.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
News
2012
September Headlines
|
Specific Approvals Voted Under the New Policy of No Gender Discrimination in Ordination
Submitted: Sep 13, 2012
By AT News Team
Several local conferences in North America are preparing to conduct ordination services for women pastors in the next few weeks. The first could be as early as October 6 at the Loma Linda University Church, according to Spectrum, the journal of the largest organization of Seventh-day Adventist academics.
At constituency meetings this past summer both the Pacific Union Conference and the Columbia Union Conference voted by overwhelming majorities of delegates to end the practice of excluding women from ordination to the gospel ministry. On September 7 the Pacific Union executive committee voted routine approval of 16 candidates submitted by local conferences of which 14 are women. September 26 the Columbia Union executive committee will meet and it too has routine requests from local conferences that include women candidates.
At least three local conferences among the eight that make up the Columbia Union will have women who will be recommended for ordination, according to sources that talked to Adventist Today on condition of they not be identified. This executive committee has approved individual candidates for ordination who are women as long ago as a quarter century, but union officers asked the local conferences involved to hold off implementation at the request of the General Conference.
The voted taken by the Pacific Union executive committee was without debate or drama, but “tears and praise did come before the meeting was over” in reaction to the historic moment, according to a spokesman for the union conference was present. Some women who are near retirement have waited their entire careers as Adventist ministers for this to occur. Some younger candidates will be ordained at about the same point in their life that men serving as pastors have usually been ordained over the last 150 years.
“It is ironic that this has taken so long to come,” a veteran church administrator told Adventist Today. “Early Adventists had no problem with women serving as ministers and the most important cofounder of the denomination was a woman. General Conference delegates evidently approved the concept in principle as early as 1881.” Because the General Conference has no control over the Seventh-day Adventist Church in China, the church there has been doing so since the 1980s, about the time that repeated studies of the topic began.
Since the 1990 General Conference Session in Indianapolis the denomination has been at an impasse on the issue, unable to come to a definitive position. Almost all of the Bible scholars in the denomination agree that Scripture does not prohibit ordaining women, yet delegates have repeatedly voted against it. Because the denomination’s Working Policy gives union conferences the authority to approve candidates for ordination, several of these units have decided to move ahead and bring an end to decades of indecision.
________________________
Share your thoughts about this article:
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
5 Conferences have already done that. Now the President has to be a repairer of the breach. You know what, this issue was placed on President Wilson like a flood busting through a levy. He deserves the time he requested to investigate under his administration. What has been done is rebellion. It's that plain and simple. It was a rebellious reaction!
Imo, as we are all entitled to:) the way it appears is, this is all about wo not being approved by the church 'yet', when the fact is, none of the Presidents should have passed it because it still has failed to be biblically proven to be a valid act beyond any shadow of doubt. So, to force the issue contrary to the churches present stance, arguing "now is the time", is humanistic. The burden of proof still lies with pro wo. Imo, the President was looking to come together with his very capable staff and scholars on both sides, in the spirit of Acts 17:12,13 to finally put an end to this journey in accordance with church standards.
When something is "not being approved by the church" it is usually forgotten that the members ARE the church, not the leaders in Washington. There is no "church" without members.
The President cannot withhold God's blessing of ordination as it is bestowed by the Holy Spirit and recognized by the immediate members who know the individuals who should be ordained. Where does it state that the Holy Spirit only recognizes males for ordination? The Holy Spirit gives its gifts as it will, not any human leader. Ordination is recognition by the local church that an individual deserves this position.
Too long, people have spoken and thought of the church as residing in the president and the G.C. officers. Where did such an idea originate? Relying on "God's timing" is to ignore that God does not come down from on high and tell us who should be ordained; He has given the church, which is the members, the authority to spread the Gospel and He has not directed us in exactly how this may best be accomplished. It depends on many things: whether it is in a country that would not accept certain practices; and others that are being restrained by trying to maintain conformity with the entire world. We are God's hands and eyes and feet.
Elaine, are we talking about the same church? The church God 'organized' and began in Jerusalem, is the same church He 'organized' in America, which will graciously end up in the new Jerusalem! Sis Whites says, "Let none entertain the thought... that we can dispense with organization. It has cost us much study & many prayers for wisdom that we know God has answered to erect this structure. It has been built up by His direction through much sacrifice & conflict.....In the name of the Lord I declare to you that it is to stand, strengthened established and settled. MSR Vol 1 pg 158.
