Nic Samojluk Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 For several decades now the Adventist Church has been involved in a never ending debate over the issue of gender discrimination regarding women’s ordination. The main bone of contention has been over whether uniformity is a requisite for church unity. Can we have true unity without doctrinal uniformity? Can the church function with unity on essentials and diversity on peripheral issues. The Case for Unity & Uniformity The leadership of the church has been striving for unity and uniformity over the controversial issue of women’s ordination. The best scholars of the church have invested enormous amounts of time and effort in an attempt to discover what the biblical teaching is regarding this highly contested topic without reaching a consensus. Given this lack of agreement among the experts in biblical studies, the Adventist leaders kept urging fellow Adventists to be patient and avoid making a move that might threaten to split the Adventist community over this seemingly crucial issue. When the Pacific Union Conference [PUC] decided to schedule a constituency meeting for August 19, 2012 to decide this controversy, Ted Wilson, the president of the General Conference, made desperate efforts to convince the delegates to vote for unity and uniformity. The Case for Unity & Diversity The view of the majority opinion in the PUC was summarized with unusual clarity by Randy Robert, the Senior Pastor of the Loma Linda University Church; who argued for unity on essentials with diversity on peripheral issues. He reminded his hearers of the fact that when dealing with similar controversies in the Christian Church, Paul did not insist on uniformity over non essential doctrinal issues like food which had been offered to idols and even the Jewish circumcision ritual. He added Paul’s practice of forbidding women from speaking in the church, which is universally ignored by Christians and Adventists today. We do allow women to teach, preach, baptize, and teach both other women and even men, which Paul considered to be unacceptable. The classic example of the wide acceptance of this practice is the case of Ellen White, who was allowed to preach and teach the entire Adventist community both with verbal and written instructions for over a century now. Needless to say, the opinion of Randy Roberts prevailed to the dismay of Ted Wilson, who reacted by announcing that the General Conference will study in the month of October on how to properly respond to this undesirable event which, according to him, seriously threatens to break the unity of the Adventist community of faith. Of course, for him, unity without uniformity makes no logical sense. Unity on Peripherals & Diversity on Essentials My personal view on what is taking place in the Adventist Church is that we have been fighting for unity on peripherals while practicing diversity on essentials. We have been majoring in minors and minoring on majors. The church’s insistence on depriving women; who are allowed to study for the ministry, and who after graduation are permitted to teach, preach, baptize, and to officiate at wedding ceremonies; of the privilege of prayer, laying of hands, and a piece of paper which recognizes their spiritual calling for the ministry; represents to me a good example of our stress on unity on peripherals or majoring in minors. Contrast this with the church position on abortion, which represents in my view a violation of one of God’s Commandments enshrined in the Decalogue, which the Lord wrote with his own finger on two tablets of stone. On this life and death issue, which has deprived millions of innocent human beings of what is the most sacred asset God bestowed on humanity, we as a church have so far allowed for diversity in spite of the fact that our Adventist pioneers considered the practice of abortion as plain murder. When our Castle Memorial Hospital was faced with a demand for abortion back in 1970 by their non-Adventist physician staff, the church did not say: We must have unity and uniformity over this controversial issue. Neal Wilson, the then president of the North American Division, did not say: “Let’s wait for the entire worldwide community to be united on this issue before we allow our North American hospitals to offer elective abortions in our medical institutions.” Profit from abortion prevailed over unity and uniformity, and moral duty took a back seat. Eventually the church approved the policy contained in the document known as “Guidelines on Abortion,” a non prescriptive set of suggestions which pretended to speak on behalf of the unborn, but which provided a long list of exceptions that opened the door wide for abortions on demand, and which eventually led 12 of our Adventist hospitals to offer abortion services to their patients with impunity. One of these institutions was described by a General Conference representative as an “abortion mill.” So much for unity and uniformity on a major life and death issue! Said Guidelines on Abortion document was never submitted to the worldwide Adventist Community in a general session of the General Conference where delegates from the entire world are present. Thus, diversity on a crucial doctrinal issue affecting one of God’s Commandments prevailed without an insistence on unity and uniformity. What is your opinion? My question to my fellow believers is: Do we have a moral and logical right to insist on unity and uniformity on women’s ordination if we have neglected to require such unity and uniformity on a life and death issue like abortion? Is a piece of paper entitled Ministerial Ordination more important than the life of millions of unborn human beings? Why do we insist on uniformity on a minor issue like ordination but allow diversity on what is clearly condemned in the Decalogue? Wasn’t this the problem of those who crucified the Son of God? What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeMo Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Nic, Great subject on which I have tried to gain traction before and failed. Hopefully, you will be more successful. I agree with pastor Roberts concerning unity on essentials (salvational issues); with diversity on peripheral (non-salvational)issues. Salvational issues are generally addressed by the 28 Fundamentals of the SDA Church (as written; not as practiced by some). Non-essential items (e.g., vegetarianism, the wearing of