Women’s Ordination: A Test on Biblical Truth or Test on The Biblical Process?
by Val Loumber, August 26, 2015: While many people continue to debate whether the practice of women’s ordination (WO) is biblical, I find myself still stuck on first base, unable to justify the historical and ongoing procedural failures of the WO agenda.
So what if WO is biblical, if it is introduced in an unbiblical way!
Even if biblical, WO must still be implemented and practiced in accordance with the biblical principles governing the process by which all disagreements are resolved, all biblical truth is established and all parties to the disagreement are reconciled to each other.
Just because something is biblical does not automatically mean that it should be implemented and practiced in the timing and way proponents see fit. God never utilizes truth impulsively, rashly or hastily.
God has often deferred establishing truth among His people because it would have defeated the ultimate purpose of the Gospel – the salvation from sin of as many as possible. God’s utility of biblical truth is always calculated to advance the salvation of as many as possible.
God’s greatest skill in dealing with the controversy between good and evil is not amassing truth. His greatest skill is in knowing whether, when, where and how to utilize truth so He could bring salvation to as many as possible, reconciling us to Himself and to one another. That is, God is not willing that anyone should perish!
Do not misunderstand the point! While truth is indispensable, knowing what to do with it is as indispensable.
God establishes biblical truth among His people not because He is right and we are wrong or for the sake of truth itself. He introduces biblical truth for the purpose of bringing salvation to humanity.
In other words, truth does not exist and it is not to be practiced in a vacuum, aside from the purposes for which it was given and established. Truth is only a means to an end and not the end. The end objective is the salvation of as many as possible. Such salvation is achieved only through a process, without which truth is devoid of context, meaning, purpose and value.
Humans were not created for the sake of truth. Instead, truth is being given and it is being established for the sake of our salvation. Without the ultimate objective for which truth was given – humanity’s salvation – truth has no intrinsic value.
Accordingly, introducing biblical truth without advancing the salvation of others is not biblical, no matter how biblical the truth is that is being introduced.
If the introduction of biblical truth among God’s people is not restrained by the biblical principle of truth’s having to advance and not hinder the salvation of others, then truth is elevated in value above the salvation of others – the overriding objective of the plan of salvation. This is unbiblical because it elevates truth, as abstract knowledge, above the Truth in the Person of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World, Who came for one purpose only, “to seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10, NKJV).
Even though biblical truth as abstract knowledge is principally doctrinal in nature – without direct impact on the salvation of others, the Truth in the Person of Jesus Christ is both relational and doctrinal. The Truth in the Person of Jesus Christ is concerned with the introduction of biblical truth for a particular purpose – namely, the establishment of a relationship with others and their consequent salvation. Jesus practices biblical truth, then, only within the process that leads us to salvation in Him.
This is why truth as abstract knowledge cannot be practiced by us without adherence to the biblical principles governing the process by which that truth is to be established and is to become salvational in reconciling us to God and to one another.
Even if biblical, then, WO must still be implemented in a way that adheres to the biblical process governing the resolution of conflicts within the Body of Christ. It must be implemented to advance and not hinder the ultimate purpose of the process (the salvation of others by reconciling us to God and to one another).
After so many years of going back and forth on the WO question, where are we today? Now that three General Conference (GC) Sessions in a span of 25 years have addressed questions directly pertaining to the practice of WO, many among us are starting to question the authority of the GC.
Once again, the process sheds light on the problem. If the GC did not have authority to address the WO questions presented in the 1990, 1995 and 2015 Sessions, why did the WO lobby bother bringing these questions before the GC? It is like going to a judge and saying, “I know this is not really within your jurisdiction, but please bless it anyway!”
Bringing a question to the GC and then questioning the authority of the GC to decide the question, after obtaining an unfavorable ruling, certainly highlights the ineptness and inconsistencies in the advancement of WO.
More, if the unions indeed have the authority to address the WO question posed at the 1990 GC Session, why was the question not taken to the unions first and why did the practice of WO start at the conference level, without prior approval from the unions?
For instance, the Southeastern California Conference (SECC) ordained women in or about September 1995, within days of the 1995 GC Session. Yet, that was not done with the prior approval of the Pacific Union, which did not address the disparate WO practices among conferences until 2012.
