.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
News
2012
August Headlines
|
General Conference Officers Respond to Columbia Union Conference Constituency Meeting
Submitted: Aug 8, 2012
By AT News Team
The officers of the General Conference (GC) have issued a statement this week labeling the vote of the Columbia Union Conference constituency session on July 29 to ordain women pastors “a serious threat to the unity of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church” and “very disappointing to the senior leaders of the worldwide church.” GC President Ted Wilson appeared at the session and appealed to the delegates not to take the action which later in the day more than 80 percent voted. It was the second time this year that a union conference constituency has voted to extend ordination to women, a step which the Adventist Church in China took in the 1980s.
The statement is similar to a letter circulated in advance of the July 29 meeting and again appeals to union conferences around the world to wait until the GC completes a study of ordination which was announced by Wilson at the 2010 GC Session. It does go further in stating specifically that the action voted by the Columbia Union delegates is “not in harmony with General Conference Working Policy.” This is a controversial position because many church historians and experts on denominational policy have pointed out that the Working Policy does assign the approval of ordinations to union conferences and does not include a specific policy prohibiting the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.
The primary reason for this statement is likely not to re-state what the GC officers have said earlier. It is aimed at the Pacific Union Conference constituency delegates that will assemble August 19 to consider the same issue. It is likely that this statement is an attempt by the GC officers to convince the delegates in the Pacific Union Conference to vote against the ordination of women.
“The real issue here is the exercise of leadership,” one retired denominational administrator told Adventist Today. “The GC leaders have muddled through this issue for decades and everyone is losing patience.” A retired missionary said, “the concern is that in some parts of Africa and Latin America there will be a significant number of members leaving the Adventist Church if women are ordained. If that were to happen, the growth of the church in some areas could be slowed down.”
The GC Session of 1881 voted a resolution permitting the ordination of women, but it was never implemented for reasons that remain unclear. In the 1950s the issue was again discussed by the GC leadership which led to a number of studies similar to the current one and an indecisive vote at the 1990 GC Session which declared that there was no reason in Scripture or the writings of Ellen White to prohibit the practice and decided not to move ahead with it because of concerns about “unity.”
The statement in full is as follows:
“The unity among disciples for which Jesus prayed is a precious gift of God: this gift must be continually nurtured and is a never-ending and often difficult task of those gathered in His name. Thus the apostolic church could engage in vigorous discussion and even robust disagreement with the assurance that each member’s personal surrender to the Spirit would result in a God-honoring resolution to the challenges and conflicts so that the essential unity of the church was preserved and extended (Acts 15:1-29). Disagreement in such a community of faith is neither fatal nor schismatic, for each believer accepts the responsibility to fulfill the prayer of Jesus by acting and speaking to preserve the unity He expected as indicated in John 17.
“Unilateralism—the premise that one individual or one group may pursue its vision of truth at the expense of the unity of the whole—was and is the great adversary of the unified Body of Christ. It ruptures the essential bond which brings people from everywhere into the remnant church, tempting them to prefer one truth above the higher and collective requirement to act in concert with each other.
“Appealing for a serious recommitment to the principle of church unity, the officers of the General Conference and the division presidents issued a call for restraint in their consensus statement of June 29, 2012, “An Appeal for Unity in Respect to Ministerial Ordination Practices”. Fully aware that significant differences exist regarding the theology of ordination and the appropriateness of ordaining women to the gospel ministry, they nonetheless urged all entities and individuals in the church to respect current Church policy and General Conference Session decisions, and to work harmoniously through the process established by the General Conference Executive Committee in October 2011. That action established a worldwide three-year study and discussion process culminating with a Theology of Ordination Study Committee which will review all aspects of the practice of ministerial ordination in the Seventh-day Adventist Church including the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, with reports provided to the October 2014 Annual Council meeting of the Executive Committee. This would allow any agreed-upon resolutions to be placed on the agenda of the 2015 General Conference Session, the body accepted by church entities and affirmed by the divinely-inspired counsel of the Spirit of Prophecy to be the official voice and the highest ecclesiastical authority of the church. The General Conference Executive Committee, the highest deliberative authority of the worldwide church between General Conference Sessions, includes nearly 120 union conference and union mission presidents as voting delegates, along with elected officers, departmental directors, pastors, frontline employees and numerous laypersons.
