.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Z - Archived Bloggers & Columnists
Z - Guest Writers
2012
|
Analysis of What is Happening with the Ordination of Women Pastors
Submitted: Jul 19, 2012
By Dr. Gary PattersonIn order to understand the handling of the issue of women’s ordination in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, it is important to know how the structure of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination functions and from whence its institutional authority is derived.
There are four principle documents governing the church, and four constituent groups in its structure. The four documents are the 28 fundamental beliefs, the Constitution and Bylaws, the Church Manual and the General Conference Working Policy. The four constituent groups are the local church, the local conference, the union conference and the General Conference. Divisions are not constituent organizations, but rather are divisions of the General Conference, providing leadership and direction in defined geographic territories.
The 28 fundamental beliefs, the Constitution and Bylaws, and the Church Manual are determined and modified only by a vote of the General Conference in session. The General Conference Working Policy is determined and modified by vote of the Annual Council of the General Conference Committee.
The four constituent groups have authority over specific functions of the church that belong only to them and may not be taken or countered by the other constituent groups. The local church is the only constituent level which can take action regarding membership issues, church officer election, appointment and ordination of elders, deacons and deaconesses, local church budgets and finance and other such local church functions. The local conference is the only constituent level that can take action regarding the sisterhood of churches, its employees, institutions and finance. It also votes to recommend individuals for ordination to the gospel ministry, to the union conference. But it does not have the power to authorize such ordination. This authority rests with the Union. The division and the General Conference may authorize ordination of their employees, but has no authority over those voted by the union.
The Permission Issue
Ordination is, by General Conference policy, the purview of the union level of governance. This being the case, the General Conference has overstepped its bounds in seeking to tell the unions that they may or may not ordain women to the gospel ministry. It is not within the authority of the General Conference to take such action, just the same as if the taking of such action regarding individual membership, the election of personnel for church offices, or in the sisterhood of churches issues is not the purview of the General Conference Session. These actions belong to the constituent level to which they are assigned by policy and may not be determined or overruled by higher levels of the church structure.
An additional example of this overreach occurs in the General Conference action granting permission for churches to ordain women to the position of local church elder. There was no existing action prohibiting such election or ordination of elders or any other church office on the basis of gender. Therefore, there was no cause for granting such permission from the General Conference. Church officer election is under the authority of the local church constituency and by policy, higher organizations are not allowed to interfere in this process.
The General Conference, union or conference may not, for example, tell the local church whether it can elect women as treasurer or clerk of the church. Likewise they have no authority either to deny or give permission for women to be elected and ordained as elders. They may give advice on such matters, but it is not in their purview to dictate who may or may not be elected. With no action forbidding such gender choices, the church does not need permission to do as it sees fit.
How We Got to this Place
The issue of ordination of women was discussed by the General Conference officers as far back as 1950, at which time it was decided to appoint a committee to study the matter and report back to the officers. Again in 1970, a committee was appointed to study the issue and to report to the Autumn Council of the General Conference Committee later that year. In 1973, the report of the Mohaven Committee on women in ministry was accepted by the Annual Council, authorizing continued study. In 1974, the Annual Council voted to continue studying the issue. In 1985, the General Conference Session voted to study it further. In 1988, North American Division Leaders voted to end the discriminatory policies affecting women in ministry.
It was in the General Conference Officer group known as ADCOM in the late 1980’s that this issue was discussed with a view to placing the matter on the General Conference agenda for the 1990 General Conference session in Indianapolis. There were those on the committee at that time who objected to this being placed on the agenda on the basis that this was a matter defined by General Conference Policy to belong to the Union level of authority. There existed no action or policy of the church defining ordination as gender exclusive. Therefore, the General Conference had no authority to tell the unions whom they may or may not ordain.
ADCOM and the Annual Council did, however, place this matter on the General Conference session agenda, counter to their authority to take action on a matter which, by policy, belongs to the union level of governance. The General Conference would be within its right to give council to the unions, but not to usurp the decision process which belonged to the union level.
It is important to be clear on the action taken in this matter at the Indianapolis meeting. It was not, as often represented, a vote forbidding such ordination, but rather the failure of an action to proceed with ordination. Thus the effect of this vote was simply that the proposed action went away. In fact, another action was taken granting performance of the functions of ministry to women pastors. This was done under the authority of a “Commissioned Minister” credential which, for women pastors, paralleled the “Ordained Minister” credential.
The matter continued to be under discussion for the following five years and was again placed on the agenda of the 1995 General Conference session in Utrecht at the request of the North American Division. At this meeting it was officially recognized that there was no biblical or theological to support a position of forbidding such ordination, and the vote there again did not forbid it, but rather stated that to avoid division in the world church, the request was denied “at this time.”
At present, the matter is under continuing study. The General Conference officers have outlined a plan whereby “Biblical Research Committees in all divisions have been asked to conduct a study on the theology of ordination and its implications. In addition, during 2012, the General Conference Administrative Committee will appoint a Theology of Ordination Study Committee, with representation from all divisions, to oversee and facilitate the global discussion process and to prepare reports for presentation to the General Conference Executive Committee. The Annual Council 2014 will determine what action, if any, should be recommended to the 2015 General Conference Session.”
Policy Issues
Authority for ordination is assigned to the union level of church governance as indicated by General Conference Working Policy L 45 05. It states, “After favorable consideration the local conference committee will submit the name of the candidate with its findings and convictions to the union for counsel and approval.” There is no gender reference in this policy whatsoever. The policy does allow that the Division and General Conference may handle their own ordination matters separately from the union by submitting for processing the consideration of selected individuals in their employ for ordination to their respective executive committees for authorization. However, it does not allow for interference by either the Division or General Conference level in the action of the union.