If the unions are indeed entrusted with the authority to decide the WO question, why did the SECC not seek permission from the Pacific Union before commencing the practice of WO?
Moreover, when conferences finally sought the blessing of the Pacific Union for their practice of WO, that blessing was given without any question about the authority of individual conferences to practice WO in the absence of prior permission by the Union.
While WO has been practiced in various forms by individual conferences within the Pacific Union for over 20 years now, it was not until 2012 that conferences within that Union sought and obtained the Union’s blessing for their WO practices.
Nonetheless, the Pacific Union sought no accountability from conferences for exceeding their authority in ordaining women for the years prior to 2012. If the authority for permitting WO indeed lies with the unions, the Pacific Union should have at least questioned the authority of conferences to ordain women without prior permission from that Union.
Further, if individual conferences had the authority to ordain women prior to 2012 without the Pacific Union’s permission, why did they bring the WO question before the Union at all and why did the Union even take up the question?
Also, if the Pacific Union addressed the question solely to resolve a conflict in WO practices among its conferences, how could the Union resolve such a conflict if it does not have the authority to shape ordination practices?
The dumbfounding precedent (or apparent precedent) established by the Pacific Union in 2012 was that individual conferences may engage in divisive practices with impunity, for many years, thus undermining the authority of the Union itself.
Furthermore, if neither the GC nor the unions have authority to decide the WO question, this leaves the individual conferences as gatekeepers of deciding whether to permit WO. If that is the case, however, why all the headache and bickering of bringing WO questions to the GC level, thrice?
The foregoing conundrums have caused much aggravation and stumbling in the faith of many because, even if they can be somehow explained in some convoluted technical way, the cloud of appearance of impropriety has already been cast.
After considering the foregoing, a much worse picture emerges of the WO conflict. As if there has been an ulterior purpose for advancing the WO agenda, that has nothing to do with whether WO is biblical!
We now have a procedural nightmare within our Church’s organizational structure – a nightmare because the foregoing disparate practices are now a precedent in the minds of many people, especially those in leadership, over how we are to handle future disagreements within the Church.
What will prevent individual conferences now from doing something that does not agree with established Church practices, although not expressly forbidden, such as compelling all pastors to take a spiritual formation course or ordaining transgender pastors, without prior permission from their respective unions or the GC?
The biblical process for establishing biblical truth within the Body of Christ has been botched in the advancement of the WO agenda, whether or not the practice of WO is biblical.
So much for “things [being] done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40, NKJV), and so much for “[a]bstain[ing] from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21, 22, KJV)!
No secular entity with a well-established organizational structure would permit what we have done in the name of advancing WO – allowing a culture of subversion of authority (or at the least the appearance of subversion of authority) to persist. Why has this happened then among God’s people!
This trial of our Church has not been about who prevails over whether or not WO is biblical. Rather, it has been about how we resolve disagreements within the Body of Christ and whether we esteem the salvation of others, while in the search for and establishment of biblical truth.
When issues of process are involved, the ultimate question is not who is right. After all, God alone is right about anything and everything! The ultimate question is whether the one who is right vindicates not only the truth and his or her character, but also the rights of others and the integrity of the biblical process, by which God Himself is vindicated.
Who is Val Loumber? Please some background info.
per the bio summary here on AToday
Val (full first name is Valery) Loumber lives in Northern California with his wife. Originally from Europe, he was born and grew up in an Adventist home (3rd generation SDA). He is passionate about ministry. For many years, he has been involved in various ministry work, including personal ministries, church planting, lay preaching, radio programming and, more recently, writing. He is an attorney and has been an extensive legal writer for over 11 years. Val also has tremendous interest in science, as he holds degrees in Biology and Chemistry.
BTW, the world wide web is not always accurate. Val is not a member of the Shingle Spring SDA Church, as Elaine has concluded below.
