.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Taylor, Ervin
2012
|
Voluntary Unity in Christ or Forced Unity by Dictation?
Submitted: Aug 9, 2012
By Ervin Taylor
An article posted on line on August 7, 2012, ahead of publication in the Adventist Review carried the headline, “Church Leaders Issue ‘An Appeal for Oneness in Christ.’”
This “appeal” was clearly stated to be in response to the recent action of the Columbia Union Conference stating that ordination to the gospel ministry in that union would no longer be based on gender. The “Leaders” were identified as “World church executives and . . . 13 division presidents.”
In part, the “appeal” stated that the CUC action was “not in harmony with General Conference Working Policy.” It was considered “a serious threat to the unity of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church.” It further stated that the CUC had engaged in “unilateralism” in that the CUC action “sets aside the 1990 and 1995 decisions of the General Conference in Session respecting the practice of ordination.”
Finally, earlier statements of Ted Wilson as well as the wording of the “appeal” carried a clear threat. Previous statements warned of “serious consequences.” In this case, there was a statement that “at its next meeting in October 2012, the General Conference Executive Committee will carefully review the situation and determine how to respond.”
The most egregious part of this “appeal” is in its citation of a prayer of Jesus recorded in the Gospel of John: “Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are” which was followed by “the unity among disciples for Jesus prayed is a precious gift of God.”
Commentary
I wonder if this blogger is the only one who views quoting the prayer of Jesus in this statement issued by Adventist “world church executives” as bordering on the blasphemous. Citing the authority of Jesus and the Bible in the furtherance of maintaining their control of the reins of centralized power in the Adventist Church is eerily reminiscent of a strategy used some 500 years ago by another set of leaders of a world church. Captive theological apologists supporting the power of the 16th Century Roman Papacy in their rebuttals of Marin Luther’s condemnation of Papal indulgences used phrases such as “Unity of the Faith” and “Oneness in Christ” as counter arguments. In this case, it would appear that the only substantive difference between the wording used in 16th Century Papal Bulls and other church pronouncements and this declaration of Adventist “world church executives” is that the 16th century ones were written in Latin while the 21st century one was written in English.
The Pacific Union Conference now has an opportunity to send another clear message to Silver Spring, the Adventist Vatican. We will follow our consciences and Biblical principles in this matter, not the dictates of an earthly church hierarchy, no matter what kinds of threats are made. We can do no other. So help us God!
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
If they accept the authority of the Bible on this issue, especially the NT Jesus' message, the Gospel is beyond doubt a message of equality of men and women. It goes without saying: Unity is not Equality. That church of 500 yrs ago was very united whilst being totally discriminatory. (Did I hear someone say "united in truth"? mmm what is truth? - they thought they had it!)
Of course this is not how the hierarchy see the issue. To such the doctrine against WO is clear.
Dr Taylor, I'm glad you made the connection between this/our church and that of 500 yrs ago. They speak of consequences! I am equally glad we don't live in a day and age where floggings, burnings, rackings and the like are options when they are trying to dream up consequences! Human nature has not really changed much in the passing of years. Power and opportunity would probably yeild the same results if the culture permitted.
Interesting post and nicely said. However, if we could transport the GC back in time where it had similar power as Roman Catholic Church and we faced similar issues, don't think for a moment that the GC fathers like Ted Wilson would not condone flogging or burn heretics at the stake. They most certainly would. The heart of humans in power must always be suspect. We exist in a constitutional Republic where such physical outrage is not allowed on dissenters. The GC speaking of "grave consequences" is nothing more than a statement of naked fear. What is happening here is more of a congregational movement where unions stand up and say NO!!!! We will not support this vacuous position of discriminating against women who are already honorably fulfilling the duties of pastors. I know a few women pastors here in S. California, respected, kind and wise leaders. I go so far as to say we have misguided and at worst "bad" people at the head of the GC that are trying to maintain what appears to be their crumbling ecclesiastical authority.
What an irony! All 13 division presidents discussing women's ordination with not one woman among them!
Since the world began it has always been men who decided women's role, and it was limited to kinder, kirche and kuchen. Like mothers deciding whether their small children can go out and play with the neighbor children.
Only when women refuse to allow a group of men to decide what their roles in the church should be, will this be changed. And women have always found methods to achieve their goals. Even Lysistrata had a plan
We are AGHAST! - Advocating God’s Honorable And Sacred Tenets – and therefore feel we must jointly issue
An Appeal For Unity in Respect to New-fangled doctrines that seem to be infiltrating the various churches at the present time (c. 1844)
Since the beginning of the 1840’s several church bodies1 have recorded actions amongst its members expressing support for, or commitment to, the soon-coming of Christ also known in some circles as the second advent. The various churches are currently engaged in a study of the theology of the second coming and its implications for the members.