Regarding discrimination in ordination, General Conference Working Policy B 60 10 states, “The world church supports nondiscrimination in employee practices and policies and upholds the principle that both men and women, without regard to race and color, shall be given full and equal opportunity within the church to develop the knowledge and skills needed for the building up of the Church. Positions of service and responsibility (except those requiring ordination to the gospel ministry*) on all levels of church activity shall be open to all on the basis of the individual’s qualifications.”
The asterisk refers to a note at the bottom of the page which reads, “The exception clause, and any other statement above, shall not be used to reinterpret the action already taken by the world Church authorizing the ordination of women as local church elders in divisions where the division executive committees have given their approval.”
This policy establishes two matters which bear on the issue of the current discussion of the ordination of women. First, the policy establishes that the position it takes is discriminatory. The issues of gender, race and color are delineated as being covered by this policy, but it then selects one of these, gender to be specific, as an exception to the policy, thus indicating that discrimination is acceptable in this instance. One can imagine the justifiable outcry if either race or color were selected as a valid reason for discrimination, which brings up the question as to why gender discrimination is acceptable and the others are not.
The footnote establishes the second issue relevant to the discussion. A major point in the argument against unions moving ahead with what is by policy their official domain of decision, is the call for unity in the world church. However, this policy indicates that the unity claim has already been officially breached among the divisions in the matter of the ordination of women as elders. As it states, this issue is to be decided by where “the division executive committees have given their approval.” Thus it already officially exists, in the context of the ordination of women, that the divisions have gone their separate ways by authority of the General Conference Committee action. This makes the argument of unity of no effect, given that it already does not exist by official sanction in the very area of the ordination of women as elders.
What is Unity?
The very sound of the word “unity” is such as to invite an automatic acceptance of the idea. How would anyone dare be opposed to unity. So, for the sake of the discussion, let us assume that we all are for unity in the church. But having made that assumption, the difficult task has only begun, as we must address what we mean by unity. The concept seems to exist that if we just abandon the pursuit of the ordination of women to the gospel ministry that unity will be achieved. But why is this a one-way street? Why is it not just as true that if we approve it, unity will be achieved? The reality is that unity is not achieved by everyone thinking and doing the same thing around the world, but rather by getting along with one another while we do many markedly different things as needed in our varied cultures and the diverse world. It is at this point that we understand that if the General Conference had not sought to enter areas that were out if its jurisdiction, we would be able to move ahead as needed in our respective areas, even as we have in the ordination of women as elders.
Biblical Example
In the early days of the church, the Apostle Peter, quoting from the book of Joel states, “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days” Acts 2:17 & 18). And on the matter of gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit he asks, “If God gave them the same gift he gave us… who was I to think I could oppose God?” (Acts 11:17) As in the day of Peter, refusal to recognize the calling to ministry of women today is the same as telling them that their calling is not of God. Do we tell the hundreds or even thousands of women who have clearly blessed ministry in North America, or for that matter in China where the work of the church is being advanced primarily by women, that their call is not from God, or at least in some way inferior to the call men receive?
Conclusion: Where do we go from here?
First, we need to recognize that unions deciding whom to ordain without respect to gender is not a violation of policy, but the General Conference making that decision for the unions is. The General Conference needs to recognize its violation of policy and remove itself from usurping action from the union.
Second, we must admit that such discrimination, as recognized and approved in General Conference Working Policy B 60 10, is unacceptable, and we must face two embarrassing questions: (A) Why is it disunity to reject such discrimination in ordination practice? (B) Why is it unity to allow divisions to discriminate against ordaining women elders?
Third, how long must we continue to study this issue? Given that this matter has been under study for over 60 years, there are those who see the current action further stalling tactics by a body which has authority to advise on the issue but does not have the constituted authority to make the decision for implementation anyway. While the General Conference in session is recognized as the highest authority in the world church, it is not entitled to impose its actions on other levels of the church in which it does not have constituted authority.
Dr. Gary Patterson served as an officer of the North American Division of the General Conference and as a member of the GC administrative committee. He was the founding director of the Office of Mission Awareness for the General Conference.
________________________
Share your thoughts about this article:
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
Not much more has to be said about this issue. It's clear, and everyone (who wants) can understand it.
"Studying" it since 1950? And no action on this? Time to stopt the B eautiful S tatements and do what has to be done to stop the discrimination of women.
Thank you Dr. Patterson!
It seems to me that allowing each Union to exercise its constitutional decision on the issue is appropriate. No one is saying that a Union that doesn't want WO will be forced to have it - only those who do want it can have it. It is a slight but important difference. Likewise, I doubt any local congregations will practicably be forced to have a woman pastor if they don't want one, which I would believe is the current situation now anyway?
Similarly, allowing the Gentiles freedom from circumcission in Acts 15 was not a command that Jewish-Christians no longer could be circumcised. I have real difficulty why we can't follow this biblical example here, even if we individually are judaizers of this issue.
Compromise is not the dirty word it is often made out to be. Remember, blessed are the peacemakers.
Past opposition to the ordination of women as pastors has been loudest from various divisions around the world where society is male-dominated and church leaders are fearful that such actions in North America will cause disruption in the church there. While pending actions here in North America may force reality upon those who oppose the ordination of women, I would prefer to see church leadership at all levels quit crying alarm and start accepting reality.
Having spent ten years (1994-2004) working at the General Conference and as a member of the General Conference Committee, I was confounded by the continual move towards centralization of power and influence. The SDA church was organized in such a way that the organization was designed to serve the mission. The committee structure was slow but allowed for wide creativity and diversity in accomplishing our mission while adapting to the local situation and what would work best in the local church.
As the centralization of power and influence increased, the role of committees deteriorated into one of granting permission and approving programs presented by a limited few. This further deteriorated into ministry areas and initiatives being assimilated into the presidential part of the church structure. This further weakened the departmental ministries and concentrated influence and power in the hands of a very few.
The decision to approach the WO issue in the way it has been addressed was just an extension of this centralization with few voices raised to address the structural evolution that was under way. This evolution moved the structure further away from empowering the mission being accomplished at the local church. Instead, mission was what the structure attempted to accomplish, thus forgetting the vital role of the local church. More and more, the local church member became a spectator watching the institutional employee struggle to accomplish what was never their role in the first place.