There are several delegates who are lay persons that come from Africa, Inter and South America who have advanced the idea that Woman’s Ordination was a “Red Herring” issue all along. Their reasoning is that Brother Wilson for some time has been presenting himself as the ONLY person equipped to put rebellion in the SDA church (from the conservative point of view) in check. Sort of a human hero for a right-wing, literalist agenda of the church. It was never really centered on a vote against ordination it was more a political power play with a convenient red-herring issue to keep it in the “front burner” for discussions. Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue. In fox hunting, hounds are prevented from catching the fox by distracting them with the strong scent of red herring. Similarly, a group calling for accountability can be stopped from proving their point in an argument by distracting them with another issue. There are other more compelling reasons why Brother Ted should have stepped aside at this critical juncture for the good of the church. He chose not to and at the very end claimed “hands off” on the red-herring that was used to garner support from African, Inter and South American delegates. In this case, tragically it was successful, for the short haul. The longer “haul” may be another story.
Sam said,
“It was never really centered on a vote against ordination it was more a political power play with a convenient red-herring issue to keep it in the “front burner” for discussions.”
Many of realize that nothing was accomplished accept the affirmation of authority by the GC. As you pointed out, WO wasn’t the issue but was used to side track and divert focus to church authority.
I have no objection to the idea of GC authority. I do object to a diversion from the issue of WO to another topic.
I don’t believe Unions have absolute authority to ordain whoever they please outside the guidelines stated by the GC. Anymore than a pastor has a right to baptize anyone he wants and ignore the guidelines stated by the church for baptism. Authority is limited to act only in harmony with the authority that stands above you.
A person who owns a company may delegate authority to various individuals who hold the position of “head of the department” in the business. But head of the department does not mean they have absolute authority outside the owners stated guidelines.
Unions seem to think delegated authority means they can ignore any guidelines set out for ordination by those who gave them the authority in the first place. This is simply rebellion against the higher authority.
The article printed is a very hasty mish-mash of meaningless repetitions, difficult to follow. Who is this person and what authority does he have to write as one?
Dr. Gary Patterson, field secretary of the G.C. has written numerous times that the working policy of the church organization gives full authority for the unions to determine those who are ordained in its territory. The G.C. has never previously demanded that each individual to be ordained must receive approval of the G.C. It is left to the local conference, with the approval of the union to make that decision.
Now, the hastily written new advice (dated Aug. 15 FOLLOWING the G.C. has changed that policy without vote and only an executive order. Who is there to ask the seriously required questions of how and why this sudden change in the former policy?
“No secular entity with a well-established organizational structure would permit what we have done in the name of advancing WO – allowing a culture of subversion of authority (or at the least the appearance of subversion of authority) to persist. Why has this happened then among God’s people!”
The author fails to recognize that many who support WO consider their movement a modern “Martin Luther” reformation. So, how would this article be understood in the context of the Reformation where the advocates of truth by-passed “properly ordained authority in the church” and claimed bible truth transcends any church authority?
He seems to think church authority and procedure is more important than the truth itself. Protestantism does not hold this view.
Bill, the biblical process by which God decides how to use truth is truth in and of itself. It is as much truth as any substantive biblical truth. I do not think you can separate the two. Consider that God never holds our future choices against us (Saul is a good example of this). If God took truth outside of the biblical process by which He is resolving the controversy between good and evil, Saul should not have been a king (just an example). Also, many (if not most) proponents of WO have taken the position that WO is a mere policy issue. Thus, the Martin Luther comparison is not a very good one. (I personally do not agree that WO is merely a question of policy) More, this is not about church authority or procedure. It is about how we resolve disagreements/conflicts, regardless of who has the authority to decide the WO question. God’s people should do things in decency and in order above all other people on the earth. The article highlights the confusion and impropriety (including serious appearance of impropriety) over how we have decided to introduce and implement WO in our midst, regardless of who or what is the proper church authority and procedure, or whether the practice of WO is indeed biblical.
“Bill, the biblical process by which God decides how to use truth is truth in and of itself. It is as much truth as any substantive biblical truth. I do not think you can separate the two.”
Val, Luther separated what you claim can not be separated. The Catholic church would love to have this idea implanted in the minds of people, and then state that God has ordained the Catholic church to define truth and how it is applied.
But truth, and the church are not, ipso facto, one and the same thing. And God has ordained no church as being infallible, and thus the church is subject to scripture, not scripture to the church.
Bill, I agree with your assessment of what Luther did. My point is entirely different, however. The biblical process discussed in the article is not our Church authority or our Church procedure. I am far from knowing much about these. The biblical process is us doing things in order and with decency, and at the least not contradicting ourselves at every turn (I am addressing us corporately as a Church-see Dan. 9:5), which I think the article illustrates by outlining the contradictory positions taken in the advancing of WO over the years.