I believe scripture acknowledges only two official church roles for women: deacon(ness), and disciple, which can be any male/female who submits to the complete will of God's word and Holy Spirit. On the other hand, there are no scriptures that support women as ordained Apostles, Bishops or Elders.
Scripture says, In the name of Jesus, He decides who recieves the 'baptism' of the Holy Spirit which usually involved laying on of hands to impart certain spiritual gifts. For example, on one occassion God gave the supernatural gift to speak in tongues to the Apostles and to gentiles. The Apostles were shocked, but realized God is ultimately in control. These gifts were given based on the will of God according to a specific need or emergency. In this manner God's spirit is showing up around the world all the time, ordaining marvelous works, even through rocks if necessary! But, the special gifts of administration, operations, 1Cor 12:5,6,7 that involve ordaining men into offices of Apostle, Bishop and Elders to be overseer of the churches, God set that up by example. He began with his 12, & later Paul, and they established 'qualifications' whereby 'men' may be set apart to fill these roles.Trying to use the idea that God can ordain whoever he wants is true in the broader sense of the term, but not in regards to the offices of Apostle, Bishop or Elder. God will never contradict his own word and biblically, members don't have a role in the selection process.
As for the spiritual ability of members, there are exceptional examples of Laypersons and LayPersons organizations who uphold the authority of the church in love, while doing marvelous things in Jesus name.
------------
For one, we should have learned by now that one doesn't just blindly accept the oft times diluted and distorted views of bible scholars. Many theologians themselves are the very cause of much of the doctrinal disputes and falsities in the Christian church today, including ours. No, we can’t just rely on them only. We have someone better: The Holy Spirit. Theologians too need the Holy Spirit in order to understand the scriptures.
Secondly, just where are these ‘scriptures’ that either condone or do not prohibit this WO rite. The train may have left the station but is it going in the right direction and how sure are they that the engineer is on board? To make matters worse, they have called this a gender discrimination issue. In so doing, they unjustly accuse God and his son Jesus Christ of doing the same.
Thirdly, it is quite evident that the pastoral work has diminished so much in terms of risk, danger, toil and struggles and great sacrifice for the cause of gospel that it has become quite a cushy office hours preach on Sabbath easy going vocation that even women now seek it as a lucrative career opportunity. Gone are the days of the Cross and the Switchblade and in with the women want to be men or we'll send you on a guilt trip days. All this for the cause of the gospel? Yeah Right! It’s quite odd how this just so happened to be climaxing right at the time when the church has embarked on a major worldwide evangelistic project. Seems some Saints and Saintesses have lost their patience.
Well my friend, since you have outlived EGW and every other human being on the planet, we should respect your 'elder' opinion. :)
As to how we can judge which theologians are led by the spirit, or whether a spirit is of God, we're told 'Ye shall know them by their fruits.' Thus far, the only fruit of this strife (and other elements that have begun to enter our worship) is not wholesome and good, but rather a church on the edge of breaking at a time when we need unity more than ever. The timing of this seems more than coincidental, and thus leads me to think that perhaps 'an enemy hath done this.'
More expressions of rebellion on the part of Unions. What does it say about women who are willing to act out the insubordination? In what other areas will they decide to go their own way? When one belongs willingly to an organization and subscribes to its doctrine it behooves that person to adhere to its rulings or leave!!
Satan started his conflict with God because he thought himself Christ's equal and did not see why he shouldn't get equal glory and honor. He then set about to try and replace the sacred order of Heaven with a different order.
I pray that we do not let a similar spirit jepoardize the future of the church. Instead of striving for equality, we need to strive to be like Christ, who loved us so much he 'made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,' and while on earth constantly lived by the principle 'not my will, but thine, be done' - a principle that bore him to a cross - not to equality.
Some of us are telling like it is. You are spinning it, Ed, and it's quite obvious. Conscience does not play a part in this at all. WO derives its impetus from the dregs of the feminist movement which seeks empowerment. The World Church has spoken on the issue and it's incumbent on subordinate chuch elements to comply.
Uniformity is not the issue but unity is a vital issue. The uniformity argument is just another distraction. Heaven help this church if it does not act to quell rank insubordination.
If God has used SDA women pastors during the last 150 years, what is the big issue over ordination? Is there a biblical difference between an ordained and not ordained pastor?
