The viewpoint that you never hear about

[Joe_in_RP]

There is a lot written about women's ordination, and the support for women's ordination. This typically comes from someone or an institution in USA.

 

Almost all the writing I have read on the Internet about this topic from the church, has come from a North American perspective.

 

I do not want to take sides in this issue. I merely want to present another viewpoint that you may not have heard.

 

I live in the Philippines, I have very many friends were church administrators, and I know how they think. And while I will not speak for them, I will share with you their viewpoints. I have friends in Africa who also share the same views on this topic, and I suspect the Latin Americans also share these views.

 

In these cultures, there is a defined role for women. Even though in the Philippines, the former president is a woman, there are many women in leadership roles, there are no women in religious leadership roles. There are no women pastors. There are no women elders. It is true that the women have a very strong voice, the women here are very powerful, they are very active in ministry, but they have no official position.

 

If the Seventh-day Adventist church in this country in many countries were to ordain women, it would become very controversial With other churches. It would seriously hamper evangelistic efforts. The focus would no longer be on Jesus, but what those Adventists are doing.

 

For this reason, this division along with many other divisions has voted against women's ordination in 2000, 2005, 2010 and I'm sure in 2015.

 

I really do not expect my brothers and sisters in North America to understand this. I mean no disrespect in that statement.

When I came here in 2009, the biggest mistake I made, was underestimating the complexity of the Asian culture. It is 10 times more complex than the North American culture I was raised in. Within this culture there are many subcultures that are equally as complex. With in each country, there are additional subcultures.

 

The success or failure of any organization in this part of the world is tied directly to the culture. Any organization that is counter culture will fail. I guarantee that. I have learned so much about complex cultures.

 

The leadership in this part of the world and probably Africa and Latin America, is annoyed that this issue is coming up again. They thought they dealt with it in 2000, 2005, 2010. Some, are very annoyed.

 

Then there is the second part of this problem. And this is actually the biggest part. The biggest problem. In these three major portions of the church, the culture is one of strict obedience. I am really amazed about how even local meetings go here. If there is a discussion among church elders in a district, there is a free flow of ideas. It's an amazing thing. And then they will have a vote. What ever the outcome of the vote is, all of the people will abide by that. Even if their original views were opposed to the idea. They suppress their own feelings, because the group has voted a certain way. And they follow that vote explicitly in their own church. Whether or not it's their personal view is irrelevant. This is what the majority decided. So that's the way it's going to be. They can hope it will be different in the future, but the majority decided ____.

I will give you an example. Let's say were going to hold a men's retreat. Several people recommend a nice church at the far end of the district. It's a great distance for most of the people to travel and for some very hard if it's raining. A majority decides it's going to be at that church, and everyone goes along. On the day of the event, there are people from those far-flung churches. No one is complaining. This is what the group decided on, so this is where they have to go. There's no even discussion about it. If I were to voice some opinion about whether or not it was a good idea, they would scold me for challenging the group's decision. It doesn't matter what my personal opinion is. My individual opinions are to be suppressed for the benefit of the group (church).

 

Third part of the problem. This could also be a big issue in San Antonio.

The church appointed a study committee. Before the study committee could finish their work, some unions ran ahead and ordained women. I would say almost everyone I know in the church here, both members and leaders view this as a disobedience problem.

Disobedience is dealt with swiftly in these parts of the world. An employee of the church who was disobedient, is quickly dismissed.

Some may say that's right or wrong, my point is that's the way life is here.

 

 I would be surprised, if there was not some discipline issued towards those people who are deemed disobedient to the general conference.

From what I read about Pastor Wilson, he is doing everything he can, to mediate between these two great forces. To me it's like two ships running full speed in the middle of the night right at each other. Neither one wants to change. This is my biggest fear. That neither side of change, neither side will compromise, and July in San Antonio Texas, can be a very hot time.

 

 

I'm not saying that these divisions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are right. I'm just trying to explain to you their are side of the story.

[Tom Wetmore]

Joe, I would invite you to spend some quality time with a wealth of current information to be found in the topic pinned at the top of the topic menu of this section. While this is compiled by the Pacific Union here in North America, it include the perspectives of the other divisions that came together in the TOSC process. There are links to many resources to get a full perspective. I recognize that in those Divisons where it is culturally not likely that WO is likely or possible or where leadership (all male) is greatly opposed that it is very unlikely that the members will get any info and can easily perceive that this is all about or only a NAD driven issue. It is unfortunate and indeed frustrating that such opposition effectively keeps the membership in the dark on the issue. It is true that NAD has taken the lead in this issue, but it is not the only division strongly supportive. There are now at least 4 other Divisons that are strongly supportive of WO.