Elaine, it might me helpful to reread the article. The article does not take a position on who has authority within the SDA Church to resolve the WO question. The article makes a much bigger point than that. It points out that whatever we do, we must do in order and in decency, as we have purported to be God’s people. It amazes me that we have an entire society built on process/procedure (take our judicial system for example), in how and when substantive truths are implemented, yet we tend to apply biblical truth without regard to the process God is using to resolve the great controversy between good and evil and bring salvation to us all. As the last paragraph of the article states: this is more than just what is substantive truth (keeping the Sabbath, honoring your parents, etc.) and who is right; we have to take into account also the rights of others and the integrity of the process God is using to bring the controversy to an end. For instance, protecting the salvation rights of those who reject Jesus is an essential part of the process God is utilizing to resolve the great controversy. Remember what Jesus said about offenses!
” Remember what Jesus said about offenses!”
Yes, He said offenses must necessarily come, and woe to that man who creates the offense.”
In this, Jesus speaks of Himself who was the most “offensive” individual to ever come into the world. And paid for it with His life.
Bill, I think you may be confusing Matt. 21:44 “And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder” with what Jesus said in Matt. 18:6-7 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!”
The latter text is talking about those who will become an offense / stumbling block for the salvation of others.
The latter text is ALSO talking about those who will become an offense / stumbling block for the salvation of others.
Val Loumber is a member of the Shingle Springs, CA SdA church and frequently a speaker for Sabbath services, according to the calendar for several years.
He is a judicial law clerk in Sacramento and on the church page there is an ad for “Advinticate.”
Hello Val,
Glad you are engaged and that the AToday editors brought your column to us.
I think you raise an important point. How ought the church to handle an ecclesiastical practice like Women’s Ordination? This truly is the issue at hand. And I greatly respect Gary Patterson, and find his response to the GC observation quite compelling, and I think you have identified a more important issue. Now, what do we do regarding Women’s Ordination in a church where there is considerable divide with respect to embracing this practice?
You rightly seek a proven biblical process, one by which you observe God Himself is vindicated.
Acts 15 is a cogent illustration.
Congregational membership for males, without biblically required circumcision, was becoming fairly widely reported.
In Acts 15, church leadership affirms the congregations in accepting non-circumcised male members, and indeed removes all restrictions to membership save for abstaining from strangled meat and sexual fornication. This was done, not on the basis of biblical analysis no by a vote but on leadership’s observing the Holy Spirit at work in the congregations.
Under these same terms, today leadership can observe how Women’s ordination is working in practice and affirm what is best and move forward, while trusting the same Holy Spirit to see to it that what isn’t working will die away on its own.
Make sense, Val?
Hello Bill G.! One of the things that I see come up in secular conflict resolution over and over again is people’s inability to see reason because of emotions and because they know they are right. Yet, so often I see people lose the war while they are concentrated on winning one battle. I think this is the turf where Satan plays with us the most. I think(whatever that is worth) what you are saying will not work because it will require restoring relations between the two camps (no matter how congenial the two camps want to appear, this is not the case). There is much tension and antagonism that is clearly overwhelming and often decision governing. People in leadership are already making decisions about evangelism and other important functions of our Church solely based on WO positions. Restoring relations between the two camps will require diffusing the antagonism that has been built and continues to escalate over the ongoing practice of WO. This is a fire that has been kindling for many, many years now, spanning multiple generations of Church leadership. Restoring relations will require a lot of prayer and fasting on both sides. God help us!
Both camps have a lot to learn about biblical conflict resolution (including myself). God can easily tell us what He thinks about WO. It is much more difficult for Him, however, to teach us how to resolve disagreements and conflicts one with another. After all, is not this the whole point of the plan of salvation – final resolution of the great controversy between good and evil, God’s way! In short, I think Acts 15 is far from adequate to assist in where we are in the conflict over WO practice.
Thanks for your very helpful engagement here, Val.
Looks like Moore’s volume is ‘only available from third-party sellers’ on Amazon which complicates things.