Perhaps the best solution would be to do away with all ordinations as our practice is based on the historical Roman "ordinatio" of investing a person with the powers and priviledges of a "order."
It seems to me that the real issue is not ordination, but instead women as pastors period. When we see this as the real issue we are faced with 150 year history of God using women pastors in Adventism. Has the church then been wrong during the last 150 years of having women in pastoral and church leadership?
And I think your 1st two sentences regarding our concept of ordination and possible solution is very well and simply outlined and addressed. Thank you.
"Our church members see that there are differences of opinion among the leading men, and they themselves enter into controversy regarding the subjects under dispute. Christ calls for unity. But He does not call for us to unify on wrong practices." --Manuscript 10, 1905
Thank God for Gloria Steinam and all the brave women who spent their lives in women's behalf. This was dealing with part of the Civil Rights Movement that took place 100 years after the Civil War and President Lincoln's brave resolve to free the slaves. Here we are - SDA's groveling, moaning and groaning that women should not be complaining about not being treated equally - that we should deal with more important things like bringing people to the church. ............ "By our actions we shall be known" News releases all over the country have shown the world how we respect our women - and I am not proud of it".
"When holy women display the unmistakable fruits of the Holy Spirit in their ministry, if Gloria Steinem played even a minute role, by all means to God be the glory! He does indeed work in mysterious ways."
You are indeed a great spinmeister. How anyone can in any way extol Steinem needs to think again.
The Adventist Church has always treated women in the church with respect and dignity, holding them in high esteem in the various ministries of the church for which they are loved and appreciated. This cannot be denied. Forcing the socio-political agendas of certain cultural groups no matter how they spin it may not be in the best interests of the church. The church should decide on this, not some factions. The church needs to call them to order and tighten the screws on policies that grant Union Conferences carte blanche. This may very well be a result favouring certain groups in the church who are given higher status, special privileges and are allowed too much leeway. This would not happen in the lowly majority world Church and the Bible Belt (I hope). They have respect.
Affluent groups influenced by their cultural bias have brought much degradation to our church standards in the West. Next will be the homo-promo for sure. That’s the latest politically correct thing it seems for the liberal left. The GC policies should be changed; the Unions should be censured; their leaders should step down and be disciplined for their open disrespect. My heart goes out to the many members in those conferences who do not support the manner in which this was done and what they are doing. I have a gut feeling that there may be many more in the membership not in favour of the conference actions rather than just what's reflected in the delegates vote. Church politics enthusiasts usually have it go in their favour from my experience in the Church.
When I was a kid and doing Pathfinders, I remember a series or presentation talking about the SDA Church structure. It said something to the effect that the SDA Church has a democratic governance, unlike say the RC Church, which has a monarchical governance. What you seem to be invoking is an increased orthodoxy and institutionalisation of the Church, including the increase executive powers of the President. Is that perhaps out of step with the spirit of our pioneers, and perhaps more appropriate in a Church rules by bishops rather than one based on a Presbyterian model of governance?
"22Oct1944" thinks that "next [it] will be the homo-promo for sure." Treating our gay members as equal participants in the church seems to be a problem with certain inidividuals . I continue to be interested in why most of our right wing commenters seems to not wish to give their real names. Do they have an explanation for that?
On an additional note, I suggest that the laity of the world church be cautious with who they elect, employ and ordain to office. Judging from the current look of things, there are a whole lot of Leaders, even within GC, who have backstabbed Pastor Ted Wilson and the church at large. I think he knows this too. He's smart. Thank God!
But it should be noted our FBs are not a creed, and our pioneers were very anti-creedal. There used to be a lot of theological diversity and an environment of discussion, including in the Review and Herald itself (which was a mouthpiece propaganda rag back then). I lament we have lost the pioneer spirit, instead having arguments about religious orthodoxy.
The biblical basis that many use for WO just isn’t there no matter how theologians and leaders may try and spin it. Can we accuse Jesus himself for not being in harmony with FB#14 when he chose twelve men or when He used men as priests in the OT? We know that there were (and are) many capable women of God who can do a fine job too but that doesn’t necessitate that cultural norms be imposed on the body of Christ as and when we feel like. Follow the queue bru. The Church should decide as a body with the direction of the Holy Spirit on issues pertaining to its own work. Secular cultural norms and labour practices should not dictate nor coerce the Church’s prerogative. Why do they want to jump the gun by finding loopholes in policy to achieve their ends? Go to GC to posit this new light or whatever one may call it. Let the Church decide, under the leading of the Spirit, in the forthcoming GC Session and accept the outcome without bitterness and grouse or if further discussion and consultation is needed then so be it. I don’t think FB#14 is advocating an Occupy Church St. frenzy at a time when calm and reason need to prevail.