In the light of this current study and the actions of several churches, the officers of the various church bodies2 including presidents of these same church bodies, have unanimously communicated an appeal for unity in respect to a biblical understanding of the second advent. The appeal calls: 1) for unity in response to the new light or Present Truth, as some call it, i.e. the 1843 and 1844 Sessions reviewing the second advent theology; 2) for each church body to carefully review the far-reaching effects of pursuing a course of action that is contrary to the decisions of the united body of churches; and 3) for each church body to participate in the current study about the theology of the second advent. We recognize that a variety of studies regarding this topic have been going on for nearly the last two millennia, but we are convinced that if we encourage more study, we will surely achieve the aforementioned yet elusive unity so desperately longed for but not yet achieved.
1. Respecting the long-held (and obviously accurate) opinion of the various churches
The various churches impacted by this theology of the second advent (new light considered by some) recognizes that the leadership of the churches representing the common community of believers is the highest authority and most appropriate body to decide which doctrines or biblical and which are not.
As currently understood by the various churches, the belief in the second advent, as espoused by Miller, et al, does not reflect accurate biblical teaching. As well, no provision exists for a geographically localized acceptance of this belief.
For any church to introduce a different theology on the second advent is seen, by the rest of the various churches, as readiness to set aside a common decision made by the leadership of the various churches and proceed in another direction.
2. The effects of unilaterally pursuing a different course of action
The significance of any of the various churches proceeding in a manner contrary to a global decision of the various churches is not limited to the specific action involved (adoption of a Millerite belief in the second advent in the present instance); it touches the very heart of how the various churches function as an ecclesiastical family.
Unless the important value (i.e. collective decision-making and the acceptance of those decisions as the authority of the Church) is maintained, all other values that contribute to unity are seriously weakened. We recognize and hold firmly to the belief that if one stone is removed from the foundation of the building and replaced with a less desirable stone, the entire structure will collapse upon itself.
3. Participation in the current study of the second advent and its implications
Biblical research committees in all parts of civilized America have been asked to conduct a study on the theology of the second advent and its implications. In addition, during 1843, the general administrative committees will appoint a Theology of the Second Advent Study Committee, with representation from all of the various churches, to oversee and facilitate the discussion process and to prepare reports for presentation to the general council of the various churches. The annual council in 1844 will determine what action, if any, should be recommended to the 1845 general sessions of the various churches (assuming Miller is wrong).
The appeal sent by the various churches officers to certain churches also reflects the leadership group’s message to other renegade churches that may be considering similar steps with respect to the adoption of a new theology regarding the second advent.
“We therefore earnestly appeal to you:
1. That the all the various church bodies continue to operate in harmony with the global decisions and global decision-making processes of these same church bodies.
2. That until such time as the various church bodies decide otherwise, renegade individuals and/or churches refrain from taking any action to implement second advent preaching that is contrary to the 1834 and 1841 General Sessions of the various churches along with their representative actions.
3. That the membership of the various churches be informed concerning the implications for the various church bodies in the event that one entity, for whatever reason, chooses a course of action in deliberate opposition to a decision of the various church bodies.
4. That the various church bodies actively participate in the global discussion about the common understanding of the second advent. The contributions of the various church bodies in this discussion can be forwarded to the Theology of the Second Advent Study Committee through the respective church bodies Study Committee set up for this purpose.
Note to all members of the various church bodies: This appeal is of vital importance as we have recently come to observe that not only are the views of the Millerites infiltrating our various churches but a new notion that Sunday may not be the Sabbath has been emerging in a few of the churches as well, with the assertion that the old Jewish Sabbath – Saturday – be reinstated as the true Sabbath. This is further impetus to ensure that we maintain a unified position against these heterodox positions. After all, what could happen if people starting believing heresy’s such as these? We must guard ourselves from the slippery slope that has dangerous and unforeseen consequences. The next you know, in a century or two, this emerging movement could grow to be numbered in the several millions. With this in mind, please do all you can do to maintain the united front against new and strange doctrines.
______________________________
1. A variety of Christian mainstream churches made up of Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregationalist, Baptist, etc.
2. A group of 40 officers from the various church bodies which are involved in this in-depth study and which include officers from the President, Secretariat and Treasury offices of the sundry church bodies plus the Presidents of those bodies who, in additional to being Presidents of their churches are also vice-presidents of AGHAST.