Paul takes up oneness in Christ while addressing the congregation in Corinth, which was getting, shall we say, rambunctious. In the 13th chapter of his first letter to them, he explains that knowledge is always incomplete and vanishing. He explains that spiritual expressions have their limits when they inevitably cease. And he explains that understanding prophecy inevitably fails. What endures is Faith and Trust (the ‘archaic’ KJV word Hope means Trust), and the social outcome of Faith and Trust, which is Love. We love because we have Faith and Trust that we have been loved by Jesus. And the privacy of Faith and Trust becomes the social binder if you will that Paul calls Love. And Paul affirms that Love exceeds for the congregation the value of Faith and Trust.
This seems is Paul’s follow-on to James’ response in Acts 15 in recognizing of the Holy Spirit’s engagement by having measured to non-circumcised members in congregations across the Empire, faith. And common faith in Jesus as Savior is the rock from which unity arises. James brought unity to the church by rejecting the need for uniformity with regard to any other issue. And this proved more than sufficient.
So how can we find this path today, Val?
Forgot to mention Bill G., a good book on biblical conflict resolution is Pastor/Professor Leroy Moore’s “Power of Humility.” If you have the chance, look into it. You will be blessed. Few people know this, but EGW’s admonition for Butler and Smith was the same as the admonition she had for Waggoner and Jones. While one side was right about substantive biblical truth (righteousness by faith) and the other was wrong, both sides were wrong in the way they handled their disagreement/conflict.
Val asks: “What will prevent individual conferences now from doing something that does not agree with established Church practices, although not expressly forbidden, such as compelling all pastors to take a spiritual formation course or ordaining transgender pastors, without prior permission from their respective unions or the GC?”
Well, if any theme stands out in the blog it is this:
The progress or knowledge of “Truth” is secondary to the salvation of people. If individual Conferences are/feel led by God to conduct Ministry in such ways, whether by WO or Transgender pastors etc, to advance the salvation of souls, why would Val object?
It may not be “truth”, but if it engenders (pardon pun) salvation…. who should care? We all should… by praising God!!
Hi Chris.
I disagree that “[t]he progress or knowledge of ‘Truth’ is secondary to the salvation of people.” The article does not advocate this, far from it. God’s truth is absolute and there is no room for relativism with Him. We have to live to the light we have. The point is that God uses truth in a way to bring salvation to us. Wonder how much truth we do not know yet!? Yet, God is careful in not overwhelming us with truth, as we may not be able to handle all truth, as He knows it. Consider John 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now,” Jesus speaking. If God is gracious in how He introduces truth to us, not to become a stumbling block for our salvation, why cannot we do the same one to another? God refraining from prohibiting divorce in the NT is a good example of this.
Have to be the bearer of bad news here, but there is already a spiritual formation course in place. It’s called the Seminary. Much spiritual formation happens there in the way of bible study, prayer and discussions about how to do practical ministry for the church. Be very afraid.
It is amazing how many people have lost their faith in our seminaries, including many of our pastors, theologians and even people like Dale Ratzlaff! We should be afraid, but not for our Church, as God will see to it. Rather, we should be afraid about where we stand.
Sorry, my name got cut short on that… 🙂
Val, you cannot have it both ways:
In your blog, here is one of the many iterations of your point that truth is subservient to advance of the gospel:
“If the introduction of biblical truth among God’s people is not restrained by the biblical principle of truth’s having to advance and not hinder the salvation of others, then truth is elevated in value above the salvation of others – the overriding objective of the plan of salvation. This is unbiblical because it elevates truth, as abstract knowledge, above the Truth in the Person of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World, Who came for one purpose only, “to seek and save the lost””
If one takes the perspective that WO and Transgender are truth, and their practice were to advance the Gospel, you could not argue against it and uphold what you have written above!
In the same way, if WO and transgender are not truth, but within the context of western culture their practice advanced the gospel, you should not complain either, because, yet again, the purpose of salvation is being met!!
Why would you hinder the gospel?
Where culture is appropriate, it seems to me the ordination of Women and even transgender etc etc would advance the salvation of others…. The only hindrance to this is the division and controversy created by those more interested in “truth”, or their interpretation of it!
