How can we best serve Him in our day?
It's really sad how misguided we are from the Message. I am not a "know it all" but God adopted us through Christ like the prodigal son lost in the world to join w/ Israel, the legalistic and unhappy son rejecting grace for his own glory and power. Yet, modern Christianity claims not to be freely adopted and being called to freely adopt others in Christ's name. Instead, Adventist establishment say its their church and they deserve to be in power not because of grace but, they are in power to deny humble people who do want to serve…
How can a church have people placed in charge to deny someone, by the grace of God- fully capable, and wants to serve God's church equally? And then deny them b/c they are NOT physical circumcised males but spiritually circumcised females/males/whatever. Maybe Wilson would prefer patriarchal sects in Islam that brutalize girls in physically circumcising to become broken women to own. Christ owns and dies for everybody- He is our husband and we are His wives. Praise God, the Spirit sees only children not gender.
Ted Wilson, IMAMS, RABBIS, SECULAR EVOLUTIONISTS are the SAME and see gender, blood, ethnicities, bank accounts, earthliness and NOT spirituality. Wilson has more in common w/ the aforementioned than the Spirit incarnated by Christ died to save us from earthly law. Saved from deadly earthly law! Christ sees no gender only children. Not a debate but, a chance for us to humble ourselves and see the Spirit in all humanity. Humble ourselves to the fact-CHRIST DIED FOR EVERYBODY.
I totally do not buy the Ted Wilson bashing. From what I know of this gentleman he is a very spiritual person and a very committed Christian. I see no evidence of greed or misogyny in his actions. Spending much of one's career in places like West Africa and later Russia as a missionary is not a very efficient way to pad one's bank account. (I am aware of claims that some indigenous SDA leaders in those parts of the world are not above padding their bank accounts).
I may question the wisdom of some of Ted Wilson's actions but I most strenuously object to trashing his character and motives in this manner.
Well, it is now abundantly clear the SDA Church no longer follows the Bible. The scriptures are very plain in their meaning of a woman's place when it comes to teaching men or ruling over them. Since it has been forgotten, here's a verse for you to remember: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, NOR TO USURP AUTHORITY OVER THE MAN, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:12 KJV (emphasis applied)
"But I suffer not a woman to teach"
By your line of reasoning we stopped following the Bible when we accepted Ellen as a prophet. How can you apply only half of a verse and ignore the other half?
Catherine, I agree with Jim Hamstra a couple of posts below: "He was describing his own practice."
Paul says it is he who does not permit a woman to teach. Are you sure everything Paul personally did and did not do was directly commanded by God? Do you know what prompted Paul to take this position? Notably, Paul does not attribute his policy to divine instruction. And we already know he has expressed his private opinion about another issue involving women: marriage. He says he would prefer for believers to be single – like him. So he is already on record citing his private opinions about social issues.
I admire Ms Catherine Michele raising Paul in this matter. I support her understanding to an extent as opposed to what Mr Hamstra and Mr Reifsnyder say it means – for this reason: In 1Cor 14:34 he writes 'as in fact the law says.' I for one find it a bitter pill to swallow but in 1Tim 2:12 Paul is not 'describing his own practice.' This is quite clear based on what 1Cor 14:34 says. Also, in 1Cor 14:37 Paul says that the things he writes are the 'commandments of the Lord' and therefore to me this implies he writes not just in his personal capacity. Paul does tie it all down in 1Cor 14:40 where he says 'let all things be done decently and in order.' His purpose as can be seen in 1Cor 14:40 is not to oppress or undermine the role of women in christian ministry but rather admonishing us that all church things should be done in an orderly manner. For some reason (God only knows) women are cautioned by Paul rather heavily I would say, in my opinion, but cautioned nontheless in this regard without doubt. I don't think he uses 'silence' in terms of stopping women from singing, preaching, praying and leading out in the Sabbath School, etc. From what I have gathered it is in relation to improper talking and conduct in the church which is both disruptive and disorderly. The same could be applied to men in my opinion in this sense.
Especially when reading 10:23-33 beforehand which is great issue for Adventists. "Everything that is lawful" but not everything is beneficial or build others up. Paul goes on say "not seek our own good/righteousness but the good of the other person". That is deep compassion, humility, and recognizing Christ's goodness in everyone. Finally if a person would like to they are freely permitted to eat/drink anything that is offered by the unbeliever and if someone says otherwise "why is my freedom being judged by another's conscience" However, Paul reminds not to offend Jew (legalist) or Greek (secularist) or the church of God because- these acts are not for our benefit, or to be stumbling blocks, but to benefit all that they may be saved.
Reading Corinthians- there are verses such as 1 Cor. 3: 1-6 where people are too carnally minded to prepare for spiritual awakening to shed human ways and conventions for spiritual ways. They claim they are of "Paul or of Apollos" etc. Then verses such as 1 Cor. 11:3 or 14:26-38 that can be easily taken out of context.