“It was thus very disappointing to the senior leaders of the worldwide church to learn of the unilateral action taken by the delegates of the Columbia Union Conference at a special constituency meeting on July 29, 2012. That action is not in harmony with General Conference Working Policy—the collective decisions of world leadership that define the operating procedures and relationships applicable to all organizations. Further, the action sets aside the 1990 and 1995 decisions of the General Conference in Session respecting the practice of ordination. It pre-empts the process voted by the General Conference Executive Committee for the current study of ordination theology and practices by committing the Columbia Union Conference to a particular outcome before the study-and-discussion process is completed. In so doing, it asserts the right of one entity to place its conclusions above the principle of unity in the Body of Christ. By this action, the delegates have allowed for a principle of unilateralism and autonomy throughout their territory that can only be disruptive to the harmonious functioning of the Columbia Union Conference, as well as to that union’s relationship with the world church family. Unfortunately, some conferences, congregations, and individuals may try now to incorrectly cite the example of the Columbia Union Conference itself as justification for pursuing any independent course of action. It is possible that some who voted for the resolution on July 29 may not have fully understood the danger their action poses to the functional unity of their own region and to the wider denomination.
“The action taken by the Columbia Union Conference represents a serious threat to the unity of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church, and thus, at its next meeting in October 2012, the General Conference Executive Committee will carefully review the situation and determine how to respond. In the Spirit of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the officers of the General Conference and the division presidents again appeal to all entities, organizations, and individuals, including the Columbia Union Conference, to refrain from independent and unilateral decisions and implementing actions on issues affecting ministerial ordination, and to invest their energies and creativity in fostering a vigorous dialogue through the established process about how the Church should recognize and affirm the gifts of the Spirit in the lives and ministry of believers.
“An important companion document, organized as a series of questions and answers about key assumptions, assertions and historical backgrounds discussed at the recent Columbia Union Conference constituency meeting or in related communication, will be available approximately Wednesday, August 8, through the media outlets of the General Conference.”
________________________
Share your thoughts about this article:
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
But then, President Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in 1865 and a hundred years later we as a people were in the throws of the Civil Rights Movement. To this day, issues remain.
The body of the church cast their vote in the CUC and I believe PUC will cast their vote for WO .
Much of this discussion assumes that women working as pastors (and in local churches as elders) is not under dispute, but that misses the fact that many people in Africa, and significant numbers elsewhere, who are committed to a 'literal' reading of Scripture, do not believe that women can hold those positions. I would not be surprised, should it go to a vote in 2015, to see the right of women to be ordained to any position removed from GC policy. Then any move to ordain women would clearly be rebellion against the church.
And what if some Unions have already been doing it in the interim, and have ordained all their female ministers by then. Do you think their ordinations will be somehow revoked? Do you think there might be some cat and mouse game for this exact reason, where the Unions race ahead and do it, knowing it will be hard to put the rabbit back in the hat?
At this point I think the average reader may conclude that the AToday News Team is intentionally trying to deceive the public since there is absolutely zero evidence that any such resolution was voted at the 1881 GC Session. I pointed this out to J. David Newman after the CUC ad hoc committee report. He checked it out and agreed, and requested the chairman of that committee to correct their report to reflect the fact that the resolution was proposed but not voted.
It's not like the facts haven't already been dissected to the nth degree. See http://www.atoday.org/article/1326/blogs/sahlin-monte/what-did-happen-in-1881 where a blogger asserted that the resolution was voted based on some undisclosed ST article, with comments beneath that prove that the RH report was the official report, and that both the ST and RH reports clearly marked adopted resolutions as adopted. The resolution on WO was the only one of about 40 not marked adopted. Therefore, that resolution was never voted, and thus WO proponents have once again tried to support their cause with misinformation.
That any church is so indecisive on a doctrinal position to "continue to study" it for dozens of years, is indicative of a simple and clear plan never to arrive at a decision and "go with the flow" of the world church--take the easy way.
It takes no backbone unlike Martin Luther King demonstrated, to simply postpone a decision on equality. We should not have to wait until the invertebrates can reach a conclusion that has not been possible for these many years.
It's like a boy asking his father to take the family car for a drive and the father defers "I've got to think about it." No decision is deciding against. If the same child requested every year and met the same response, why should he continue to ask, knowing the answer already?
This is the position of women: they have been treated as dependent children; unable to fully use their talents based solely on their xx chromosome. Hoping to seek a definitive answer from the Bible is searching for what is not there. Always deferring to the Bible for answers excuses men from deliberating with their own reasoning power. The desire is to find that elusive text that reads:
"Thus saith the Lord, women should not be ordained." Simple questions are answered by very complicated excuses.
That any church is so indecisive on a doctrinal position to "continue to study" it for dozens of years, is indicative of a simple and clear plan never to arrive at a decision and "go with the flow" of the world church--take the easy way.
It takes no backbone unlike Martin Luther King demonstrated, to simply postpone a decision on equality. We should not have to wait until the invertebrates can reach a conclusion that has not been possible for these many years.
It's like a boy asking his father to take the family car for a drive and the father defers "I've got to think about it." No decision is deciding against. If the same child requested every year and met the same response, why should he continue to ask, knowing the answer already?
This is the position of women: they have been treated as dependent children; unable to fully use their talents based solely on their xx chromosome. Hoping to seek a definitive answer from the Bible is searching for what is not there. Always deferring to the Bible for answers excuses men from deliberating with their own reasoning power. The desire is to find that elusive text that reads:
"Thus saith the Lord, women should not be ordained." Simple questions are answered by very complicated excuses.