Chris,
I did not say that we sacrifice biblical truth for the sake of others’ salvation. That is something you have concluded. The portion you quoted above says “If the introduction of biblical truth among God’s people is not restrained….” It does not say “If biblical truth among God’s people is not restrained….” God does not use falsity to accomplish the salvation of others. That would make truth relative and actually defeat salvation in Jesus, in Whom truth is absolute.
The point of the article is that even if WO is truth (and as you say it can reach people for salvation), the way WO has been advanced has become a stumbling block for the salvation of many in our Church, and even onlookers from outside. This is especially serious as many, including proponents of WO, agree that WO is not a salvational issue. Thus, if I am a proponent of WO, my being in a Church not practicing WO, will not result in my loss, especially when I have done everything short of violating the biblical process to advance WO. God honored both Joshua and Caleb even though they stayed with those who refused to go into Canaan. That is how we fulfill Rom 14:13, 21″let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way … let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another….It is good neither to… nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made…
Val,
I see what you are saying, but the way you have explained it raises the question about the way WO has been advanced “being a stumbling block”.
From my observation the only reason any “advancing’ of the WO cause creating stumbling blocks is because of adverse reactions by “conservatives” (for want of a better word).
The point I am taking from your blog is that if all sides put the value of advancing the gospel in prime place there be less stumbling blocks created.
Perhaps it is here we can agree: it is probably those clinging to an idea of “truth” on both or either side that can cause the angst.
“The point I am taking from your blog is that if all sides put the value of advancing the gospel in prime place there be less stumbling blocks created.”
Yes, I agree with that as a general statement. Putting it into practice is where I think we lose people.
Val,
I just noticed this point you made in your last comment:
“God does not use falsity to accomplish the salvation of others. That would make truth relative and actually defeat salvation in Jesus, in Whom truth is absolute.”
mmm, but He DOES permit “falsity” to exist in the context of bringing salvation to others. As you noted, He allegedly defers the introduction of truth, so to speak, yet can be said to have brought salvation to people even in the context of this absence of truths. It is a fine line between letting such exist and “using” it imho. He uses given cultural contexts, even with their “falsities”
So, there I would also beg to differ: Truth Is Relative.
Truth cannot be relative because the moment you start on that slippery slope there is no turning back. That rabbit hole is full of scary surprises, the worst of all being God’s character misrepresented. As 1 John 1:5 says “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.” The cultural argument is a good example of the slippery slope problem because cultural practices are fluid and easily changeable by what is popular with people, making my truth different and relative to your truth, yet acceptable. In other words, instead of dealing with disagreements, we eliminate them by making everyone’s subjective idea of “truth” acceptable. I do not see how anyone can accept Jesus under such circumstances, as He advocates only one way (i.e.,absolute truth) and how Christians can disagree with those promoting Ghandi as the way to salvation, for example. Consider practices that we find unacceptable in Western culture, yet prevalent in other cultures, such as polygamy (just thought of this as I read about the conversion of a man in China just prior to the cultural revolution who was practicing polygamy when he met Jesus)! God will use “cultural contexts” to reach people, but He never leaves us where He finds us. He wants us to be lights in this world and for His perfect will for humanity to triumph at the end. If we are still where He found us, it is not because of Him, but because of us wanting to do our will.”There is a way that seems right to a man ….” (Pr.14:12)
Val: “Truth cannot be relative because the moment you start on that slippery slope…”
Argument from fear.
Val: “The cultural argument is a good example of the slippery slope problem because cultural practices are fluid and easily changeable by what is popular with people, making my truth different and relative to your truth, yet acceptable.”
Precisely as you have declared: God works through exactly that slow, fluid process to amass truth over time. Generation by generation.
Val: “I do not see how anyone can accept Jesus under such circumstances, as He advocates only one way (i.e.,absolute truth)”
Strange how his absolute truth has been unfolding for 2000 years if it was so absolute.
Val: “God will use “cultural contexts” to reach people, but He never leaves us where He finds us. … If we are still where He found us, it is not because of Him, but because of us wanting to do our will.”
In a thousand generations every person who has found “salvation” has only ever moved from things within their generational culture – never out of their generation. All have died wherein he found them: their generation. Polygamists, slave traders, etc all have died with “salvation” as found within their context.
Very relative truth bro…!