If Paul's sternly worded warnings to the Corinthians apply to the SDA church today, then we should stop publishing Ellen's books and we should never have allowed her to speak in our meetings, from local congregations all the way up to GC Sessions.
It is an interesting question whether people today in many parts of the world are too carnally minded to accept a woman speaking with spiritual authority. In a society where woman entertainers are competing to outdo each other in their trashy and uncouth behavior, might the example of Godly women as servant-leaders be a powerful testimony? Or must all women be viewed as they were in Corinth – primarily as objects to satisfy the lusts of the sailors and traders who frequented one of the busiest seaports of its time? In their culture a woman did NOT want to attract undue attention to herself, and the church did not want to attract the kind of clientiele who brought their pagan practices with them.
But, to be technical, the Spirit takes on many forms- when Christ or other physical manifestations. In this case the Spirit was manifested as physical Advocate. Christ in a spiritual form residing w/ everyone.
John 1:32
"I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from Heaven, and IT remained on Him"
1 Corinthians 13:4, I don't why its the most popular marriage verse-
Love, a spiritual and platonic love, is an abstract concept not carnal or physical or manifested in Christ. Love is an IT. And that love is spiritually formed.
1 Cor. 12:11
Another verse when Spirit as an abstract comcept is refered to as IT
Reading Corinthians- there are verses such as 1 Cor. 3: 1-6 where people are too carnally minded to prepare for spiritual awakening to shed human ways and conventions for spiritual ways. They claim they are of "Paul or of Apollos" etc. Then verses such as 1 Cor. 11:3 or 14:26-38 that can be easily taken out of context.
Especially when reading 10:23-33 beforehand which is great issue for Adventists. "Everything that is lawful" but not everything is beneficial or build others up. Paul goes on say "not seek our own good/righteousness but the good of the other person". That is deep compassion, humility, and recognizing Christ's goodness in everyone. Finally if a person would like to they are freely permitted to eat/drink anything that is offered by the unbeliever and if someone says otherwise "why is my freedom being judged by another's conscience" However, Paul reminds not to offend Jew (legalist) or Greek (secularist) or the church of God because- these acts are not for our benefit, or to be stumbling blocks, but to benefit all that they may be saved.
It was once legal to put away your wives b/c of hardness of men's hearts- God tolerated such faithless. But Christ, says marriage was holy and unbreakable as people are equally yoked. Would we discriminate against divorcees ordained? Or other sinners Paul mentions, none have continued in their pastoral duties despite their unrighteousness?
Maybe if men were truly the ideal Christians there wouldn't be such spiritual need for us to put away physical differences. We need redemption and more spirituality, Paul speaks in regards to women speaking tongues in 1 Cor. 14 not disallowing them from equal service. Brothers and Sisters in Christ are equally valuable and Paul tells us to be like virgin brides to marry the only true man worthy of the Church of God- Christ.
Timothy's stance "I–I–I WILL SUFFER NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH".
Misogyny was a highly popular theme, also, in the first century macho mano, just as Fundalmentalists in 2013.
Paul wrote this to Timothy. He was describing his own practice. Whether or not this was a commandment from God or only Paul's opinion he does not say so it is open for interpretation.
1. We have no evidence that the letter to Timothy was written by Paul. It is simply another of many assumptions about the authors of the Bible. But one assumption is certainly wrong: God wrote not one word in the Bible, it was all humans.
2. It is usually overlooked that God did not suffer a woman to teach, but man, and man is not infallible any more than we today. He could only describe the culture in which he lived, our world is very different: women are as well educated as men; women work side-by-side with men and should be treated as equals in every respect. Christians should be the first in giving women equality.
"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, to Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord." (1 Timothy 1:1-2)
Either the author was the Apsotle Paul or the author was a liar. We have as much (or as little) evidence that the author was Paul as we have that the letter was written to Timothy. Was every Bible author who claimed to speak for God a liar? Were they all delusional?
You have no evidence that I am Jim Hamstra. I have no evidence that you are Elaine Nelson. Are we both liars? Are we both delusional?
It was not at all uncommon in the past, and especially in the early Christian era, for someone to write and use the name of an apostle or other prominent leader (check the history of the making of the canon). Because we have no evidence that the writers of the synoptic Gospels were the disciples, although they used those names to give credibility, unless we have definite evidence we do a disservice to make unproven assumptions.
Just as "tradition" cites Moses as the author of the Torah, it is ONLY tradition as there can be no evidence. Let's value honesty and evidence above tradition. Adventists, of all peoples, should not rely on tradition but honestly state only what can be proven.
I do not recall ever reading in Torah where the author self-identifies. Traditionally the author was Moses, but I noticed the first time I read Deuteronomy as a child that the description of the death of Moses must have been written by someone who survived him.