jewelry, women pastors, the balance of works vs grace in the process of sactification, exactly what is and is not allowed on the Sabbath) should be left to individuals and local cultures. In a practical sense, no 2 people can agree on everything, much less millions of people world-wide. The church's goal should not be to make all churches exact carbon copies of each other. From my perspective, if you don't like the idea of having a woman pastor, then don't go to a church that has one. Probably a little more contraversial, if you are against abortion, then you should never get one. Our priority should be to become servants of Christ and spread is love and inclusiveness; not to be slaves to a denomination, and encourage exclusiveness. Blessings, JoeMo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted August 25, 2012 Author Share Posted August 25, 2012 JoeMo wrote: “Great subject on which I have tried to gain traction before and failed. Hopefully, you will be more successful. I agree with pastor Roberts concerning unity on essentials (salvational issues); with diversity on peripheral (non-salvational) issues.” I agree. It is a great subject; nevertheless, the apathy and silence of Adventists on this issue disturbs me a great deal. Among the topics currently discussed by Adventist is the issue of abuse in our church. This is definitely a very important topic of conversation. But when we contrast this with our silence on the ultimate form of abuse: the deprivation of life in our own institutions which started back in 1970 and which led to elective abortions, the contrast is undeniable. We are definitely emphasizing uniformity on minor issues while allowing diversity on life and death issues like abortions on demand. When Ervin taylor asked a basic question in his recent article published by Adventist Today dealing with this topic, I answered with the following response: “Erv, You asked the following question “Why has Wilson, at this particular time, decided to make Women’s Ordination (WO) a test of loyalty to the unity of the institutional Adventist Church and do it in such a visible and public way?” My answer is: Because the Adventist leadership, starting with Neal Wilson, Ted’s father, has been focusing on minor issues and ignoring major ones. We have been fighting for unity on peripherals while practicing diversity on essentials. We have been majoring in minors and minoring on majors. A good example of this myopic view is our recurring concern for the sexual abuse of children, but an almost total neglect of the ultimate form of abuse: the killing of innocent unborn children in our own medical institutions which began in 1970 with the blessing of our church. The church’s insistence on depriving women--who are allowed to study for the ministry, and who after graduation are permitted to teach, preach, baptize, and to officiate at wedding ceremonies--of the privilege of prayer, laying of hands, and a piece of paper which recognizes their spiritual calling for the ministry; represents to me a good example of our stress on unity on peripherals or majoring in minors. Contrast this with the church position on abortion, which represents in my view a violation of one of God’s Commandments enshrined in the Decalogue, which the Lord wrote with his own finger on two tablets of stone. On this life and death issue, which has deprived millions of innocent human beings of what is the most sacred asset God bestowed on humanity, we as a church have so far allowed for diversity in spite of the fact that our Adventist pioneers considered the practice of abortion as plain murder. When our Castle Memorial Hospital was faced with a demand for abortion back in 1970 by their non-Adventist physician staff, the church did not say: “We must have unity and uniformity over this controversial issue.” Neal Wilson, the then president of the North American Division, did not say: “Let’s wait for the entire worldwide community to be united on this issue before we allow our North American hospitals to offer elective abortions in our medical institutions.” Profit from abortion prevailed over unity and uniformity, moral duty took a back seat, and concern over God’s Law went out the window! Eventually the church approved the policy contained in the document known as “Guidelines on Abortion,” a non prescriptive set of suggestions which pretended to speak on behalf of the unborn, but which provided a long list of exceptions that opened the door wide for abortions on demand, and which eventually led 12 of our Adventist hospitals to offer abortion services to their patients with impunity. The result is that recently one of these Adventist institutions was described by a General Conference representative as an “abortion mill.” So much for unity and uniformity on a major life and death issue! Said Guidelines on Abortion document was never submitted to the worldwide Adventist Community in a general session of the General Conference where delegates from the entire world are present. Thus, diversity on a crucial doctrinal issue affecting one of God’s Commandments prevailed without an insistence on unity and uniformity. Consequently, my question to my fellow believers is: Do we have a moral and logical right to insist on unity and uniformity on women’s ordination if we have neglected to require such unity and uniformity on a life and death issue like abortion?" Does my view reflect reality or is it the result of mental delusions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeMo Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Nic, You are not delusional. The concern about abortion you have is legit. Your opinion about the denomination's focus on peripheral, non salvational issues is valid. My own son was massively molested by a teacher at an SDA School; and he reported it. His reward was being drummed out of the church; and his family shunned by the church for months. That son is dead now. It seems to be okay for some parts of the church to summarily disfellowship wives who divorce their husbands because of spousal abuse; but God forbid that we ordain women. Where is the sanity? My answer is that we are a man-made denomination whose leadership is motivated by the same things that motivate any multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation - money and power. Like most chief executive types, they believe in the golden rule - "he who has the gold rules". They tend to do what keeps them