The only way Val’s theory is relevant is if the ordination issue is not a moral issue. For those who believe it is a moral issue, the whole argument is out the window. Moral truth is not subject to church manipulation but demands decision and separation. No amount of political agendas will solve the problem.
So those who deny it is a moral issue can pontificate on an on about unity and church policy and how unity is to be achieved. It is a false dilemma that refuses to deal with the intensity of the issue on a moral imperative basis.
It is a moral issue Bill (I disagree with your characterization of what I am contending as a theory and that it does not apply if WO is a moral issue). Remember who does the separation/spewing out in Rev. 3:14-17? Jesus. It will happen as it happened with the early apostolic church, as to which John wrote that “They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us.” We should be careful about who does the separating, as none of us are in charge of the Body of Christ. Jesus is building God’s temple and He decides which living stone to use and which to cast. My point is merely that we do not have to lose our salvation by only not having or agreeing with biblical truth. We could have and agree with biblical truth but still lose our salvation due to our misuse of that truth. This is where Satan conducts quite successful operations against God’s people.
Val,
Your comment above is dead-on target.
The late Pastor Glenn Coon (author of ABC’s Of Prayer) in his presentations, warned against “working for the Lord like the Devil”.
The Devil is all about the power of Coercion. Jesus Christ is all about the power of Love.
Unfortunately, on both sides of this debate we have leaders who are all to willing to employ the power of coercion rather than trusting in the power of love.
The late Ellen White wrote of the “softening, subduing influence of the Holy Spirit” upon human hearts. Would that those who tout her inspiration, would heed her counsel.
From the few posts, I see that some of us are missing the point by miles. I believe the title I would like to proffer is: Women’s Ordination: A test on biblical truth/Process OR A test on fidelity to God’s Church as it gives voice by vote on issues? You see friends, when God speaks through the voice of the majority at a constituency meeting we must submit to the vote. If the majority is wrong then God will rectify it in His time. He has not given it to us to chop and change or choose only what we like. We are not to destroy or divide the church on issues like this when the constituency votes against it. It is not a moral or theological issue. Even if it were, let God over turn in His own time, not man’s. God told Samuel not to resist the unfortunate call for a king. And even God accepted the hapless issue by compromising that He choose the king. Let’s stop our bickering and get on with the Lord’s work. He will use women and children regardless of how anyone feels. He alone knows how to do it correctly. Stand back and let Him take over. Again, stop the protests and do not give in to the devil in any way, shape or form. God bless all. May His church continue to the end!
Will you also advise the GC hierarchy to stop issuing their threats of dire consequences?
If you want peace, then where is the benefit of issuing an arguably flawed position paper? Said paper being a very selective recitation of the arguments for GC hegemony over the Union Conferences which are in fact its constituents?
Should not the GC also stand-down and let God take-over this matter?
4035976053
Let’s name the players in this story Mrs. A and Mr. & Mrs. B.
Somewhere around 2013, Mrs. A favored the ordination of women. Mr. B was opposed to the ordination of women. Mrs. B was even more opposed to the ordination of women than Mr. B was.
Mrs. A asked Mr. B what he thought about the ordination of women. Mr. B replied that the question could not be properly addressed until a more basic question was, namely, what ordination is and what it isn’t.
After the GC session in San Antonio, Mrs. A said that she thought no one should be ordained “for now”.
She didn’t say what she meant by “for now” but I submit that her suggestion may have merit. Maybe members of our organization should desist from ordaining anyone until two related questions can be answered: 1. What is ordination (and what is it not)? 2. What is the church?
It has been customary in our denomination for “ordained” ministers to baptize people and “officiate” at celebrations of the Lord’s supper? Maybe we should have paid more attention to the implications of those customs. Where is there a biblical prohibition against laity baptizing people? Was Stephen wrong to baptize an Ethiopian Eunuch when he (Stephen) was “only” a deacon? Does the use of the word, “officiate” imply a sacramental view of the Lord’s supper?