My prayer is that there will be a resounding response by the GC to this current rebellion, and that the suspicions of Kevin Riley will come to fruition.....that there will be a repeal of the ordination of women to any position in the church. Also, that there will be a repudiation of Women serving as Elders as well.
This is arrant nonsense! "Senior leaders" of the worldwide church delude themselves, and do the church a disservice, by making a truth issue out of gender-based distinctions in the sacrament of ordination. Any world-wide organization sets itself up for disunity and failure when it forces its culturally diverse components into the Procrustean bed of a dominant theological or cultural outlook. The hallmark of successful global organizations is that they adapt to the various cultures in which they wish to thrive.
I see the issue somewhat differently from Elaine, who argues that it takes no backbone for Church leaders at the G.C. level to maintain the status quo. Stubborn resistance to change does take backbone. Church "leadership" has exhibited backbone by stubbornly waiting for a consensus to emerge which isn't on the horizon. Backbone alone isn't what is needed now. What is needed is leadership. The Church is like a fleet of ships (divisions, unions, conferences, and local churches) at anchor in the Strait of Messina, with Scylla and Charybdis on opposite sides. The increasing currents demand that the church weigh anchor and creatively chart a course that will avoid the rocks and maximize the safety of all vessels in the fleet. In charting that course, true leaders will recognize that some vessels may need to jettison ballast - like gender distinctions in church offices - that makes them unwieldy and puts them at increased risk. Others will need the "ballast" for stability.
Whether this largely symbolic step - recognizing and affirming that the Spirit is leading in the reality and possibility of equal status for female pastors - will result in disunity is largely in the hands of "senior church leaders". Uniformity does not produce or preserve unity. How can Church "leaders" possibly see the present state as one of unity? Their lack of imagination and vision in this area has been on display for at least 20 years. They have built the stage and set the props for an outcome that will make disunity a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's high time for them to dismantle the props and admit that, even though they have not heard His voice, the Lord is apparently writing a different script for this particular act in the life of the church. It is now their job to persuade the world-wide church that the unity of the whole need not be threatened when God's Spirit speaks in tongues.
Do they have really strong backbones? I prefer to say they have skulls too thick for new ideas to penetrate. Either way the result is the same.
So good to know, Elaine, about your inside track on divine providence or lack thereof. I'll remember to check with you next time I wonder if God might be up to something. And just what is the source of this remarkable insight (God doesn't intervene in human affairs) that definitively refutes thousands of years of Judeo-Christian beliefs? Tell me, is it also true that unicorns really can't fly? What else do you know with great certainty about what the god of your imaginings does or does not do? And what gives you such assurance that the god you seem to know and understand is the God whom Christians worship - whose leading they profess to experience and seek to follow?
Even the "skeptical" founding fathers, like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, whom you canonize for alleged "lack of faith," made frequent reference to divine providence. When men of faith are strong enough to make hard decisions, don't they also say God was leading?
Is it great fun for you to digress from an issue about which we fundamentally agree to defecate on basic beliefs and expressions of faith, universally embraced by confessing Christians? The reality, Elaine, is that you think Christian faith in general, and Adventist faith in particular, is pretty much B.S. So it is rich irony that you presume to make dogmatic assertions about what the God of our faith is really like.
You misquoted Elaine so you Could show off obliterating the straw man. She said God does not override human decisions. Sounds like free will to me. She did not say God never intervenes. Perhaps she believes that, but why not wait for to say that before flashing your weapon that should probably be restrained with a bit or similar device.
More importantly, my incredulousness was not prompted by any disagreement with Elaine's philosphy of free will. Rather, I found it astonishing that she would dogmatically and presumptuously make the assertion which I quoted, and then express scorn for Christians who speak of God's leading. Perhaps, since you have jumped to her defense, Rudy, you could help her further by articulating the provenance of her prophetic insight into the nature of God.
Can you cite any instance where God has over ridden human decisions?
The inability to prove that God has interfered or does interfere in human decision making does not tend to prove the contrary inference - that He does not interfere. Elaine dogmatically asserted as fact a propostition that she cannot possibly prove regarding a being about whom she expresses agnosticism. I say, "Let's keep the baby - 'God is leading' - but throw out the dirty bathwater of authoritarianism - 'So get in line'."
IOW, when someone makes a decision that later proves disatrous, was God leading? Or does he only lead men to make good decisions? How can one know beforehand? Does God give a sign?
They had never felt they were loosing out, because the had never persuied ordination to any office. Within my congragation, the ladies do alot of things. They run the show in various programs, and the men support them, in doing so. "Support, or get out of the way!"
The whole issue of women ordination, has nothing to do with euality, but is a tool of the evangelical movement, to drive a wedge into the church membership. It is an affront to the truth of scripture, and will continue to be so, so long as this movement continues to gain ground and advance into our congragations.