But more to the point of your observation about cultural sensitivity, it is equally relevant that the cultural realities of the Phillipines, Indonesia, some parts of Africa and South America should not be imposed on NAD, Europe, Australia, or Northern Asia where support for WO is strong and where it is not only accepted, but increasingly deemed essential to furthering and strengthening the work of the Church. Why hold those area back? We readily accept cultural differences and diviations in practice other than women in ministry. But it is a fallacy and a serious misunderstanding that NAD is or ever has sought to impose its view regarding WO on the rest of the world. It is consistently sought to allow WO where it would be OK.

But it is most important to understand that the prevailing view by a majority of the divisions is to permit WO where it is accepted without imposing it on other areas of the world where it is culturally unacceptable. That is reflected in the reports from the TOSC reports from all of the divisions and also a majority of the GC appointed TOSC.

[Gregory Matthews]

Joe:

 

Thank your for your comments.  In many ways, they are well worth considering and in making them, you have contributed to the overall discussion, regardless of whether people either support or oppose female ordination.

 

However, you seem to suggest that you believe that those who will favor female ordination largely come from what you characterize as a North American perspective.  I do not believe that is accurate.    On a global basis, I see the SDA denomination as being closely divided..  I do not see those in favor as primarily coming from North America.  Yes, you may have focused  on the theology as being of NA basis.  Well, in my thinking, the various study committees, as I understand them, while divided, have in the favorable reports come up with a perspective that  I more unified than centralized in North America.

 

As to what will happen at our next GC,  I do not predict.

 

 

 

 

 

[Gail]

But it is most important to understand that the prevailing view by a majority of the divisions is to permit WO where it is accepted without imposing it on other areas of the world where it is culturally unacceptable. That is reflected in the reports from the TOSC reports from all of the divisions and also a majority of the GC appointed TOSC.

This seems to be a good middle ground

[Joe_in_RP]

 

However, you seem to suggest that you believe that those who will favor female ordination largely come from what you characterize as a North American perspective.  I do not believe that is accurate. 

The majority of writing I see on this topic comes from North America.

How many divisions support this I don't think is an issue. The issue in my mind is how many delegates from the GC support it. Last time I checked, around five years ago, about 80% of the delegates come from Asia, Africa, Latin America. Maybe it's time to look at that again.

[HopefulOne]

Third part of the problem. This could also be a big issue in San Antonio.

The church appointed a study committee. Before the study committee could finish their work, some unions ran ahead and ordained women. I would say almost everyone I know in the church here, both members and leaders view this as a disobedience problem.

Disobedience is dealt with swiftly in these parts of the world. An employee of the church who was disobedient, is quickly dismissed.

Some may say that's right or wrong, my point is that's the way life is here.

 

 I would be surprised, if there was not some discipline issued towards those people who are deemed disobedient to the general conference.

From what I read about Pastor Wilson, he is doing everything he can, to mediate between these two great forces. To me it's like two ships running full speed in the middle of the night right at each other. Neither one wants to change. This is my biggest fear. That neither side of change, neither side will compromise, and July in San Antonio Texas, can be a very hot time.

 

 

I'm not saying that these divisions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are right. I'm just trying to explain to you their are side of the story.

 I guess the master plan is to go ahead and ordain,this way the world church may just give in and vote yes. At my church they  have ordained 3 women so far. 

[Woody]

From my primitive understanding .... the bylaws allow Unions to ordain whom they please.

So - it is not the Unions who are rebelling.

There are also anti-discrimination statements in the church that state the church does not discriminate against gender.

So - there are many sides to this issue.

But as Tom mentioned .... the solution is to allow each culture to decide this cultural issue.

[Woody]

It should be noted that EGW was very solid in her support for the unions and how policy and power should be from the middle and not the top if at all possible.

[psalms37]

Anti-Discrimination because of "501C3". When the SDA church incorporated itself it became a government entity and must obey all anti-discrimination laws. This is what i was told by those who supposedly know.

[Gregory Matthews]

Psalms37:  Woody did not mention 501C.  Woody did not say anything related to the government in his statement.  What he did do is to reference internal documents that exist .  In your reaction to what Woody said, I will suggest that you have gone well beyond what he said and placed you own stuff into his statement.

 

Further, your statement reflects a major misunderstand of the law in the United  States;

 

1) The Church does not have to obey anti-discrimination statutes because  of incorporation.  The Church is simply required to obey applicable law because it is the applicable statute and not due to incorporation.  Anti-discrimination statutes apply according to how the statute was written.  In any case they are not limited to what has been incorporated.  There are businesses that have to abide by whose statutes that are not incorporated.

 

2) There is no law, in the United States that requires a Church to abide by anti-discrimination statutes, as it pertains to its clergy.  Any such law could quickly be found to be in violation of the 1st Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

[psalms37]

@ Greg Matthews; Thanks for the info Greg. I did not mean to put words into Woody,s comment. There are so many voices out there, it gets confusing.

Is there an official web site about "501c3" as the SDA church understands it? That would be a great help.

[Gregory Matthews]

I do not think that there would be an official SDA web on the 501c.  I Do not see any reason for such.