Perhaps WO can be an organizational wake up call that will allow us to focus on returning the mission to the local church and allowing the organization to focus on empowering ministry rather than attempting to control everything in the name of unity. This will require a return to a biblical approach to ministry that recognizes God's calling and gifting for ministry rather than institutional position and power.
I am sad that the topic was introduced at the GC level and that the waters have been muddied.
There are really two issues, although inter-related, going on here. The first is about women in ministry. But perhaps the bigger question is "What is the nature of this church?" This church was never designed to be hierarchical and authoritative. All you have to do is think about the constituent structure of the basic organizationls levels, the rights they have to elect and fire their officials and to execute their roles without authority or permission from above, to understand that power and authority do not flow downstream in this church without the consent of the downstream entities .
A 40+ year revisionism about hierarchy probably began with the Merikay Silver case, out of perceived need to make certain legal arguments. Perhaps the self-talk that arose out of statements made in depositions and other legal documents became a self-fulfilling prophecy because we have seen drift toward the assertion of hierachalism (is that a word?) ever since. Ben Maxson refers to this with first hand knowledge. I saw it myself in dealings with Neal Wilson, perhaps the chief architect of the trend.
I see the present moment as an opportunity to drive two stakes into the ground. One is on the issue of women in ministry: we need the blessings of their full service. The other is on the nature of our church: we need to re-assert that we are not a hierchical, authoritative church. I believe confirming both will be salutory.
As to your asserttion, 007Grandpa, that "the bible and spirit of prophecy are clear on the ordination of women," there are many of good faith, dedication and scholarship who do not share your perspective. How do you feel about those with other perspectives?
Just make sure that the stakes you are driving in the ground are not to split the church for many will continue to follow the plan clear teachings of thus saith the Lord.
When Jesus came the first time the jews failed to recognize the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies in him. Today many christians are failing to see that God is bringing his people together, in one purpose, to reach one goal, which is to complete the great commission. Like it or not God will elevate the dignity and the women's identity back again to its rightful place. The same she had at the time of creation in the garden of Eden, before the fall. My sisters and I accross generations and centuries have been marginalized for too long...but enough is enough!
When the Spirit of God touches your soul there is no turning back. An army of women is yet to be revealed in these last days. Such an army of young and old consecrated women that the church will be amazed! Women that are just waiting to receive their orders to join the ranks!
Thanks again for what you and other pastors are doing for our cause. God bless you!
AMEN LAURA, Why are women waiting to be ordained to spread the Word of the Lord?
"Contrary to what many male christians believe?"
Again please count the women who signed the ChristorCulture petition site
"Women that are just waiting to receive their orders to join the ranks!"
It sadly seems that some are waiting to give the orders befor they "join the ranks". God has given the orders let us strive to follow them......
This is the clearest explanation of church policy and how the G.C. has overriden its authority in dictating to the unions. The unions must take back their power and rightful position by ordaining all those women within their unions who have been long waiting to receive the official recognition due them. I hope to see many women ordained before the year is over.
Wake up and smell the flowers, folks. The continued pressure could well split the church. Efforts toward WO are obviously based on culture and unrelated to theology or the real needs of the church.
How could this issue (WO) split the church and how do you envision the outcome to be? Would there be separate churches established, differing beliefs???
Dr. Patterson was giving us the policy by which the church and its divisions and unions operate. He was not taking a position but in outlining the procedure for any changes in church operation, he was doing a great service to the many who have been falsely led to believe that only changes made from the top are recognized. Conversely, we now know that the unions have much more authority to manage their conferences than we were led to believe.
It is not rebellion for a union to exercise its prerogative specifically outlined by the G.C. policy.
Dr. Patterson was giving us the policy by which the church and its divisions and unions operate. He was not taking a position but in outlining the procedure for any changes in church operation, he was doing a great service to the many who have been falsely led to believe that only changes made from the top are recognized. Conversely, we now know that the unions have much more authority to manage their conferences than we were led to believe.
It is not rebellion for a union to exercise its prerogative specifically outlined by the G.C. policy.
As usual your clarity of thought is a blessing!
It seems to me that the Union Conferences, in this instance, are fulfilling the purpose for which they were created - to prevent centralization and the assumption of "kingly power" by a few in the General Conference. As much as I hate to admit it, it looks like Union Conferences do have a legitimate reason for existence - a reason why there will probably be an attempt in the near future to abolish them - not from the "liberal" side of the church but from the conservative who see their only hope of preventing our slide into hell in a handbasket to be strong centralized power.
Ben, appreciate your perspective too! Your checks will probably shrinking, but I appreciate both of your courage.
Oh, and by the way, anyone who has read the "Symposium on Women in Ministry" produced by the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference by conservative scholars such as Gerhardt Hasel back in the late '70s knows that the attempts to justify exclusion of women from ordination does not, in any fashion, rest on a solid Biblical foundation!
Thanks again for your willingness to be open and vulnerable.
First of all 1Timothy 2:13 points back to creation BEFORE sin, verses 14 and 15 were given AFTER sin, and to my knowledge still in effect. Then look at Timothy 3:1 If a MAN desires the office of a Bishop, HE desires a good work. Then in verse 2 it states “the HUSBAND of one wife”….
Secondly, 1Peter 2:25 is talking about the relationship of the Church and Christ which follows straight into 1 Peter 3:1,5,7 which mentions the relationship of a man and wife. So if the sin of submission was abrogated by the cross was the sin of homosexuality done away with also? Please explain.....
It's futile to keep discussing a "Bible foundation." Save your breath until a union takes action and ordain its first woman--which is their right an privilege. But unless it's your union, you have no right to protest--it doesn't affect you.
What is your suggestion for resolving such differenes around the world?
