Down the rabbit hole, ... again!

[B/W Photodude]

Not sure why it seems that every new ordination of a woman, in rebellion to the General Conference, seems to push the envelope further and further. Well, you read the article:

As if WO isn’t bad enough, the Central States regional conference in Kansas is planning on ordaining a single woman with strange views on sexuality.

Kimberly Bulgin, who is the ‘pastor’ of the New Beginnings SDA church in Witchita, Kansas, is scheduled to be ordained, in violation of the will of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on October 23.

She is the founder of the Love God, Love Sex Movement, which claims to “challenge your traditional Christian viewpoint on sex when we destroy common myths about our sexuality.” Here are a few ways that she is challenging traditional Christian viewpoints of sex[uality], from her own blog.

https://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2021/10/11/central-states-conference-wants-to-ordain-a-woman-with-odd-ideas-about-sexuality

You can check out my FREE Wild Worship devotional book, listen to FREE sermons and podcast episodes, sign up for the Love God, Love Sex Experience and purchase affordable bold t-shirts all on this site! 

https://www.kimberlybulgin.com

[GHansen]

Unfortunate that the denomination is so out of touch with what some people really want. Of course, a certain class of people are interested in sexual immorality, might possibly be drawn to a church that revels in it. My guess is, however, that this type of person is not the type that is going to live righteously through the last days or any days. The ICOC attracted thousands of college age "disciples" with a strict program advocating chastity, virginity, and abstinence. There was strict accountability. Singles lived with others in either family homes or same gendered room mates. Un-chaperoned dating was not allowed. Certainly some people denounced the church as a cult; nevertheless, not only rocky marriages were healed, new ones based on Christian principles were established.

One young woman, a beauty queen in her home country, was kept by her wealthy boyfriend is an apartment which he visited when he liked. She had aborted 3 children they conceived. ICOC members convinced her to change her life. Next time her boyfriend showed up, she refused to let him in the apartment, told him things were going to be different in the future. He threw a fit but she held firm. Eventually, they were both baptized and became active members of the church.

Another lovely pre med student told of being raised in a Christian home, doing every thing right through her life but still being troubled by vague feelings of guilt and uncertainty, the source of which she was unaware. She too was approached by ICOC members and the source of her uncertainty and guilt was relieved by a renewed commitment to Christ. She was a real beauty queen, inside and out.

Probably most of these young people were contacted by fellow college students on the campus of universities such as MIT, Cal Tech, UCLA, USC and others. Most of these now Christian young people would be repulsed by the "ministry" that the denomination is validating through ordination. The leaders of the ICOC would also loudly condemn it.

[B/W Photodude]

5 hours ago, GHansen said:

The ICOC attracted thousands ...

ICOC? Unknown to me acronym.

[GHansen]

5 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

ICOC? Unknown to me acronym.

International Churches of Christ. They separated from the Church of Christ under the leadership of Kip McKean. Originally known as Campbellites, they were traditional debating opponents of SDA.

[Gregory Matthews]

In a previous message Photodude said in the quote below:

A fundamental issue related to this subject is:  Who has the authority to decide on who should be ordained?  Is it the Local Conference?  Is it the Union Conference?  Is it the General Conference?  In order to say whether or not an ordination is rebellion, that question must be answered.

The historic background of the SDA Chruch has been that the decision on ordination is made by the Union Ckonference.  The Local conference submits a list of candidates for ordination.  The Union Conference then either approved or did not approve of the individual candidates.  No other denominational unit was involved.   In this historic background the Constitution of the Union Conference was given the right to decide who should be ordained.

In order to say that an ordination was in rebellion, one would need to review the Constitution and By-Laws of the Union Conference to see if it still retained the authority to decide. I am willing to grant that in some cases the Union Constitution and By-Laws may have been changed in a manner that grants higher levels of the SDA organization to disapprove candidates for ordination.  I am not saying that this has been done.  I am only saying that it may have been done.