And I say, this movement will gain more and more ground, we will continue to see the SDA Church, fall in line with the other Christian Denominations. We may already be a member of the Christian Coalition, a conglomeration of denominations, which also includes the Budist and Islam, and other religious entities.
And I also add, that in "MOST," of the denominations, that have been subduded by the evangelical movement, not only ordain women to offices of the priesthood, "i.e. Decacon, Elder, Pastor, etc.," but have also submitted to the ordination of gay pastors.
Simply do a survey, of the other denominations, and see if this isn't so.
Except for the Amish, or a couple of other groups, that attempt to stay removed from social acceptance, the SDA Church, is probably the last of the Bible keeping groups, to now see itself being erroded, by the winds of the Evangelical agenda.
You can walk literaly, from one denomination, to the next, and barely realize any change. One group has become like the next, their doctrines blended in an evangelical mix.
Once saved always saved, the eternal soul, the acceptance of pagan rites, such as Christmas, and Easter, and worship of Sunday.
And the ordination of women and now, gays, into those offices of Calling, that God had clearly set apart, to be filled by men. Men who had been filled with the Holy Spirit, who are knowledgeable in His word, and are examples of Godlines, before all their fellow members.
And those Callings, being filled by women, is not a shame on the women, but a shame on the men, who stand aside to see it happen, and shirk the responsability that God reuirred of them.
But this is the leveling effect of the Evangelical movement. First womens rights are raised as a flag, then next gay rights will be the battle cry of the evangelicals.
It seems the days of, "Thus saith the Lord," are fast becomming a thing of the past, within the SDA Congragation, and with womens ordination, I say that is only the first round of, "things to come."
But then, didn't God tell us in His word, that there would be a falling away? Maybe that falling away, has nothing to do with a loss of numbers, not a reduction of membership, but a falling away from Biblical truth. A falling away, by acceptance of social directives, over Bible Truth. The acceptance of the commandments of men, over, "Thus Saith The Lord."
What? Did I hear you say that men and women aren't equal in His sight? My, oh, my. And I thought all along that He died for all...that His love and grace were for all in equal measure...that He called up on all to spread the good news...that He created us in His image, male and female. So which part of God's image should lie dormant?
This is so tiresome. Nay, it's disgraceful.
But let me turn the tables. From my perspective; what I've seen on this site and another more notorious one, as well as comments by people I've spoken to; those in favor of WO seem to be angry with the rest of us who don't see it their way; so angry that they are willing to defy the will of the body (GC in session) and go their own way, no matter the consequences. That is irresponsible at best; hardcore rebellion at worst.
Are you not equal to a women Jake because she can carry your child? Yes there are physical differences and differnt roles designed by our Creator, His plan was not a mistake....
If you are Kenneth Cox, I enjoyed that time when you told a non-Adventist audience that those who say the Beast Power is the Papacy is an 'extreme view'. Something like that, no doubt you have been living that down for some time.
If you do happen to be Stephen Bohr, I really enjoyed your talks on religious liberty and why the seventh day has no evening and morning refrain in Gen 2:1. But if you are Stephen Bohr, I really didn't like your quite fanatical approach to wedding rings.
If you are Doug Bachelor, to be honest I haven't watched anything with you in it since Net 98.
If you are someone else - sorry - never heard of you.
The conferences in the coastal regions of the United States were those most set upon by the General Conference of Ellen White's day, and really not much has changed since then. That we must raise Adventist blood pressures by creating showdowns on high-noon-Sundays is lamentable, but it just seems to be the way things have always been done, when intransigent conservatism crosses swords with the impatient coastal regions. I cannot concur that these conferences are in "rebellion." This is a terribly imprecise appelation to hang around the necks of these massive unions with comparatively highly-educated laymen and great hearts for the church and its mission. Rather I would see these unions as "freedom fighters" against the constant threat of kingly powers being exercised to thwart the wheels of progress in the church's centers of innovation. Unions were clearly created for the purpose of tamping back the natural tendencies of centralized authority to exercise complete hegemony over the provinces. We can see once again that, as I have frequently told those who ask, "Sure, you could close the unions, but you'd have to reinvent something similar within 20 years, simply to keep the GC from running amok over your local plans and strategies."
This is clearly a showdown, and perhaps it is a great showdown, but we've seen it all many times before, and nobody ends up getting shot or drawn and quartered, though it has cost a GC president or two his job, from time to time....
I missed Elaine comment about the church being an onion which when you peel back the layers is rotten at the core.
May I slightly modify this conclusion. I'd like to use the onion metaphor to say that when you peel back traditional institutional Adventism and come to the center -- surprise! . . . there is nothing of a real religious character there! The strictly religous elements have been replaced with those of a bureaucratically-focused institution, spending large amounts of tithe money devoted to maintaining the organizational status quo which is regarded by many as, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, a terrible waste of money. Take the money that it takes to run the bureacracy and give it to the primary and secondary schools and our unversities/colleges to raise salaries of teachers and lower tuition costs. Fat chance!