Conservative SDA scholars such as Gerhard Hasel or Frank Holbrook also interpreted these passages in the same cultural context. Thus, while there are some scholars and pastors who oppose WO on what the basis of their biblical interpretation, there are many others who are equally dedicated to biblical truth and our Fundamental Beliefs who support the biblical concepts of the priesthood of all believers and the church recognition of God's calling and gifting for ministry as equally applicable to women.
As a church, we have never taken a doctrinal position on the subject of women in pastoral ministry. The votes that have been taken have been actions voting against moving forward because of what was seen as potential divisiveness. The current debate demonstrates the level of emotion we have invested in this subject. I fear that we are now at a place where regardless of the decision the polarization and division will only continue.
The current arguments opposing WO are by and large a departure from traditional Adventism as demonstrated by many years of SDA history. The current approach to ordination is built on a less than biblical understanding of ordination. Instead, it is based on a church tradition from the Middle Ages that focused on the magisterium and authority of Apostolic Succession which derived legitimacy of ordination based on the ability to trace an unbroken chain of ordinations back to Peter as the first Pope.
The concept of “male headship” applied to the church denies the biblical truth of Christ as Head of His Church. To apply the family role differentiation to the church as a headship issue is to create a further departure from biblical truth and models of servant leadership and the calling of all members to be ministers.
The “slippery slope” argument pointing to homosexuals in church leadership as the next step is confusing apples and oranges. Our church has taken a doctrinal stance on this area based on solid biblical interpretation. Thus, this area or fear can be addressed in a totally different way, with clear doctrinal statements.
I believe it is time for prayerful consideration of a biblical approach that moves us away from the hierarchical approach to ordination that focuses on position and power. This approach to ordination is neither biblical nor Adventist. The biblical approach to “setting apart” for ministry if one of church recognition of God’s calling and gifting for ministry. The positional distinction of pastors, elders, and deacons does not appear until the second or third century and was an adaptation from the positional/power approach of the cultural Roman world. This approach further separates pastors and people. There should be no separation. We are all equal before God.
It is time to face this issue as a policy issue that should be decided at the lowest level possible. Many practices are applied in a flexible fashion around the world without dividing the church. WO can be another such practice that need not be forced on anyone while being implemented in those areas who are open and ready for it.
Shepherds who fail at home will fail at church—He who is engaged in the work of the gospel ministry must be faithful in his family life. It is as essential that as a father he should improve the talents God has given him for the purpose of making the home a symbol of the heavenly family, as that in the work of the ministry, he should make use of his God-given powers to win souls for the church. As the priest in the home, and as the ambassador of Christ in the church, he should exemplify in his life the character of Christ. He must be faithful in watching for souls as one that must give an account. In his service church there must be seen no carelessness and inattentive work. God will not serve with the sins of men who have not a clear sense of the sacred responsibility involved in accepting a position as pastor of a church. He who fails to be a faithful, discerning shepherd in the home, will surely fail of being a faithful shepherd of the flock of God in the.—Manuscript Releases 6:49
"The “slippery slope” argument pointing to homosexuals in church leadership as the next step is confusing apples and oranges."
It mixes "apples and oranges" and is the making of "fruit salad"..... when you deviate from the Word of God and "thus saith the Lord" it will be discrimination. Look at the models/examples given in the God's Word.
"It is time to face this issue as a policy issue that should be decided at the lowest level possible"
God Word should be the needle of the compass for the direction of any decission.... Men and women are making their voice heard 4,180 in just a short time at Christorculture.com. The OneinChrist site that has been out much longer has only 1920..... Some ask how would this issue split the church? Any issue that many women and men take as not being Biblical has the potential for causing a split. We are called to become one in Spirit and in TRUTH.
As a former SDA minister and clasmate of yours, I really appreciate your comments and perspective as a retired GC officer. Along with Gary Patterson and Ed Reifsnyder, you make the clearest historical, denominational, and biblical points about making the mission of the church relavent to the current situation in the western world. Thank you for not holding back on the truth as you see it.
Bohr and Bachelor are in the PUC so they can take their concerns to their union for consideration. Good luck, for they are in the small minority.
Perhaps we need to revisit the idea that we gave certain roles to ordained pastors for exactly the same reason we gave certain roles to different levels of the church: practical reasons, nothing to do with theology. That is also why we began ordaining pastors - not because it is necessary for them to do their work, but because it was a culturally acceptable way of publicly declaring the person a representative of the church. Perhaps it is time we looked at the work of ministry before we get too hung up on ordination.
When it became apparent that it was inherently wrong to deny full and equal rights to U.S. citizens based solely on the color of their skin, the Civil Rights Act was passed.
Conditions change over time; and human concepts also change. The U.S. has passed a number of laws against discrimination because of sex in the workplace, and other areas. We have become accustomed to seeing women performing in all sorts of occupations formerly assigned to men. The last fortress and barrier to women is the church.
Where there is acceptance and recognition that human abilities are not limited to either sex, it is past time in the U.S. for women to become fully recognized pastors, standing side-by-side with male pastors.
In the countries where there are long traditions of women's limitation to assigned roles, they are not ready for women to be admitted to certain vocations. It should not be forced upon them. But, in Christian charity, those churches should not constrain and try to prevent the first world churches from aiding God's church by using the talents of all who qualify, regardless of sex. Discrimination has no place in God's church: We are all one in Christ Jesus; and ignoring that clear directive to NT Christians is to fail to follow God's word.
I think your last fortress and barrier will be the NFL.....
For church institutions such as hospitals, this is an entirely different proposition. An Adventist hospital cannot discriminate in its hiring practices.
theological confusion. It has always been fear of causing divisiveness because the entire world church is not ready to recognize women as pastors. (Translation: the third world countries do not want women pastors ANYWHERE in the church.)
Thinking about in realpolitik terms, some thoughts:
> There are going to be split votes, which is historically uncomfortable in church circles.