However, I believe that it has not been done in every case.  IOW, I believe that the Constitution and By-Laws of some Union conferences still have the final authority to determine who should be ordained and that authority has not been limited. 

In response, some may ask:  Does not the General Conference meeting in session have the authority to override the Constitution and By-Laws of a Union Conference.  The answer to that question is a decided "no."   The Constitution and By-Laws of a Union Conference can only be changed by a vote of the constituency of that Union Conference. 

So does that mean that the General Conference is without recourse as to actions to take.  No, it does not. it is limited in the actions that it can take.  But, it is not without the ability to act.  The General Conference meeting is session has the authority to expel an entire Union Conference from the organized SDA Chruch.   So far, the General Conference has not had the stomach to do so.

I guess the fundamental issue is:  How important does the General Conference believe female ordination to be?  So far, the General Conference does not appear to believe this issue is important enough to expel Union Conferences from the SDA denomination.

My prediction is that in the future the General Conference will not vote to expel any Union Conference and that in the future female ordination will become more accepted in the SDA denomination.  

    

Not sure why it seems that every new ordination of a woman, in rebellion to the General Conference, seems to push the envelope further and further. 

[phkrause]

10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

My prediction is that in the future the General Conference will not vote to expel any Union Conference and that in the future female ordination will become more accepted in the SDA denomination.  

Personally I think it should be acceptable to ordinate women!!

[B/W Photodude]

An update on this sad situation:

https://www.fulcrum7.com/news/2021/10/22/central-states-conference-will-proceed-with-the-ordination-of-kim-bulgin

[B/W Photodude]

It has been done-

Adventist Insubordination Dressed Like a Catholic Procession

However, the Central States Conference, fully aware of these events, is engaging in an act of defiance. This is a complete disrespect and a mockery of the wishes of the world church. Not only are we seeing outright rebellion, but the General Conference is doing absolutely nothing about these rogue entities that are spreading their feminist revolution. Today you can defy the clear teachings of God’s word, you can defy the decisions of the world church in general session and you can defy the expressed will of God about unity and cooperation and no one is disciplined.

http://adventmessenger.org/adventist-insubordination-dressed-like-a-catholic-procession/

[Kevin H]

The thought of Fulcrum7 is a continuation of a thread in Adventism. Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s Mrs. White and Willie wrote the pastors who's ideas became the foundation of Fulcrum7 that they were not comfortable with their theology, that despite massive quoting of Mrs. White's words that they did not understand her message and were thus using her words to force the rest of the church to follow their views. Now they were not seen as in extreme apostacy where they needed church discipline, these leaders kept their jobs and were respected as a voice in Adventism, but that the Whites were still uncomfortable with them, that they were holding on to views that the church had grown out of and refusing to grow with the church. Why can Mrs. White say in her day that this view is something that she was uncomfortable with, and today they are the pure voice of Adventism?

As for women's ordination, in the early 1900s there were women that the church was to ordain. One of these was in New York and the Atlantic Union approved the ordination. General Conference President A. G. Daniels was visiting the Atlantic Union at the time. He told them that they have the right to ordain her; that he believed in ordaining women, but said that it might be wise to wait to ordain her until the church could be educated to the fact that women's ordination was indeed Biblical. 

While we don't have proof of direct contact between Elder Daniels and Mrs. White on this issue, Mrs. White did start to write on women in ministry. This was either Mrs. White working with Elder Daniels request to hold off on ordination of women until the church could be educated that women's ordination was indeed Biblical, or the Holy Spirit had rotten timing.

As Gregory pointed out, in most of the church the level for ordination is the Union. When the Unions wanted to ordain women at the start of the 1900s Daniels saw the Union of having the right to ordain who they wish and all he could do as General Conference President was to make a request to the unions to wait until our members are better educated. If they turned down his request, they would not be seen as being in rebellion against the church. 

Also, an issue with the proposal at the 2015 General Conference motion was that it wanted to remove ordination from the union level and elevate it to the division, then give the division the right to ordain women. This was a difficult situation since it was in rebellion of Mrs. White's restructuring of the church to give the power to ordain to the union, by taking that right away from them and giving it to the division.