With a few exceptions, there are not "bad people" running the system. Far from it. These are, again with a few exceptions, good and godly people doing the best they can to keep an early 20th century church political system from going broke. Their main unstated motto is "keep the system intact at least until I retire."
Erv,
Your description of the metaphor is much more apt. It is inherent in all institutions that the most important goal is to keep it running, like a hamster on a treadmill, until those ready to retire can hop off with their pensions intact.
But like government insitutions are discovering, those pension promises, unless sufficiently continued by the tithe payers, may not be as secure as was once thought. Something seems inherently contrary to the Gospel workers that once their "probie" years have passed, it is a guaranteed lifetime income. How many of their contributors have such security? It is because most could do no "honest" non-church work and with no vocational skills. The few I have know who voluntarily left were at a loss until they continued their education in gaining another markeable skill. There really are very few job openings for a SDA theological graduate outside the SDA ghetto.
A vocal, articulate, and well-to-do minority in the West may trumpet the pro WO cause loud and clear and take along with them their constituencies and thus re-define church policy/politics/theology etc. in their own terms, while maintaining that they are bona fide, and loyal 7th day Adventists. However actions speak louder than words.
They are in point of fact challenging and ignoring GC leadership, and winning. That is very serious. The very heart of GCHQ leadership has been undermined for the whole world wide Adventist church to behold, at the CUC meeting.
If the same follows at the PUC, GCHQ leadership will not rest until they sort this mess out. Call me an alarmist, if you wish, but having been in church leadership for nearly two decades and sat on countless committees (including GC church manual committee), etc., I can clearly see that we are fast moving towards a painful and powerful showdown.
The GCHQ's authority was undermined in a spectacular way when CUC voted for WO. They will not, indeed, cannot take this lightly. They are making one last ditch effort to rein in the belligerents prior to PUC. If they fail then expect some fireworks, between now and 2015, the likes of which we may never have experienced in Adventist denominational history. Heaven help us then!
Kevin I have seen the opposite happen in two different churches, people who joined the advent movement because they thought we followed the Word of God. Then to be discouraged by the push for ordination of women elders and past left.
(or shrink to a small and conservative remnant totally out of touch with society) humm..... sounds like a little shifting and shaking making room for the infux.... that is happening.
"Q.: What about the 1,400 Hungarians who were disfellowshipped for protesting the Church’s
The Columbia Union Conference does not accept the General Conference's position or authority on woman ordination. In the 1980s, there were a group of Hungarian members who did not accept the General Conference's position or authority regarding membership in the Counsel of Free Churches and the then general conference prsident (Neal Wilson) disfellowshiped these members. Ted Wilson could, like his father, disfellowship those in the Columbia Union conference who do not accept the General Conference's position or authority on woman ordination.
I believe we are missing the Big picture. We are a World Church which has voted this down in two GC sessions, yet people with an agenda keep pushing it down the churches' throat instead of abiding by the World Churches' decision in offical session. 9T p261 says"But this is not saying that the decisions of a GC composed of an assemblyof duly appointed representives of His church from all parts of thefield should not be respected. God has ordained that the representives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a GC, shall have authority."
CUC is disregarding this authority ordained by God to make decisions on such matters and they have spoken. There are two ways that Adventist's vote, one is with their feet,(leaving), the other with their wallets. This action by the CUC will bring division and discension in the church. Its a sad day really.
Isn't that the truth, my good man. It's also very disappointing that those who promote WO use a non-voted resolution to support their tenuous postion on the matter.
If you believe the SDA church is the True church and leave because women's ordination is not approved why would you leave? And why would anyone believe that those of us who know WO is contrary to Scripture would not be as tenacious as those who mistakenly support WO?
That is just the way it looks to me from the outside....
But I also recognize that these are people who have dedicated their careers and lives to the Church, and cannot easily walk away from it to find meaning and influence in other Christian communities. They also love the Sabbath and other practices and beliefs of the Adventist subculture. They have evolved; their local communities have evolved; and they do not define their SDA faith by the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. They are not members of a rigid cult or sect. They are affiliated with a Church that, at the moment, happens to be controlled at its highest levels, by some pretty backwards thinking. That top level really has no legal jurisdiction over us as Church members or even the decisions of regional bodies to decide issues like ordination.
Our ability to be Christians advancing the gospel of Jesus Christ is not impaired by our affiliation with a Church whose leadership at the moment wants to move it in a sectarian, cultic direction. Quite the contrary. We believe that staying and standing for a principle that should be self-evident is the business of Christ and the gospel. I guess we're all Marlboro smokers. We'd rather fight than switch.
They went out to distrubute "the bread of life" ordained in chapter 6 and killed in chapter 7.....