> Opinions and positions have likely reached a tipping point where multiple Union conferences in more than one Division will vote to approve women's ordination and move forward to actually ordain women.
> The key question at this point in time is leaders and members will react to these realities.
> The time to think about the question of unity will be more pertinent after the votes predicted above than it is now. Everyone will have to decide for themselves whether we have an adequate basis for unity based on a shared mission to spread the gospel of Jesus, based on love, acceptance and fellowship in the body of Christ. Or will those with a tendency to see this as a critical doctrinal issue be sufficiently shaken that they feel a need to leave the fellowship in those parts of the world that vote to approve women's ordination?
I recently joined a Friday morning Bible study of Romans at that ultimate place of spiritual englightenment: Whole Foods Market. At my first meeting with the group, it was apparent that the question of predestination was threatening the unity and harmony of the group. I eventually offered the thought that the issue has been hotly debated by good, well-meaning, smart, scholarly people of good faith since at least the 16th century with no resolution. We have managed to reach a state of goodwill among a group of men with remarkably different beliefs. Our study and fellowship continue.
I would hope that we will find a way to unity in the face of diversity of perspectives among good, well-meaning, smart, scholarly people of the Seventh-day Adventist faith. Because a realpolitik analysis of the situation would indicate that we will face the question of how to respond to an
affirmative vote.
I think that if the PUC cowards to that and actually mails that junk to the Constituents, they should mail Dr. Patterson's article (this one) along with it.
The so-called "appeal" is nothing else but the KGC at its best!!!
Do we believe the Spirit will guide the Constituents? Aren't they the ones in charge according to the organizational map of the Remnant Church?
People should believe more in their church's administrative organization.
It is completely up to the unions for that decision and the only tactice that the G.C. has, is to infer that they, and they alone make such decisions and that unions would be in defiance if they went ahead and ordained women.
Thanks again, Dr. Patterson for giving us the straight facts. Re-read it if not convinced.
http://www.womenministrytruth.com/free-resources/articles-and-documents/id/1123/sda-world-church-official-position.aspx
After quoting from GC Working Policy L 45 05, Patterson states: "There is no gender reference in this policy whatsoever." And yet L 45 10 refers to the ordination candidate and his "wife," an obvious reference to gender. Then L50 explicitly uses the word "man." Let's not be so eager to promote WO that we resort to the deceitful spin of worldly lawyers.
While acknowledging that a GC Session is the highest authority in the church, patterson contends that a GC Session "is not entitled to impose its actions on other levels of the church in which it does not have constituted authority." This makes no sense. Is Patterson not aware that GC and NAD Working Policy explicitly states that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God? And that thus the GC Session's properly constituted authority trumps that of all other church entities, meetings, and sessions regardless of topic? And if Patterson is not aware of this basic policy, why is he writing an article such as this one as if he is an authority on the topic?
He stated the facts in a way that they make sense and are revealing about the real organizational structure of the church.
Some people don't like it when "too much" revealing info is revealed to the body...
I do not believe that any of these points are true, but would welcome anyone emailing me quotations from the official record that support this. I have read the motion that was voted upon, and nothing in that motion said "at this time," and nothing acknowledged that there was no biblical support. Further, since the motion directly requested authorization to ordain women, the voting down of the motion was an official action against ordaining women.
Yet on April 29 a conference constituency session voted down a strongly pro-WO proposal, and thus far AToday has not covered that story as far as I can tell. Certainly that April 29 vote should be considered breaking news.
Someone previously indicated that AToday is only covering session votes if there is a press release from that conference or union. Thus, if there isn't a release, there is no story. That's sounds plausible, until you consider the fact that Gary Patterson is not a conference constituency session vote, following which that conference issued a press release. Therefore, I think we have here conclusive evidence that AToday is showing too strong of a bias on WO, to the point of calling pro-WO personal opinion pieces containing clearly identifiable misinformation "Breaking News," while apparently considering constituency session votes against WO to be not news at all, much less breaking news.
As to a local conference voting not to ordain women, by definition the usual and ordinary is not news—that a conference (for example) endorses continued observance of the seventh-day Sabbath is not news. It's status quo, the expected, the routine....no offense to the Sabbath intended, I keep it religiously and gladly....
To my knowledge, Adventist Today does not promote women's ordination any more than it promotes ordination of men (in fact, I recall an article or two AGAINST both men's and women's ordination, but this is by no means a "position" taken by the magazine). But AT does promote dissemination of relevant information about ordination and its history, so leadership and laity can make informed decisions, as the Spirit opens and closes doors. The article by Dr. Patterson will be seen, I believe, as a watershed moment in the history of this discussion....
"As to a local conference voting not to ordain women, by definition the usual and ordinary is not news ...." I don't think that that would be an accurate description of what took place. A somewhat pro-WO was passed, but a strongly pro-WO motion was voted down. It was an unusual session. The officers I think were unanimously re-elected, but not before attention was drawn to GC & NAD Working Policy's statements about the authority of GC Session votes, and the importance of officers working within church policy if they are to be re-elected. There were other things too. And this session occurred in Mid-America, right where the current agitation began with the March union committee vote.
"The article by Dr. Patterson will be seen, I believe, as a watershed moment in the history of this discussion...." But what about Patterson's article (a) leaving the false impression that GC Working Policy L 45 has no reference to gender? (b) his failure to recognize that GC and NAD Working Policy states that a GC Session is the highest authority under God on earth, which pretty much trumps the authority of all other church organizations? and (c) his apparently false description of the 1995 vote as including an official recognition that there is nothing biblical or theological that prohibits WO, that that vote didn't forbid the practice, and that that vote explicitly stated that the denial was only "at that time"?
To me, publishing an article that contains critical, substantive factual errors like this suggests too strong a bias, unless it is one of two or more opinion pieces presenting contrary views. Publishing articles against all ordination, Okay, but what about an article against WO but not against men's ordination? Shouldn't there be at least one?