in power. It dosen't stop with the GC, it goes right down to the local church. Those who contribute the most to the church usually have the most influence over the board and the pastor. Is that right? No! Is it reality? Yes! I may be a pessimist; but I don't think it will change at any level - religious or secular - until Jesus returns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whbae Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 JoeMo, Sadly, I agree with you. It does not all the time, but, I feel, It happens too many times. I guess it is the human nature, sadly. Won Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 When I joined the Adventist Church, almost seven decades ago, there was a healthy balance between Law and Grace. I still remember how this was illustrated in a Sabbath School Quarterly by a picture of a man in a canoe where one oar was labeled as Law and the other Grace. This seems to be no longer the case. No wonder, we have decided to honor now—like Rome—only nine of the Ten Commandments. The one forbidding the shedding of innocent blood is no longer emphasized, and thousands of innocent unborn babies have been exterminated inside some of our own medical institutions with impunity. When we see sexual abuse of children in the church, we raise our voices in protest, but the ultimate form of abuse—killing of the unborn—is treated as a non issue. When was the last time you heard abortion mentioned in a sermon? The issue is ignored or else treated with apathy. Yet we still believe that we are entitled to be labeled as the true Commandment keeping people who have the last message of hope for a perishing world! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeMo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Hey Nic, No offense, bud; but I cannot concentrate on just the abortion issue. grievous as it is, it is simply a symptom of the problem of the church ignoring huge salvational issues while focusing on minor non-salvational issues. We need to unify on those major salvational issues (like abortion) and de-emphasize the uniformity issues (like WO) as cultural issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Quote: We need to unify on those major salvational issues (like abortion) We will have to disagree here! Everyone has what they believe is 'salvational' issues. Nic has but one topic in mind, every posting from him/her will have the seeds of that topic within it. The church does have a 'stand' on abortion, just not accepted by Nic. Should we have the church outline and take a position on every known or percieved sin? Where does the individual fit into it all? We have the guidance from the Bible what constitutes sin, how about we just leave it at that. Either we have a pope or we don't!! My conscience should be my guide, not a list. Jesus gave examples only because of the desire of questioners to trip Him up or to evade the real knowledge of what sin was and is. We do believe in the presence of the H*S, don't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Hey Nic,No offense, bud; but I cannot concentrate on just the abortion issue. grievous as it is, it is simply a symptom of the problem of the church ignoring huge salvational issues while focusing on minor non-salvational issues. We need to unify on those major salvational issues (like abortion) and de-emphasize the uniformity issues (like WO) as cultural issues. When it comes to uniformity imagine the response at UPS when their drivers decided that they no longer wanted to concentrate on wearing brown shorts (in winter)but rather keep focused (like they can't work and think at the same time)on the task of delivering their packages? Now that's an attack on uniformity!! Sounds like the same reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 CoAspen, You said: “The church does have a 'stand' on abortion, just not accepted by Nic.” Can we take a peek at what said stand on abortion is? It is contained in a paper titled “Guidelines on Abortion,” that sounds at first sight as pro-life but which in fact is a pro-choice/pro-abortion document. It contains a list of exceptions to the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, including the mental health one which opened the door to abortion on demand in our medical institutions. The worst part is the fact that said Guidelines on Abortion are merely suggestive, which means that each Adventist hospital is free to ignore said guidelines. Proof of this is the fact that in spite of the clear declaration in said document that “Elective” abortions are not condoned by the church, at least five of our Adventist hospitals did admit offering abortions on demand to their patients. Can I be silent knowing that my tithes and offering have been used to justify the violation of God's Law? We have a long tradition of condemning Rome for voiding the true and original meaning of one of God’s Commandments. What can we say now knowing that we have watered down another one of those Commandments? Which is worse: worshipping God on the wrong day of the week or taking the life of innocent unborn babies? Which offense will insult God more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeMo Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Duly noted CoAspen, I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted August 28, 2012 Members Share Posted August 28, 2012 Can we take a peek at what said stand on abortion is? It is contained in a paper titled “Guidelines on Abortion,” that sounds at first sight as pro-life but which in fact is a pro-choice/pro-abortion document. It contains a list of exceptions to the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, including the mental health one which opened the door to abortion on demand in our medical institutions. No Nic from what I see its a "choice" issue between the individual and God! Not between the individual and Nic/God!! Quote phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted August 28, 2012 Author Share Posted August 28, 2012 Sorry to disagree! God’s instruction is simple and crystal clear: “You shall not murder.” Our guidelines on abortion represent a clever way of twisting what the Lord said beyond recognition. But what is worse that said guidelines are not prescriptive, but rather suggestions which no one is obligated to follow. The proof is that at least five of our Adventist hospitals admitted that they were offering elective abortions—which are