But I think you are stretching things a bit far to claim Acts 6 records the ordination of pastors.
1 Timothy 2:7 (KJV) Paul writes WHEREUNTO I AM ORDAINED A PREACHER.......
There is no earthly (or heavenly) reason that women should not be recognized in
exactly the same way that men are in the Christian church. To do otherwise is to reject the pronouncement that "in Christ there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." To make and ecclesial separation between men and women, while honoring Jew and Greek, slave and free, is to separate what God has not divided.
Structural organization is not designed by God but by man who attempted to devise the operating of the early church for the best efficiency. It should always be adjusted or changed when circumstances change. The disposition of church leaders was not handed down on high from Sinai but God has given humans the common sense, when it is used, to decide how to function best in the culture in which they live. This may be different in some areas than others, but nothing should be done that will inhibit God's work in any area.
forgiven by Jesus, and made priests by Jesus. Read your Greek New Testament. It seems to be very
inclusive. Adventists have always been known for their use of John's writing in Revelation. What
do you think?
The question is whether that should be exercised by a small select group on behalf of the group, or properly belongs to the group as a whole. Our traditional answer has been that is is exercised by the community and not by a group set apart. Our pastors are/were evangelists, preachers, church planters, and teachers, but not priests. I believe that is also supported by the NT example. In time, the Christian church came to view Christian ministry as being like the OT priesthood. In that system, deacons, elders and bishops are set apart into a special group called 'clergy' who offer sacrifices and intercede between God and the 'laity'. We have criticised churches with that system for not being Biblical, yet we seem to have virtually copied that system with deacons, elders and pastors, and seem to be moving to equating pastors (at least, some would include elders) with priests. We have also copied their arguments over whether women can hold any or all of those postions. That some have argued that women cannot be bishops and have 'ruling authority', but they can be deacons and priests as their authority derives from that of the bishop also parallels some of our arguments. I cringe when we argue women cannot be conference presidents or ordained as pastors and have 'ruling authority', but can work as pastors and elders and the assumption seems to be that they will operate with authority derived from the President or a senior pastor. All authority in our church is derived from the community ('the church') and the community delegates that to certain organisational levels. The authority is not derived from that of the GC, or the GC president, nor is the authority of 'lower' levels or their executive officers derived from the GC or the GC president. All levels operate on behalf of the community of believers and derive their authority from that community and execise it on behalf of the community. The community can, in session or through teh executive committee, legitimately impose its will on any and all officers and employees.
I believe we would get further in this discussion if we all framed it as a disagreement over how to interpret the Bible and put it into practice rather than as a disagreement betwen one side that is following the Bible and another that is unduly influenced by culture to ignore the 'clear' teachings of the Bible. There is a difference in how the Bible is approached, and both sides are sensitive to the cultural implications of our beliefs and practices. And they should be. But it is not, and never has been, a question of choosing between Christ and culture for most people on both sides.
I also dislike the trend to seeing a conspiracy in the action of one group or another. The unions are legitimately reacting to the concerns of their constituency, as is the GC. Let's remember that the call to unity was put out by the GC executive, and all the unions wanting to ordain women (whether they have voted to do so or not) are members of that committee, as are division presidents who support ordaining women to all positions. Whatever Ted Wilson's views may be, as GC President, he is obliged to represent the views of the executive committee. Had Jan Paulsen been GC President, he would have done virtually the same thing. About the only 'conspiracy' there is evidence for (and it is fairly abundant) is the 'conspiracy to prevent an all-out brawl at GC session (and probabaly a long time afterwards) by putting up a clear proposal to allow women to work as deacons, elders and pastors, or to allow women to be ordained as pastors. Perhaps the issue could be handled differently, and passing the decision on to the unions or divisions when it first came up may have been the best thing to do. If the current study on ordination delivers the same conclusion as the previous ones (which is likely, as no new evidence has emerged to change anything) and the result is that the Bible neither prohibts nor commands the ordination of women (or anyone, IMO), then I would hope the GC would declare it to be a matter for each conference/mission to decide in consultation with the unions and division, as was done with the ordination of women as elders. Given that we have always said elders and pastors were essentially identical except with regard to the sphere in which they work, that would have been a logical thing to do back when this first came up.
many different views within the SDA church.
Isn't it about time that equality and compromise be used? This is the solution used by the early church when there were very strong disagreements. Both sides won: neither were forced to go against their consciences. That's a wonderful Bible example which has not been used in this situation.
In heaven it started with one talking to one then two......until one third of the angels agreed.
Paul in Galations 3:26-29. Why do we want to proclain inequality? Even the Catholic church
which, for centuries has followed this policy, ls facing a problem with the ladies.'
2 Peter 2:2
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
Former ex-GC President Jan Paulsen has openly talked about his own son leaving the Church. Are you suggesting he is not suitable to be an ordained minister, after all, he failed at home, so presumably that makes him a failure in the Church?