Titus 2:3-5; 1 Corinthians 11:7-12; 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35, 37, 38; 2 Thessalonians 2:15;
1 Thessalonians 2:13; Psalm 19:7-9
May the blessing of God's word be a lamp unto your feet and a light unto your path.
Needed in Various Branches of the Work.--In the various branches of the work of God's cause, there is a wide field in which our sisters may do good service for the Master. Many lines of missionary work are neglected. In the different churches, much work which is often left undone or done imperfectly, could be well accomplished by the help that our sisters, if properly instructed, can give. Through various lines of home missionary effort they can reach a class that is not reached by our ministers. Among the noble women who have had the moral courage to decide in favor of the truth for this time are many who have tact, perception, and good ability, and who may make successful workers. The labors of such Christian women are needed.-- Review and Herald, Dec. 10, 1914.
Ellen White is clear in her writings on this matter... "Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be MEN of blameless reputation. 5T 598.
Acts 6:3, Acts 6:6,
Choose Wise Men—For years the Lord has been instructing us to choose wise men,-men who are devoted to God,—men who know what the principles of heaven are,-men who have learned what it means to walk with God,—and to place upon them the responsibility of looking after the business affairs connected with our work. This is in accordance with the Bible plan as outlined in the sixth chapter of Acts. We need to study this plan; for it is approved of God. Let us follow the Word.—The Review and Herald, October 5, 1905
There is a reason she says let us follow the Word.............
If the Bible texts WO were applied strictly, only older married men with obiedient children all still in the Church could be and remained ordained ministers. How many ordained Pastors do you know you fit those criteria? Not many I guess. Many new ordained pastors are unmarried and don't have children. Many if not most older ordained pastors have the most rebellious children, who have left the Church.
"We are facing another reformation moment in history, where two sides will clearly be seen."
The camp who value the "clear example of text and scripture" is rising. What people do not realize is that the "sifting and shaking" must take place before the later rain hits. These storm clouds brought on by the mixing current culture and the simple Truth of Gods Word.
Soon our nation will be blaming it's woes on the "current culture" and will be making a dramatic step to turn the nation "back to God" and we will be tested on much greater matters. If we can not follow Gods Word on lighter issues how can we hold to it when the storm is greater?
Stephen, if Pauls Words about the right to salvation in Galations 3:28 ment their are not any God given roles of male and female. And after the cross there is no need for submission or headship....does this also allow homosexuality for gender plays no role now?
ChristorCulture has in a short time raised 4,400 petition signatures.... OneinChrist has 1,921 and has been up since January.
This point was made clear by the method of appointment of Matthias, which was chosen by lots, which is actually the origin of our word clergy (it literally means chosen by lots). Only Elders needed ordination, because they lacked the authority Apostles had by being chosen by the Holy Spirit.
Technically, I don't believe in WO. I agree Elders should perhaps only be older, married men with obedient children. However, ordination is not even needed for any Apostle, man or woman, because they are called by the Holy Spirit.
The office of Apostle and Elder were combined sometime in the early Papacy. By maintaining the argument against having women clergy, you are upholding Papal Tradition over scripture.
I don't pretent to explain it perfectly. I am only trying to poorly explain the article 'Leadership in the Early Church During the First Hundred Years' by Prof. Robert M. Johnston of Andrews University. Prof. Johnston's work has been referred to on previous AToday articles.
P.S. If you disagree with this and still insist the eldership criteria apply to clergy, but maintain a position against WO, explain to me how Timothy or Paul could satify the eldership criteria.
“For my purpose in this paper the most important feature of this type of ministry [charismatic leadership of the Apostle and Prophet] is that a person was called to it directly by Christ or his Spirit. It was not an office to which one was elected or humanly appointed. It was a function to which one was divinely called. The church could extend its recognition of that calling, but its reception did not depend upon such recognition and normally preceded it.” [2]
‘“The Twelve” was so firmly established as a synonym for the original group of apostles that Paul referred to them thus even when they had become only eleven (1 Cor 15:5)! Furthermore, it was important that the office not be seen as bestowed by human choice or appointment, so the vacancy was filled by casting lots after prayer (Acts 1:23-26).” [3]
“In three of Paul’s letters we find lists of spiritual gifts, and in three of these lists we find apostles, in each case heading the list (1 Cor 12:28; 12:29-30; Eph 4:11). By placing apostleship among the charismata, Paul completes its “democratization,” making it available to anyone to whom the Holy Spirit should choose to distribute it.” [5]
“They brought the Seven before the apostles, and having prayed they laid their hands upon them. This was the beginning of the appointive ministry, leaders selected by the people and given authority by the laying on of hands. This action was a far more momentous event than is commonly recognized because it inaugurated a completely new type of ministry and church leadership. It was this type that was destined to prevail over the other two kinds and replace them.” [7]-[8]
“First it should be noted that the laying on of hands did not bestow a spiritual gift… Second, they were chosen by their peers, apparently elected in some fashion. Third, their office was created for pragmatic reasons, to fill a need (chreia, 6:3).” [8]
“The apostles and prophets had been replaced by the bishops, the gifts of the Spirit by elected officers” [12]
So who is acting according to scripture and the example of the New Testament Early Church, and who is acting like a Papist in upholding Roman Catholic tradition, by attempting to combine Eldership with Apostleship/Clergy? Who is acting like a Papist in trying to apply the criteria for appointed leadership, of Elder and Deacon, to Apostleship/Clergy who are appointed solely by the Holy Spirit?
The evidence put forth that "Junia" was an apostles inconclusive at best. It is not hard evidence as when compare to the very clear actions regarding the all males apostolic order as recorded in the Gospels and the book of Acts. Your grasping at straws to try and put forth a women as an Apostles, whent he evidence is just not there.
Truthwave7, you still haven't answered my question. How could celibate Paul or young Timothy had satisified the criteria of one wife with obedient children? Or do you now concede Prof. Johnston's thesis that Paul was addressing appointed leadership in the Early Church (i.e. bishop/elder/deacon, chosen by men, hence the need for criteria) and not charismatic leadership (i.e. apostle and prophet, chosen by the Holy Spirit)?