3. Information that a number of churches have adopted Millers theology wholesale give rise to the belief that general acceptance elsewhere is appropriate and should proceed in a similar manner. It has been alleged that some of the various churches have therefore established a precedent for adopting the Millerite doctrines. However, these theologies were not authorized or conducted according to the policies of the various churches. Nor are these theologies approved or recognized/endorsed by various levels of leadership in the various churchesin he s levels of leadership he the belief that general acceptances not reflect accurate biblical teachingllenia,ame to be a doc.
May I congratulate "History Ain't What It Used To Be" for his "discovery" of this highly creative "historical" document. On a serious note, I suspect that something similar to this could actually be found in some dusty archive of an appropriate 19th American mainline church body if someone had the time to do a detailed search.
Look at Christ own example He chose 11 apostles that were men and one chose himself and when they replaced Judas a man was choosen.
Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:7 (KJV) Whereunto I am ORDAINED a preacher and goes on into chapter three where he writes...
This is a true saying, if a MAN desire the office of a bishop HE disireh a good work. A bishop then must be blameless HUSBAND of one wife....1 Timothy 3: 1,2
GWP How do you interpret the following quotes from EGW that she wrote.....
The primary object of our college was to afford young men an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause. 5T page 60.
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 page 598
These two quote are not flukes for they fit in with the rest of her writings.....
There is an urgent demand for laborers in the gospel field. Young men are needed for this work; God calls for them. Their education is of primary importance in our colleges, and in no case should it be ignored or regarded as a secondary matter. It is entirely wrong for teachers, by suggesting other occupations, to discourage young men who might be qualified to do acceptable work in the ministry. Those who present hindrances to prevent young men from fitting themselves for this work are counterworking the plans of God, and they will have to give an account of their course. There is among us more than an average of men of ability. If their capabilities were brought into use, we should have twenty ministers where we now have one.
Young men who design to enter the ministry should not spend a number of years solely in obtaining an education. Teachers should be able to comprehend the situation and to adapt their instruction to the wants of this class, and special advantages should be given them for a brief yet comprehensive study of the branches most needed to fit them for their work. But this plan has not been followed. Too little attention has been given to the education of young men for the ministry. We have not many years to work, and teachers should be imbued with the Spirit of God and work in harmony with His revealed will, instead of carrying out their own plans. We are losing much every year because we do not heed the counsel of the Lord on these points. Testimony Treasures Volume 2, Page 416It also remains to be see how relevant the writings of Ellen White will be in the future. I would not bet against them. They have not failed us yet, protestations by "progressives" to the contrary notwithstanding.
Once you accept that Ellen White is inspired, you can no more ignore her than the Bible, but it is obvious that both Ellen White and the Bible can be read in more than one way. For years we argued over the human nature of Christ (a bigger issue that WO), and there were various committees set to study the issue. Both sides were of course sure their arguments were better and more fully reflected all that Bible had to say. In the end, the GC declared that there were Bible verses that supported each side, and, obviously, other verses that argued against each side. So the conclusion was that the Bible was not clear, and both positions could be held, and no more time would be given at GC sessions to arguing the issue, nor would the GC sponsor any more studies into the issue. Unless someone comes up with 'new light', that is where we stand. We continue to argue, but it is no longer a divisive issue for the world church. I believe that a good argument can be made that the WO issue is the same, and unless the new study comes up with something new that makes a decisive conclusion possible, we should treat this the same way. Allow churches that want a woman pastor to have one (or more), while not imposing them on churches that do not. Much like we did with women elders nearly 40 years ago.
Up to this point the church has been anti- equality as to women's rights. Our GC president has verbally and given written notice of reprimand in not submitting to the status quo. Appalling and not in tune with true leadership. Embracing inequality is something I believe this church should not be proud of - in fact should be ashamed of. The golden rule is of paramount importance and should be applied to this issue. We wax eloquently about OT laws.....and are unable to become saturated with the beautiful yet simple "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".. Let us follow our hearts to equality.
Bea you are on to something. Oil and water are both important. If you take either out of our churches engine it can't run for long!!! If you find the two all mixed together you have a blown head gasket and the days are numbered on the engine.
There are Godly wifes and mothers, that without their influence men could not lead out in the Home or the church.
J - O - E E - R - W - I - N
There is no compromise on spelling (although my last name came from Irvine, and Erv's may have come from Erwin).