contrary to said guidelines-- with impunity while the church looked the other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 No Nic from what I see its a "choice" issue between the individual and God! Not between the individual and Nic/God!! You mean a choice to kill one's perfectly healthy unborn baby if one doesn't want it? OK how bout a choice to kill one's liver, and their brain, by drinking a fifth of Jack Daniels every night? Or maybe it's only between a mother and God whether or not she smokes 3 packs of unfiltered Camels, and snorts 5 lines of coke a day during her pregnancy? And if God's not OK with that choice should anyone else mention it to the individual? Is there any reason why Nic can't extend that same option of choice to the individual up through 2 or 3 months after the birth of the child? The WO crowd is simply asking for the same choice that has been granted to perfectly healthy women who don't want their perfectly healthy babies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted August 29, 2012 Members Share Posted August 29, 2012 Originally Posted By: pkrause No Nic from what I see its a "choice" issue between the individual and God! Not between the individual and Nic/God!! You mean a choice to kill one's perfectly healthy unborn baby if one doesn't want it? OK how bout a choice to kill one's liver, and their brain, by drinking a fifth of Jack Daniels every night? Or maybe it's only between a mother and God whether or not she smokes 3 packs of unfiltered Camels, and snorts 5 lines of coke a day during her pregnancy? And if God's not OK with that choice should anyone else mention it to the individual? Is there any reason why Nic can't extend that same option of choice to the individual up through 2 or 3 months after the birth of the child? The WO crowd is simply asking for the same choice that has been granted to perfectly healthy women who don't want their perfectly healthy babies. Doug no one is saying that we should not stand up for what is right! But according to the Bible even though we know right from wrong we still have the right to "choice." Do we not? Each one of us chooses everyday to sin or not, and with that choice we will have to answer for that before the great judge. Again no one is saying, or at least I'm not, that we can't stand up for what's right. God has given us all the right to choose, be it the right thing or the wrong thing, we still have that right to choose. But we will answer for that at the judgement. Quote phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeMo Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I tend to agree, PK. The church can't make a policy for every sin - be it personal or national. My opinion, the more people we bring to Jesus under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the fewer sinners of all types would there be. The Holy Spirit can convict us in our hearts of any and all evils better than the government can enforce any given law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted August 29, 2012 Members Share Posted August 29, 2012 I tend to agree, PK. The church can't make a policy for every sin - be it personal or national. My opinion, the more people we bring to Jesus under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the fewer sinners of all types would there be. The Holy Spirit can convict us in our hearts of any and all evils better than the government can enforce any given law. Quote phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Quote: Should we have the church outline and take a position on every known or percieved sin? Where does the individual fit into it all? We have the guidance from the Bible what constitutes sin, how about we just leave it at that. Either we have a pope or we don't!! Excellent. Well stated CoA Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted August 30, 2012 Members Share Posted August 30, 2012 Quote: Should we have the church outline and take a position on every known or percieved sin? Where does the individual fit into it all? We have the guidance from the Bible what constitutes sin, how about we just leave it at that. Either we have a pope or we don't!! Excellent. Well stated CoA Quote phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 pkrause wrote: “Doug no one is saying that we should not stand up for what is right! But according to the Bible even though we know right from wrong we still have the right to "choice." Do we not? Each one of us chooses everyday to sin or not, and with that choice we will have to answer for that before the great judge. Again no one is saying, or at least I'm not, that we can't stand up for what's right. God has given us all the right to choose, be it the right thing or the wrong thing, we still have that right to choose. But we will answer for that at the judgement.” As individuals, we have the freedom to choose between right and wrong. Nevertheless, the church has a sacred duty to warn sinners and invite them to repent of their sins. The moment the church ignores such duty, its mission is compromised and the church becomes a tool of the Devil's devices and deceptions. The Bible compares shepherds who neglect their duty to take care of their sheep to dogs who do not do what they are supposed to do: bark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 I tend to agree, PK. The church can't make a policy for every sin - be it personal or national. My opinion, the more people we bring to Jesus under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the fewer sinners of all types would there be. The Holy Spirit can convict us in our hearts of any and all evils better than the government can enforce any given law. If the church has no duty to say anything about a particular sin like killing, which is the violation of the Sixth Commandment, then why have we invested to much time to preach and publish about the need to obey the Sabbath? Are you suggesting the worshipping the Lord on the wrong day of the week is a worse sin than taking the life of an innocent unborn baby? Can we be consistent for a change? If someone steals our automobile, we call the police and expect the government to punish the evil doer. Is stealing a car a worse offense than stealing the life of a human being? What is the role of the government? Isn’t it to protect the life and property of those living under the government’s jurisdiction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.