I am willing to conceded that women could possibly be prohibited from certain forms of appointed leadership, but obviously with Phoebe as deacon women were allowed certain degree of appointed leadership. For me personally, I think Paul was addressing the cultural realities of the day. However, if you now want to say that the SDA Church forbids women from being GC administrators, and each local church can decide to prohibit women elders, then go for it.
However, I am struggling to see how you can say men get to choose who are to be chosen for charismatic leadership (i.e. apostles and prophets), given these are offices chosen by the Holy Spirit - not men! I think it very apt that in the early history of the SDA Church, God chose a white man, then a black man, and then finally a woman to lead our church in charismatic leadership.
“For my purpose in this paper the most important feature of this type of ministry [charismatic leadership of the Apostle and Prophet] is that a person was called to it directly by Christ or his Spirit. It was not an office to which one was elected or humanly appointed. It was a function to which one was divinely called. The church could extend its recognition of that calling, but its reception did not depend upon such recognition and normally preceded it.” [2]
Re the selection of GC presidents, I always laugh when people claim we have a democratic model. It is about as democratic as the selection of the Politburo of the Chineese Government. Lower levels appoint higher levels and so forth, but those at the lowest levels of the Party have virtually no say over who gets appointed to the highest levels.
This method of selection made much sense in the 19th Century, given limitations of communication and transport (i.e. as did the Electrol College for US Presidents). I just wonder if in the 21st Century, it could be possible to have a more egalitarian democratic process of direct election by local churches, without the Communist Party pyramid model?
Not to mention so many who focus on minor matters and would gladly throw people out for not tithing mint.
Perhaps we should read Ellen White's comment about Jesus returning when the character of Christ is reproduced in his church after reading texts like Exodus 34:6,7 Isaiah 31:3 Hosea 11:8,98 John 13:35 and John 3:16. I suspect the ordination of women is one of our lesser problems as far as God is concerned.
Will you stop attending church if there is a female ordained minister? What will be your reactions if WO becomes operative? Will you then be in rebellion against the church?
It appears the assumption of many anti-WO commenters that you must persuade by an avalanche of bible text and EGW quotes (most of which if not all of them) we are already know and are aware of. It does get tedious after a while and I don't think that it convinces anyone...maybe that's why Nathan was LOL?
But if all this is simply an exercise to get your own unique perspective into the conversation then go for it. Just know that this is just what it is..."talking points".
You will also notice that All4Him and others never did answer how celibate Paul or young Timothy satisfied these requirements for eldership, if they are supposedly meant to apply strictly to ordained clergy.
Were the 11 MEN choosen/called by Jesus unqualified also (Judas called himself)..... The reason behind this was to have MEN that lead there families correctly lead the Church. This is not my reasoning but Gods plan/role of order.
that no others have.
Faced with this problem, they suddenly drop 'thus saith the Lord' and take the extroidinary step of making an argument from tradition, saying that because Jesus chose men as apostles, only men can be apostles. That is a Papal argument, and they become servants of the Pope in making it. I make that point because these same people are also extremely anti-Papal, which is of course the great irony.
Finally, when they make this argument from tradition, it isn't clear why they hone in on one tradition - gender - and not other traditions? Why don't all our current day clergy have to be Jews, as the apostles were? Why don't they have to be circumcized? Most importantly, the Papacy would argue that clergy can only gain their authority via the notion of Apostlic Sucession, which obviously the SDA Church does not have!
I have said it for a long time, and it's becoming more and more evident that this is exactly the case. It's just the males' (some of them) desperate and paranoid need to retain control, a true fight against women - in the name of God, in the name of spirituality.
It only becomes difficult when there are those who are fighting to drag the church back to the 19th century. I guess that's the evidence of "Primitive Godliness" that used to be upheld.
“The apostles and prophets had been replaced by the bishops, the gifts of the Spirit by elected officers” [12]
Interestingly, the story of the office of deaconess gives a good illustration. In 1833, Lutheran Pastor Theodor Fliedner of Kaiserswerth, Germany, revived the deaconess movement – forgotten for over a thousand years. Despite deaconess being a biblical office, the Council of Orange in 441 revoked female ordination. To put this in perspective, the Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church only reinstituted the female deaconate in 2004.
We need to continue the spirit of reformation, which our pioneers started, but which we must continue. We need to fight against forces of stagnation, which rely on arguments of Papal tradition, becoming unwilling servants of the Pope in their opposition to recognising the raddical egalitarian message of the Gospel. .stagm
This is just the miracle of "going forward to the past!"
This administration is very good at this. They may soon be declaring that the "Shut Door" doctrine is actually valid...
Well, if "back to the future" was possible... then why not "forward to the past?"...
TruthWave:
Did you really mean this:
"The Reformation was to bring back God's professed followers to plain truths of the Bible, and to conform to cultural or societal pressures of equal rights or discrmination issues that the world has attempted to inject into the church"?
The way it is written infers that the Reformation was both to conform Bible truths and to cultural or societal presssures. If that is your meaning, you have made a remarkable 180 degree change and I congratulate for finally seeing the light.
I do believe that intermixed with the women's ordination issue is a strain of thought that suggests that there is an actual or implicit conspiracy to emasculate Christian men and tilt the church toward the feminist/gay agenda.
Those fully invested in these thoughts hold that women's ordination is a kingpin that when removed will slide the church into becoming a haven for masculinized women and effeminite men. There are many such homespun theories that undergird the opposition to women's ordination—many of them long-ago prejudices from a very patriarchal era when women were women, and men were, ah, superior.....
For those who wish to return to the biblical model, would they be content with this original plan, given by God? Or, is the NT their model that male and female are equal? This was a revolutionary idea, still not uniformly adopted.
Hopefully the GC will take 80% as being significant.