Sorry your so sensitive and I will try to spell better ERVIN... You know how it is will these grumpy old men they have bad eyesight too:)
Did I write wifes right? Shucks I should have capitolized church and not Home also... (I am sure there are a few others.....
The reason I don't use my name is: that it is not about me it is about what Gods Word. I don't know what God thinks yet I study what He has said....
And so does virtually everyone involved in this discussion. You may disagree with those of us who believe women can be ordained, but we also came to our conclusions by studying the Bible. This is a dispute over how to interpret the Bible and put it into practice. If we didn't accept the Bible as an authority we wouldn't put so much effort into trying to understand it. To say we have come to the wrong conclusion is your right, to argue we ignore the Bible when we clearly don't is not.
Do you live in the PUC? If so, the latest Recorder should answer all your questions. If you disagree, argue with them, because they will do as they have planned, all objections notwithstanding.
And if you live outside the PUC, there is no reason to comment on the PUC situation. Take it up with your union, wherever it is.
Ignore the little man behind the curtain and do what is best for where you live. If it is in the NAD, women have for a number of years been serving alonside men and should be fully recognized as their equals. It is long past time that this should have been done.
Arron make us a calf.......It is long past time that this should have been done....
I am not sure there is a clear policy of what happens if a decision by a union session seems to be in conflict with the intention of a GC session. I suspect in the end it will come down to the voted resolution and whether it actually says what is claimed. Many are of the opinion that the votes on ordaining women were clearly intended to signal that women cannot be ordained anywhere ever - or until the GC votes to do so. Many others are equally convinced that the vote corresponds solely to the wording of the resolution: 1) not to move ahead with ordaining women as a world wide church in 1990, and 2) not to pass the decision to the Divisions in 1995. Which would mean that the unions are (maybe) in rebellion on the first understanding, or (maybe) doing what they have the right to do on the second.
Any straight answers to the EGW quotes (the 3 from 5T and the one from TT, 2 days ago above,)
"You wrote earlier....I think we all agree that Ellen White is essentially in consensus with the Bible. We disagree over what both mean by what they say...."
I don't understand how someone could find her in favor of WO per the language of genders she spoke in. Yes I agree that she is in consensus with the Bible.
For the next few days I am going to give it a rest, I'll be on the road for Him......
Ever since humans have been reading the Bible, no one has found a text or texts informing us today that we should not have slaves. Why did Christians choose abolition and free the slaves and later enacted civil rights, yet without any scripture supporting those decisions?
There was no Scripture used by the apostles when the most important decision of Christianity was made: Former Jewish law was not to be imposed upon the Gentiles. What was their source for that major decision?
Would that not demonstrate that the Holy Spirit entrusts human to make decisions on what will aid in growing the church and what might be antithetical for its growth?
Because the church has generated and published so much instructional material over the years, we often take a shopping-list approach to what Adventists should and should not do. This makes it difficult to "come and reason together" in an amicable way, because of this "proof text" mentality that insists that one must base one's every practice on Scripture or Spirit of Prophecy, however decontextualized the passage. That one can link a practice to a passage somehow sanitizes the practice and makes it biblical, however much it runs in the face of fundamental principles.
The discussion could be further focused if we obeyed Ellen White's counsel to use the Bible and the Bible only and to NEVER use her writings as the basis for any teaching, practice or doctrine.
"Hope springs eternal," but there have been other controversies in the past based on the Bible alone because people interpret it differently, just as with EGW. Humans think and form opinions based on their own personal experiences.
Several letters have come to me as quite a few people write to me. From those letters I see a big problem with church support in the future over this issue. I think the leadership at the GC are trying to avoid this type of break down. I'm sure they are hearing comments about this issue from both sides.
Could it be that the "breakdown" they fear is both encroaching congregationalism and loss of control? As all parents know, or will learn, the tighter the controls, the greater the urge to break free. However, with increasing trust on both sides, greater trust develops which strengthens the ties.
Respect and trust is never built on fear, but mutual respect. When this loss is sensed, it only encourages both sides to stand firm and unyielding. Good leadership could have avoided this situation, which inveitably will lead to loss of confidence and trust. Instead of mutual respect, it has created adversarial positions.
It is possible to restore some power and resources to the local church without changing our system. It is the attempt to control the chuch from the centre that requires the available power and resources to move towards the centre. If followed as intended, our system has only what is needed for coordination moving towards the centre, the rest either stays or moves towards the periphery (ie local church). We would achieve more by chainging the understanding of our leaders than by changing our system. Most leaders already are convinced intellectually, we just need to prod them towards making it happen.