I am sure we can all name SDA ministers, both liberals and conservatives, who 'fail at home'.
The point is, you can't go quoting these requirements and expect them to be intepreted strictly against women, but then make all sorts of excuses as to why they shouldn't be applied at all against men!
Let's remember a 'household' was usually an extended family + slaves + often clients as well, all of whom were under control of the head of the family. That extended to life and death, so telling the household who and how to worsip was expected. And obedience was not just expected, but society and the law upheld that.
Episkopoi, presbuteroi and diakonoi were all expecte to belong to this class. They could not have performed their duties (which assumed literacy and wealth, apart from spiritual leadership) had they not. Which means that in Paul's day, only the 'neither Jew nor Gentile' part actually applied. The rest was left to the church to apply when possible. I would suggest all are now possible in western areas and we are without excuse if we do not.
The quoted passage from 1 Timothy 3 refers to those who aspire to be a bishop or overseer (the literal meaning of the Greek). Several things about the context are relevant when comparing to ministers of the Gospel today. Are the roles substantially the same? My suspicion is that the bishop or overseer had a great deal more authority than a minister in the church today. Also, the relevance and meaning of managing one's own household would be different today. A head of the household in the culture of Paul's day would have had more control and authority than is possible in our culture. One could argue about whether things have improved or worsened, but it is a fact than the head of the household no longer has the same kind of authority derived from and permitted by the surrounding culture.
I could not blame my parents for the decisions I made as an adult. Adam tried that tact with God, remember? (“The woman whom you gave…she gave me…”) Our parents could do but so much. They did not raise robots after all.
“Literalism” isn’t the issue. This exemplifies yet another problem with misapplying the literal words. When the words or the principles are inconvenient, we purposefully choose to misapply meaning.
The literal words seem pretty hard to side step to me. So, how do you interpret these words.
Do you really doubt that there is a difference in what parents of one culture can dictate and require of their children and another culture.
My point as always is that you have to discern the underlying principle and apply it. Yes, you may need to know the literal meaning in its original context. So, when I complain about literalism it is believing you do not have discern principle. You can simply take the words (which by the way are a translation) and apply them.
I do believe this to be a passage that should be read literally, but the words should not necessarily be applied literally to our present situation.
I don't believe we should read these literally, but for those who insist that we do - they have a big problem. The literal reading does impose an obligation on fathers, and if fathers do not have believing children then they can't be elders.
I agree with everything that Stephen Foster says, but again, if we don't read things literally for men, why do we read it literally for women?
If we read this passage and others like it literally, then SDA leaders who have disbelieving children, are disqualified for eldership. That would arguably disqualify a major portion (if not the majority) of our clergy, including some of our very highest leaders, including Jon Paulsen.
Does anyone know if all of Ted Wislon's children are still in the Church? If we extend the notion of 'household' wider, as Kevin rightly points out, then arguably Pres. Ted is disqualified if any of his grandchildren, or other 'clients' are disbelievers.
Again - you can't have it both ways otherwise you are a hypocrite!
The text of the verse explains this.
Again, how can the majority of SDA ordained ministers, including our highest offices, including Conference, Union and GC leaders, satisfy this requirement strictly when they have children who are not believers? And when many of them are also 'rebellious' and squanders, being clearly 'off the rails'.
Do we apply these criteria strictly - yes or no?
The King James Version says, ”If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly” (with the words “blameless” and “faithful” being explained in the margin as above reproach and obedient respectively).
This comports or dovetails with 1 Timothy 3:4 (YLT), “his own house leading well, having children in subjection with all gravity.”
If you are still in doubt about the correct application of Titus 1:6, then just consider the application of your understanding or interpretation in relation to James 2:19.
As long as I and my children live, they will always be my children. However, when they have reached the age of majority, I am no longer responsible for their choices or actions. Neither should these passages be interpreted to children as being a permanent condition, other than for geneaological purposes. This is heaping blame on parents who may have been excellent parents, but children, once grown, develop their on values and judgment, and if they were taught to value integrity higher than external behavior, it may lead to changes in religion.
Isn't it strange that "children" of Catholic parents who raised them to be "good Catholics" are praised when they reject their parents' religion and join the Adventist church? This knife cuts both ways.
The verdict is not in yet. What our children will be is not, necessarily, what they have become along the way. What the parents did at home is not, always, what is apparent to us.