Hopefully they will take it as the voice of the church - despite their efforts to undermine the voting process.
Hopefully they will start listening to the church's voice now.
Hopefully...
It is evident by the lopsided nature of Sunday's vote that the local constituency of the Columbia Union territory seriously believes that co-equality of pastors regardless of gender is exceedingly high on the priority list of needs for the gospel to progress more effectively in one of the otherwise most "difficult" areas for Adventism in the world—the American Eastern Seaboard and surrounding areas. Had the union officials not allowed the Constituency Session to proceed, or had they contrived to subvert discussion and voting in some way, they would have been abdicating their role and would have fostered the very condition Brother Wilson most fears—schism at the appearance of kingly power exercised toward their territory by church leaders. I fail to find any convincing evidence that this vote is the product of a powerplay by Adventist feminists. It appears to be an overwhelmingly solid expression of the will of a wide cross-section of respected delegates who are serious about sharing the gospel more effectively in this difficult and highly urbanized area.
I live on the West Coast, and it is very difficult to recommend my church to intelligent Portlanders, so long as I must answer "no" to the question, "Does your church offer equal opportunity, by gender and race, to all members?" If we wish to follow Brother Wilson's lead and bring the gospel to our cities, we are going to have to adapt to a few Roman customs (as it were) in ministering to the Roman people. Aside from the need for women pastors in cities where a vast percentage of the women are single or divorced, these cities have more or less zero tolerance (among thought leaders) for a religious organization that claims that one gender is inherently predestined by birth for superior status in the congregation of saints. Certainly in situations where local conditions require it, God can and will reward the decision of earnest Columbia Union members to break from tradition and seek intelligent, new ways to expedite the proclamation and discipling of the people, especially in resistant areas. And may that which happened in the Columbia Union also occur here, in the land of the great Columbia River. Let us pray that this vote will be framed positively, not as a power play, but for what it is—a desire to more effectively reach our coastal cities with the gospel. The Pacific Union apparently shares these sentiments—we'll know for sure in a few weeks.
And how well is Pres Wilson doing in maintaining Church unity on his watch. In fairness to him, I can see that he could have made a strong case for a no vote in the name of unity (even though Germany had already given a yes vote). But now that the rabbit is already out of the hat, what will Pres Wilson do to maintain unity and prevent schism.
You might all disagree, but I think the smart thing would be to play this down, and affirm that it has no practical application to the Developing World. No one is saying for WO should be pushed in the Developing World. I would also recommend that this issue has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality (which appears to be some sort of irrational fear but many opponents of WO).
Time will tell if Pres Wilson helps keep the World Church together, or in his 'Judaizer' stubborness help be an agent for schism in the name of his own theologically 'pure' views.
True unity builds on core truths and if a schism takes place it just may be the start to the shifting and shaking that is prophesied to take place. And must take place before the latter rain. Consencus does not create truth... Did Christ create unity between the world and the church?
Exactly right, true unity is built on ensuring consensus for 'core' issues. However, true unity is also built on ensuring diversity on 'non-core' issues. You see this in the Early Church. Paul tried to build unity on the core truth of Christ, and tried to encourage diversity between Gentiles and Jews on the issue of circumcission.
Poor Paul had to battle the conservative Judaizers on the one hand, and the ultra-liberal proto-Gnostics on the other hand. I see much the same within the SDA Church, and as reflected by the range of opinions on this site.
However, I also regularly disagree with people on this site over what I would consider 'core' issues. That might include the existence of God, or the seventh-day Sabbath.
Although we can strongly disagree over the issue of WO, and let's even assume you are correct and I am wrong, I don't believe WO is a 'core' issue. By that I don't see it as an essential part of the Gospel message as understood by the SDA Church as described in our 28 Fundamentals. I don't think it is an issue that should be a test for membership or expulsion from our Church Family.
I would like to think we could remain brothers despite our disagreement over these non-core issues, whilst be united in proclamation of our view of the Gospel, as outlined in the 28 Fundamentals. If you disagree, I would be happy to hear what you think are 'core' and 'non-core' issues of the Gospel and Church?
The only Adventists I know of, and I know them well, who have no distinction between core and non-core issues are the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Church. They do make vegetarianism, dress reform, union membership, military service, worship style a test of membership. I hope you don't share their views?
As noted eslewhere, Pres Wilson at the CUC noted he is a member of a local Church, which is a member of the CUC - so how would he go about 'punishing' a Union he was a member of? I assume this is quite different from the aristocratic powers of Bishops in say Anglicanism, who appear to have much more individualistic power over their diocee. It would appear much easier for them for individual diocees to break away from each other.
There is nothing in the FBs prohibiting women's ordination so how can it be a core issue?
How many times must it be repeated that there was no strict uniformity in the very earliest church? The apostles made one of the first decisions that threatened the very existence of the church: should the gentiles be forced to be circumcised, and thus observe all the Jewish law?
This was the wisest decision ever made. Had they decided that all new gentile Christians must first be circumcised, there would only be a Jewish sect movement and Christianity would have died out by the end of the first century.
This needs to be remembered: uniformity when forced by drawing a line in the sand, will ineviteably lead to schizm, just as it would have with the early church. Be careful what you wish for. There is a law of unintended consequences on decisions that are not very carefully given thought and possible projections into the future. In less than 20 years, this discussion will seem antiquated just as prohibitions against bicycles and wigs and feathers once were.
The Sabbath has never been changed to Sunday. Ask any Jew today. which day is the Sabbath. They should know, it was given to them and no others; that is, if you believe what is written when the Commandments were given.
"They worked to the last minute, and when they heard the whistle of the train at Barro Station, to the north of Elmshaven, D. E. Robinson, one of the secretaries, jumped on a bicycle with testimonies in his pocket. He raced the train almost two miles to the crossing and then to the station to drop the letters in the mail car. Days later they arrived at their destination just at the hour they were needed. Everyone understood that God’s hand was in the work.