 

My comments were based upon my understanding of U.S. law, not anything that the SDA Church says.

 

As an example, let ne develop further my 2nd comment related to SDA clergy.  As developed in case law, the 1st Amendment to the Federal Constitution would prohibit the government from any attempt to dictated who a religious denomination would select as clergy.

 

There is easy proof of that:  The Roman Catholic Church restricts priests to males.  Never, in the United States, has there ever been a successful  discrimination case against the RC Church for doing such.

 

Yes, I know that I expanded the discussion to clergy and anti-discrimination law and I did it simply to illustrate my point.

 

I did make a reference to "internal documents."  That comment came about because of Woody's comment about Church anti-discrimination statements.  In actuality, I do not know exactly what he had in mind.  However, I can make an educated guess and I am probably correct as to  my guess.  It has become the custom for denominational organizations, in the U.S., that operate schools, to issue a published statement at the beginning of the school term, that state that their schools do not discriminate and to list the areas in which they do not discriminate.  If you look at those published statements closely you may note that they may not state that they do not discriminate on the basis of religion.  The is due to the fact that in this case, religious discrimination may be allowable.

 

Perhaps Woody had something different in mind?  I do not know.

 

The issue may be different in the case of clinical care providers, such as hospitals, in the United States.  Arguments are made on both sides of the question as to the extent to which such are protected by the 1st Amendment to the Federal Constitution. But, I am not addressing that here, although I do have an opinion. 

 

So, when I say that the SDA Church has 1st Amendment protections, I am using the word "church" in a narrow definition that   may not expand to other activities.

 

NOTE:  There have been times when the SDA Church has owned and operated a business.  It is clear that anti-discrimination laws applied the Harris Pine Mills when it was owned by the Church.  The Mary-Kay Silver case clearly demonstrated that such law applied to Pacific Press.

 

The bottom line is:  Some questions are simple and some are complex in their answers.

[psalms37]

Thank you for taking the time to explain.

[Joe_in_RP]

The way this church is organized, is that the majority of people make the rules. Every five years, representatives of each conference based upon members numbers, get together and make decisions.

These are the decisions that are binding. These are the decisions that are given to general conference presidents to follow up on. To unions and conferences in missions to follow.

People seem to forget this. If we go back and study our history, the decision-making of our church comes from these five-year conferences.

Some people are pointing this official or that official, saying they support or don't support this issue.

These officials get their marching orders from the members of the entire church.

So if that's the case, we need to understand the thinking and feelings of all those voting representatives.

In another thread, I showed the cultural makeup of the church.  The purpose of all this, is to educate people on how these other divisions, which make up a vast majority of the church see the issue.

I have not seen those other divisions thinking/feelings represented in the print publications, or the online publications.
In fact these divisions, Africa, Latin America and Asia, normally do not publicize their thoughts in these types of media.
It's normally done in private, quietly.

 

There is some people who think, we need to push the church along. We need to do what is right. However, the structure of the church, is that the majority of representatives will decide.

I seriously doubt that they will be pushed.

Whenever we're proposing a change, we need to understand that the majority is going to rule. That might be difficult to accept. But that's the way the church is structured.



 

[Gregory Matthews]

Joe, your tell us that the majority of the representatives at the meetings will decide.  You are correct in that statement.

 

However, even in our church, a process that is substantially political has developed and is in operation at those meetings.  If you do not realize this, you simply do not understand.  As I write that political process is taking place on a number of fronts.

 

In addition, you tell us that the decision making power resides in members who send representatives to those meetings.  Actually the members do not have a major voice.  It is those representatives who play a major role.  Read the General Conference Constitution.  Read the section on who are voting delegates to a General Conference Session.  Look at the large number of people who are voting delegates simply because of their denominational position.  IOW, they are voting delegates but not as representatives of the membership.  They are voting delegates as representatives of the denominational organization.  On the basis of the number of actual delegates who are members and not denominational representatives I cannot say that the members have a deciding role. 

 

President Neal Wilson was correct when in testimony in the Mary  Kay Silver  case he compared the SDA denomination to a Church run by leadership.

 

The SDA Church of today gives a limited role to the members and the higher one goes in the denominational structure, the less the role of the members.    Yes, on an individual congregational level, members play an increasing role which sometimes may decide the issues.  Yes, the role of the members is increasing on higher administrative level of the denomination.   But, I cannot say that it is presently a major role on the higher levels.  On those levels, it is primarily people who represent the denomination who make the rules.

[Joe_in_RP]

It will be interesting to see what happens.

I am glad I will not be there.

[teresaq]

I'm not clear. Are you saying that if any part of the SDA church ordains women it will be hard on our churches in certain areas?

 

Or that certain areas dare not ordain women....or believe they dare not?

[Woody]

The only thing that is hard .... is when one part of the world .... tries to impose it's will on another part of the world on this matter.

Let each district (union) decide for themselves. That way it won't be hard on anyone.