If the goal was to persuade people that the 2015 vote was about women’s ordination, it was a successful ruse. It wasn’t about the ordination of women, it was about the…
Thanks Roger! But I see a flaw here. We do not have to cease ordination for now. We just have to revert or back up to early church’s days. That is, have the men as per procedure ordained. From there we ask God for guidance and have the constituency vote to have the church in its varied divisions ‘do church’ according to the prevailing customs in their areas as long as each division does not contravene biblical guidelines and standards. And guess what? We may have to accept plurality of wives in some quarters; and all deacons and elders must be married to one wife in order to be an elder. And for women? We first have to make them elders; next we have to agree that ‘married to one wife’ can refer to husband too. Achieving that we can then proceed to ordain women as elders and pastors! Does God care? Don’t think so! But if we do not follow the constituency then what other option do we have?
Ron, I’m afraid this might seem like I’m picking on you but I’ve seen the language, “doing church”, several times now. It is a phrase I have never used. I’m wondering whether you can explain how the meaning of that phrase differs from the phrase, “playing church”.
Yes, Jim. But will you sin because someone is sinning? What counts here is the constituency. A while back under Poulsen the GC wanted WO but it was defeated by the constituency. Now it’s the opposite. Nil/nil! In fact it is nil, nil, nil in favour of the constituency. Regardless, however, we have to follow God’s advice, not man’s. And He says that when the constituency votes, then we are to follow that as His leading. That’s all I am saying brother.
I think you addressed this to me?
I think we may be agreeing on many things if not every thing?
For a more complete presentation of my own views see another Atoday web page:
https://atoday.org/separate-but-equal-a-pastors-reflections-on-the-2015-gc-session.html#comment-34607
https://atoday.org/separate-but-equal-a-pastors-reflections-on-the-2015-gc-session.html#comment-34615
https://atoday.org/separate-but-equal-a-pastors-reflections-on-the-2015-gc-session.html#comment-34669
Val,
I haven’t had the time to read all of the comments, but note you believe that any change should first address the salvation of people. I totally agree on this priority, and that is why I believe each part of the world must have the freedom to choose how they would handle the issue of WO. For example, we know that by denying WO (even though it has roots in tradition) in western countries, it will stifle the church’s ability to reach the public, and we will continue to lose young members. I am appalled that other parts of the world do not care about this.
On the other hand there are parts of the world where evangelism would be stalled because of WO. They need the freedom to decide against it.
Yes, I am sure it could have been handled differently.
Remember doing away with slavery in America caused a war with many Christians claiming slavery was God-ordained–headship of the slave owner!
Remember that Jesus sent his disciples first to Jerusalem, then to Judea, only then to Samaria, and only after that to the ends of the earth. Our first responsibility is to our own brothers and sisters in the SDA Church. This includes especially the salvational rights of our brothers and sisters. I would not want to justify before God one day why I have pushed for something that is perceived to be good for the ministry of the Church, even though that something has become a tremendous stumbling block for many of my brothers and sisters in the Church. The reality is that many members of our Church are not theologically equipped to determine for themselves whether WO is biblical. It is not a surprise then that many of the people I know, who have an issue with WO, are not so much troubled with the theology of WO, as much as with the way WO has been propagated and advanced.
This is where I believe God does not cut any corners. The ends do not justify the means and, even if they do, it His prerogative to make that call, not ours. I would not want to stand before Almighty God one day, trying to explain why I took that position. The reality is that WO is not indispensable to the preaching of the Gospel by our Church, much less to the heralding of the Second Coming. It is God Himself Who will do this work. “For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,
Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.” Rom. 9:28.
While human history would prove the author is correct, in that God is often slow to reveal new ideas to his people, it also show us that when he does start revealing them, the results are usually messy and controversial. In fact, the concern for the impact of change on other believers is a large part of what has made this process so messy thus far. Why else seek a group decision on an action not governed either by the church’s theology or its Working Policy?
But Paul’s model of mutual forbearance on controverted issues can only work when the forbearance IS mutual. When it becomes an excuse for the weaker conscience to control the stronger, we are beyond the context of which Paul spoke.
Messiness has always been the result of misconduct by those who have not heeded God’s voice, whether or not they were right. As Samuel said, it is better to obey than sacrifice. 1 Sam. 15:22. Jesus also said, I desire mercy (a relational attribute) and not sacrifice (which tends to place the focus on self, how well I am doing before God).
I am not certain where the Bible speaks of forbearance, although it does speak of submission, which sadly has become quite a taboo subject in the WO context.