‘Variance’ for North American, Trans-European Division Fails

[Stan]

‘Variance’ for North American, Trans-European Division Constitutions Fails Annual Council Vote

Spirited debate marks major discussion of women’s roles in leadership

Mark A. Kellner, news editor, Adventist Review

A request to allow commissioned ministers in the North American and Trans-European divisions – those who have not been formally ordained as Seventh-day Adventist pastors – to serve as conference presidents sparked more than six hours of debate October 11, 2011 during the world church’s Annual Council.

In the end, the controversial measure was defeated by a written ballot vote of 167 to 117. The 50-vote margin defeating the NAD proposal also effectively ended the TED request, which would have permitted commissioned ministers to head church unions as well as conferences.

Noting a need for experienced leadership within the North American division’s conferences, Dan Jackson, NAD president, said, “We believe the position of a president of a conference should be open to treasurers, to finance officers, to secretaries who are not ordained, to those who carry a commissioned minister’s credential, but are not on an ordination track, including women.”

Jackson added, “This is not a request for women's ordination. … We are talking about governance and leadership.”

Bertil Wiklander, Trans-European Division president, voiced his division’s request for a a similar variance: “We need your help to allow all our members in outreach. Opening doors for women in leadership would strengthen growth of the church in Europe,” he said, noting the Adventist Church “in the Trans-European Division faces an extraordinary mission challenge where people are extremely resistant to the gospel and joining a church is an exception rather than the norm in these countries.”

Pastor Ted N.C. Wilson, General Conference president, took the rare step of relinquishing the chair during the morning session to speak in opposition to the NAD proposal.

“My thoughts and convictions are just those,” Wilson said in introducing his comments. “They are not the collective decision” of the General Conference’s administrative committee, known as ADCOM.

Wilson said he objected to the proposal on several grounds: First, he said, “the church is an ecclesiastical body, which is organized for the church. Leadership has been based, in the past, on trained leadership, on spiritual leadership.” He said he wasn’t suggesting commissioned ministers were not trained or not spiritual, but he did note a difference in those who are ordained: “According to scriptural injunction and our own history, we have a particular mode which we have followed in terms of top spiritual leadership.”

Second, Wilson noted, since only ordained ministers can unite congregations and ordain local church elders and deacons, there was a question of a commissioned minister fulfilling all the tasks of a conference leader.

Third, he said, “whatever we vote, will have some impact on the world church. We have taken the position in the past that ordination is recognized around the world. We are not here in the U.S. as the American Seventh-day Adventist Church; we are, rather, the Seventh-day Adventist Church in America, in Germany, in Congo, in Brazil, in the Philippines.”

Wim Altink, Netherlands Union president (part of the Trans-European Division), noted the objections that many Adventist leaders from other parts of the world might have to the proposal. However, he pleaded for understanding: “It is not that we from our division want to impose this to other divisions,” he said. “Have room and respect for certain fields in the world where this would be a great blessing. It will be a great impetus for mission in our fields.”

Uganda Union Mission director John B.D. Kakembo was among those voicing concern on that very point: He said he was troubled that “when we say that if we don't do this, we will be seen as people who are discriminating.”

Baltic Union president Valdis Zilgalvis spoke in support of the variance: “Women in the early Christian church were recognized” as ministers, he said. “In fourth century, women were pushed away from ministry at the altar, and you know which church did that. … I agree the leader should be trained, but I don't see a difference between the genders.”

Paul Ratsara, president of the Southern Africa-Indian Ocean division, urged caution in the process: “Definitely this topic is a very sensitive one,” he said. “It is very hard for me to stand here when I think of the request of my dear colleagues from this [North American] Division. … We need to agree on that first: is this negotiable, is this something we can say, 'You can do it, no problem?'”