The church has silently accepted that divorce is here and in many members. It is part of humanity that is not perfect. just as it has not condemned polygamy in certain areas where it tradition. It has been wise to not issue condemnation of members who are many times in a situation for which they cannot control. If one partner "want's out" there can be no marriage; but no remarriage should not be a life sentence following divorce.
The point is, on what basis do we chose certain 'token sins' but not others?
----------
If by gay you mean those who engage in homosexual sex practices, then God will certainly be one of those 'individuals' who would have a problem with it.
From this, one can clearly see the direction we're heading in and those who are gullible enough to fall the WO facade will have to deal with what comes next. They'll probably use the shotgun on FB#14 again.
1] Just a note that Adventists, from what I have gathered, teach that the Holy Spirit is a being or person rather than an 'it'.
2] As far as I know Adventists don't believe that the GC or the President is the church but rather that our membership is - including the aforementioned.
3] Ordination in my opinion is not a gift of the Holy Spirit per se but a setting apart of someone for specific roles or functions based on the bible model of suitable ministries for members and leaders where even age, experience, qualification and gender, among others, may need to be taken into account irrespective of secular cultural norms. Eg. All Women's Ministry leaders I know are women who are ordained in their local churches as leaders. Even at conference level, the same is applied. This is not gender discrimination: it's just the way it is. Men and Women are 'different' last time I checked and the church at this time sees no need to rush in and subject women to function in certain roles of ordination while they have men willing to do the 'dirty' work in that particular role of ministry. Although feminism has largely gate crashed most gender related issues and roles in societies where this is prevalent, one has to remember that the church doesn't have to follow suit or be dictated to. I am weary of folks who are keen to force issues or make unwarranted demands: they usually have ulterior motives.
4] I think that we first need to accept present light that God has given us as a church before we demand that the disco lights be brought in, theology and all.
Are you sure? If that is so, you seem to be promoting the heresy of Tri-theism, not the Trinity.
Some commentators suggest all of Western Christianity, especially English-speaking Christians, do not possess a proper understanding of the Trinity, but instead profess a type of semi-Tritheism. This is because the English translation of the Trinitarian formula, ‘One God in Three Persons’, is an imperfect one. As Roger E Olson notes in The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform (1999), the ancient Fathers did not mean ‘person’ as understood in English today – i.e. an individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity. Rather, ‘person’ is a poor translation of the Latin ‘persona’, which in itself is arguably a poor translation of the original Greek ‘hypostasis’.
The SDA Church has in the past been accused of promoting the heresy of Tri-theism. Perhaps it is because people like 22oct1844 have be promoting certain views as official SDA doctrine. If you can’t even get something as fundamental as the doctrine of the Trinity right, what makes you think you are correct about WO?
Agreed. It is therefore not clear why you seem to be advocating the GC Executive or the President to have more Papal-like monarchical powers?
Sure, no one is saying age, experience, qualification and even agenda shouldn't be taken into account for a ministerial role. For example, I don't think a man would be appropriate as the head of women's ministries, and a women the head of men's ministries. We expect Pastors to have certain qualifications and experience.
But you provide no evidence that women can't be ordained as Pastors. In many situations, issues of gender probably make women better Pastors than men. That is just the way it is...
Sure, of course we need to accept present light - that is what the SDA Church is all about. I think the point is those in favour of WO say that is present light, and we should not be distracted by arguments that really derive from Papal tradition.
If instead you are suggesting we stop growing as a Church, and stop accepting present truth and progressive revelation, then we have lost the spirit of our pioneers and have ossified into a system of orthodoxy the same our the apostate Churches our pioneers left. It is for this reason our pioneers ensured we had no creed. I see a great danger of our Movement becoming just another Church focused on its emptry rituals and traditions.
A very misleading statement as the GC in Official Session has twice said no. Doesn't the AT News team understand the meaning of no? Some kids don't either.
What was decided was that there was no bibilical or theological reason NOT to ordain women, but the world church was not yet ready for that to occur.