If the author of 1 Timothy was not the Apostle Paul as claimed then the author was disingenuous at best or in my opinion simply a blatant liar. To falsely claim to be an Apostle would be fairly outrageous even in those times. Who was it? Paul or an imposter?
If you apply this line of reasoning to the NT authors then how do we even know there was an Apostle Paul? You can de-construct the entire Bible until there is nothing left to believe. How is that helpful to a discussion of women as leaders in the SDA church? By this line of reasoning any woman (or man) who would aspire to being a pastor or leader in the church is aspiring to help perpetuate a monstrous fraud. Shouldn't we simply abolish all pastors and leaders in the church and let every man and woman do what is right in his or her own eyes?
If the author of this letter to Timothy was a (possibly delusional) liar, then – –
1) Is God the Father? Is God our Savior?
2) Is Christ Jesus our Lord? Is Jesus Christ our hope?
3) Can we anticipate grace, mercy and peace from these Deities?
If the answer to these questions is NO, then why bother to read any further?
Granted that God did not personally write one word of the Bible, is it possible that God exercised some influence over those who did write it?
Must we rely only on Timothy, or any other single book to determine Christian belief? If so, why not rely on the Song of Solomon, or Ecclesiastes, or only one Gospel?
Yes, it is possible that God influenced the Bible writers, but we should not assume that everything they wrote was literally and factually true as they were not prescient but were products of their time and place.
How very JESUITICAL of you! Yes you heard me , how very JESUITICAL of you sowing seeds of doubt concerning the “WORD OF GOD”. I would strongly suggest you examine your SATANIC STATEMENT and consider Hebrews 4:12 and Hebrews 10:26-31. May GOD have mercy on you.
i believe the words set down by the original writers of the Holy Bible were handled by an unknown number of scribes, before being selected by those scholars who made the final complement. i do not believe every concept inclusive was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but was the prophet or individual's personal bias and or outlook that was prevalent in his or her day. The Bible has many contradictions and double entendres, and perhaps false information, as would be expected by such a great variety of handlers of the data, including that which was inspired by God. It has caused great controversy amonst Christians of all ages, and continues to this day. Interpretations that vary between those involved cause heat, and disagreement, where tolerance should prevail, as all of us have character defects, and infallible, just as those who presented their versions and inspired statements of God, were. We are all imperfect, and sinners, and have need of saving grace, and the Saviour.
Be kool folks, be tolerant, be loving, and welcome every single sinner to be inclusive in the Body of Christ Jesus, or lovingly let each choose their own way.
Mr Hamstra asks: "Who are the conspirators behind "the evident orchestrated attempt to destabilise the church and plot to oust President Ted Wilson"?
———
Well – I was going say liberals but then the NAD may fit the position better in my opinion, seeing how things have turned out.
Note: I did not use the word 'conspirators.'
As an aside – about conspiracy theories: The recent factual evidence found regarding the NSA spying on the German Chancellor by tapping her phone confirms that the US is quite capable of not only spying (even on its closest allies) but also of pulling off its role as a key player in the fulfilment of end-time prophecy as depicted in the Great Controversy which some brush aside as a mere conspiracy theory.
May I suggest to "22" that progressives/liberals in the church don't need to plot to have Ted Wilson become a one-term GC president. He seems to be own worst enemy. His actions are making moderates and even some conservatives to think about how to replace him in 2015. His only constitency left are hard core fundamentalists. Third World Adventist Church leaders may suddenly wake up and realize that if he stays as GC President after 2015, the funds coiming from the North American Division to the GC and then to them may begin to dry up. That, above all things, they do not want to happen. The 2015 GC session should be very interesting.
I am sure that if those who comment on this web site that they no longer subscribe to the teachings of the SDA church were to suddenly withhold any further tithe payments to the organization that they do not believe to be God's church, the General Conference would experience such a plunge in revenue that it would cease to be able to function and beg these "progressive/liberals" for mercy? (Nah!)
Why do I suspect that those who do not subscribe to the teachings of the SDA church are not a major source of contributions to its ministries?
Jim, i think you misinterpret Ervin's statement re: Church income. He was not suggesting income lost from those not accepting the SDA doctrines, but the Southeastern Calif Conference & Pacific Union, at large. The greatest provider of funds to the GC, in the Global SDA Church.
Earl,
Perhaps you are right but I have not seen anyone in leadership in SECC or PUC or NAD threatening to withhold tithe from the GC. Nor do I think the GC has any intention to "excommunicate" or "shun" NAD or PUC or SECC.
There is no shortage of shouting from onlookers in the gallery who appear to have no "skin in the game". I still pay tithe and offerings (much more modest now that I am semi-retired) to the SDA church so I still have some "skin in the game" 8-).