Much is said these days about the "influence of a Godly father in the home," or "the absence of a Godly paternal influence in the home," suggesting that in the lurch, male pastors can at least in part provide this masculine role-modeling for single-parent homes. I believe this emphasis is far overblown by those who favor and insist on a patriarchal-style Christianity. Yes, a child who has grown up in a home without a father's everyday influence will undoubtedly miss certain healthy influences to guide him/her on the pathway of life. But I have seen large families of children, raised by a godly mother and absentee father, do quite well in the Christian life. As an Adventist father with one wife and two grown, very Adventist, married children, I give myself little overall credit for "steering" the kids in the right direction. We just lived our Christian lives and tried to avoid all hints of hypocrisy while providing a home of lively discussions, where the kids had incentive to be industrious, but had time to think for themselves, too, including thoughts that Dad and Mom are getting older and we, the children, have to start helping them bear the loads of life. Somehow the children had the time and space to observe, reflect, and choose what they wanted to do with Jesus Christ, and they have taken their stand. We never modeled a doctrinaire, militaristic, fearsome picture of what it means to be a Christian, and we talked about the Great Controversy, the Sunday Laws, the close of probation, and the Time of Trouble in context of God caring for us during those times.
We avoided the frenetic, adrenaline-charged admonitions on these topics we have sometimes heard in church and in other homes. And we also brought up the issue that everyday living in the United States (with its comforts, its distractions, its lightweight entertainments, and its allure to concentrate on trivial matters) was in its cheap attractions and empty hypocrisy and display very much a "Time of Trouble" if we fell into a meaningless pattern of amoral existence. Fortunately these thoughts seemed to take root, and now our kids are treating us in the same careful, thoughtful fashion....encouraging us to take the next step from vegetarian to vegan. Kids and Christianity!
We were encouraged to think for ourselves. We certainly knew where our parents stood; but we knew that ultimately our decisions were going to be totally our decisions. Of course, we had little to no choice about attending or participating in that which they mandated while with them; and there were certain unmistakable behavioral expectations. All along however we were taught to think independently of them or anyone else.
The thing is we did (and do) not want to hurt, disappoint, or embarrass them. That’s not to say that we didn’t (I did); but we didn’t want to.
The larger point being: had we decided to reject Christ or leave the Adventist church in adulthood, it wouldn’t have reflected how well ordered our home was/wasn’t. Nor do those who accept Christ and remain Adventists necessarily live in well ordered homes.
Unruly, incorrigible, and disrespectful children in the home is clearly (literally) what this verse (1 Timothy 3:4) is talking about, Rudy.
What decisions children eventually make about their individual relationship to God isn’t the meaning.
It seems that both Paul and John in Galations and Revelation are pointing out our equal value to God
and not our physical ability and attributes.. Just a thought.
If marriages separated like oil and water the couple would always be completely separate, unless someone has the special ingredient to allow total miscibility.
That secret ingredient: a drop of humility recognizing the complete equality of each.
The NT does not address the question of spiritual leadership in the church and gender. I don't believe that that is EGWs intended message in the passages you quote either. Especially as pastors were not, at that time, the spiritual leaders of churches, but primarily evangelists and church planters. Elders were the spiritual leaders, and we authorised women to do that decades ago. And in most cases they have been doing it well.
How is "equal though different" not the same as "separate but equal" which was the condition years ago separating blacks and whites in the U.S. Why did the blacks object that their education was deficient because they already had "separate but equal" schools?
Check any dictionary, equal does not mean different.
Again, those opposed to WO simply gloss over these facts to suit themselves. They apply some criteria strictly against women, but then perform exegetical gymnastics to get men off the hook, or to avoid the question of race or status.
Equality does not preclude difference. A gram of 24K gold is quite different from a $50 bill. But they may nevertheless be of equal value. The issue in WO is not whether women are of equal or lesser value in the eyes of either its proponents or opponents. Does the fact that breast feeding is exclusive to women suggest that men are not equal in value to women? Does the unequal treatment of men and women when it comes to lifeboat space on a sinking ship mean that men are second class citizens? Ridiculous!
Intellectual honesty should lead us to refrain from analogic mudslinging. Analogizing the position of the GC on WO to Plessy v Ferguson is, IMHO, like analogizing Guantanamo Bay to the Holocaust - extremist, historically insensitive, and counter-productive. Let's stick with the question of whether, in the absence of clear biblical mandates, the very real differences between men and women justify excluding women from ordination. I maintain that they do not - at least not where I live, and apparently not where most other North American SDAs live. To argue the contrary, in 2012, and to try and force Church branches into uniformity of policy and practice on the issue, strikes me as arrogant and tyrannical.
I'd like to suggest that folks who want to follow the Bible check out the talk by Ron DuPreez of the Michigan conference, who is known to be quite conservative in his views:
First download his notes:
<a href="http://www.nadministerial.org/site/1/docs/Conferences/2012%20Women%20Clergy%20Conference/BibleWomen%20Leaders%20(2).pdf">http://www.nadministerial.org/site/1/docs/Conferences/2012%20Women%20Clergy%20Conference/BibleWomen%20Leaders%20(2).pdf</a>
Then watch his presentation on vimeo: <a href="http://vimeo.com/42567586">http://vimeo.com/42567586</a>
While it was elders who 'managed' churches in 1879, perhaps the principle may still apply.