Anyway, the topic got side tracked by issues such as the trinity, and both Mrs. White and A. G. Daniels and others were starting Mrs. White's last great battle, how inspiration works. A battle that Mrs. White died while still fighting and a battle that she lost as the views of inspiration held by Elder Haskell became the view that most Adventists accepted. And second and third were close behind, one being the view of the pastors who the White's wrote those letters to, and who's views are carried on by Folcrum7, or else those who want to belittle Mrs. White to only a devotional and pastoral role. Mrs. Whites view was abandoned, especially at the 1922 General Conference.  

[Gregory Matthews]

In response to the comment that the General Conference wanted to elevate ordination from the Union level to the Division level:

*  Under U.S. law and the manner in which the SDA denomination has incorporated, that change would require a change in the Constitution and By-laws of some of the Unions.

*  That change in the Constitution and By-laws may have been made in some cases.

*  However, I do not believe that it was made in every case.  Therefore, as I understand it, in some cases the Union Conference still retains the right to ordain whomever it decides to ordain including women.

 

 

 

[Stan]

If we in Canada, as well as other countries, gave control of this to those in a foreign land, we could lose our charitable status.

BUT really it is time we should discard the ecclesiastic structure that we inherited by the Church of Rome, and go to the New Testament model that every believer is a minister.

 

 

 

[Kevin H]

2 hours ago, Stan said:

If we in Canada, as well as other countries, gave control of this to those in a foreign land, we could lose our charitable status.

BUT really it is time we should discard the ecclesiastic structure that we inherited by the Church of Rome, and go to the New Testament model that every believer is a minister.

 

 

 

The issue here is that people look for "What church government does the Bible teach" and the Bible actually gives two views. In Leviticus you have a hierarchy The high priest, the other priests, the Levites then the people.  It is focused on the sanctuary/temple. Tithe is ONLY to go to the organized structure. Deuteronomy on the other hand has more of an equality, more congregational and the tithe can go to any ministry. 

Prophets in the south were critical of the oppression of the hierarchy. Prophets in the north were critical of too much compromise with the pagans. Neither view is perfect.

Fundamentalism makes us want to have a Bible just give a very smooth message. So we get some groups which focus on the hierarchy and ignore or explain away the more congregational view of Deuteronomy. Others latch on to Deuteronomy and ignore or explain away the more hierarchical view of Leviticus. 

It is interesting that we started out with a few people for the General Conference, but it grew into a monster so they did the restructuring of 1901-1903, which was actually an attempt to create a compromise between Leviticus and Deuteronomy. However just as the pre-restructuring ended up with a handful of people who were strict "Leviticus is the Biblical church structure" as Mrs. White and others who worked on this compromise died, we again got leaders who are strict followers of   the book of Leviticus, and thus making it more hierarchical. 

As Stan pointed out, the New Testament church was more Deuteronomic in church government. and yes, we definitely need to follow the spirit of 1901-1903 and get more of Deuteronomy into our structure. But as long as there are strict fundamentalists, who love and are latched on to the structure in Leviticus, and believe that Leviticus is the pure Biblical view, and ignore or explain away Deuteronomy. We will continue with the same problem. 

This with church structure is also similar to women's ordination. The church needs to see that women's ordination is indeed Biblical but they reject this information for tradition, and that in Deuteronomy there is a different church structure that the Bible also teaches. And we need to understand that our leaders tried compromising between the two views during the 1901-1903 restructuring. They did an excellent job for the size of our church in 1903, but it may be time for another update for the size of our church today. But It will be hard to do with those currently in power being Fundamentalists, holding to the tradition of Leviticus as the ONLY option the Bible teaches and thus God's perfect will; thus the divine right of Kings General Conference Presidents. This tradition has blinded them to the teachings of Deuteronomy, and the every believer a minister of the New Testament.