Retired General Conference president Jan Paulsen underlined the complexities in cultural approaches to leadership: : “If we say to the NAD ‘You may not go this way,’ please keep in mind, not only for this issue, but for other issues, what do we do with a situation that may develop that is in breech of what we decide. Some of you know very well in the name of democracy and in some Western settings, leaders may not have full control over a delegation that comes to a session,” he said. “I would be profoundly troubled,” he added, “if the church in one particular country found itself in a situation at variance with the church.”

Nepthali J. Manez, president of the North Philippines Union, opposed the measure, saying, “If this is approved, I would encounter a lot of difficulties. If we grant this motion, at least from the way I assess my constituency, it would give me a lot of problems.” He urged that delegates “wait at least a year” before moving forward.

West African Union president James M. Golay also expressed his concerns, saying, “The church is God's church. I don't want for the issue to divide us.”

Golay said he had “read scripture,” but did not “see it. It’s not in the church manual or in the policy book. If this is going to be a new policy, we need to consult heavily.”

PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT: Adventist Church president Ted N. C. Wilson says he is against the request of NAD to allow commissioned ministers to serve as conference presidents. NAD president Dan Jackson, left, and NAD secretary G. Alex Bryant, center, sit nearby. [PHOTOS: Ansel Oliver]

JACKSON INTRODUCES MOTION: NAD president Dan Jackson introduces an agenda item that would allow North America to have a conference president who has been either ordained or commissioned. The world church's policy currently only allows for ordained ministers to serve as a conference president. "We need to celebrate and respect culture in the church."

SIMMONS SUPPORTS: GC vice president Ella Simmons address the chair at Annual Council in support of NAD's request to allow commissioned ministers to serve as conference presidents. West-Central Africa Division president Gilbert Wari waits his turn to address the chair. The motion was later defeated 117-167.

MIRANDA OPPOSES: GC vice president Armando Miranda addresses the chair at Annual Council regarding the North American Division's request to allow commissioned ministers to serve as conference presidents.

S O U R C E

[Stan]

This has been opened up so all members can comment on this subject.

Was the right thing done? What would happen if this was reversed?

[CoAspen]

I agree with the comment that is was a vote for 'uniformity not unity'.

Quote:

Reflecting on one speaker’s comment that the push for a variance was a form of salesmanship to lead towards women’s ordination, Simmons said, “I was not born into the Adventist Church, but the Adventist Church presented itself to me in a certain way. I hope I am not a victim of 'bait and switch.'”

And in responding to the comments of some African delegates who opposed the motion, she said she was “deeply disturbed and concerned. Are your memories so short that you do not remember when you were oppressed in your own land? And that those who oppressed used the Bible to uphold this oppression?”

Simmons added, “We talk about unity. What is this unity? I've heard something described that is not unity, it is uniformity. … What we are describing is uniformity that is more akin to the bondage that grows out of mind control.”

[Guest justified70X7]

Ted Wilson was lambasted for trying to influence the vote by speaking before everybody.

Tsk tsk, doing dirty politics with God's work...

[olger]

Ted was praised by discerning world members, and grumped at by women's ordination militants

Rejoice always!

`G

[lazarus]

The problem at the heart of this is that we continue to perpetuate the myth in the SDA church that we do not ordain women. We ordain women. We call it commissioning. I've been to a few commissionings and they are very similar, probably identical to an ordination. These women have been set apart for ministry. To say that they cannot serve as Conference presidents is ridiculous at best.

We will forever have to go through these administrative contortions until we can deal with the reality that the SDA church ordains women.

[Tom Wetmore]

The trend is that each time any vote comes up concerning women in ministry, the vote is closer. The margin is less each time. In this instance, just 26 people could have swung the vote the other way.

What was clearly evident to those of us there was that it was not about theology or a Biblical basis, but a matter of culture. The very same divisions that spoke most vigorously against it had themselves been granted several variances from policy.

[Textus Receptus]

The word and the word alone should govern the church. Sola scriptura strongly suggests that women should not be pastors of the ecclesiastical body. As a result, the issue of declining or the inability to attract new members should not influence the church to modify our biblical understandings on this issue.

The word of God should be, and cannot be, influenced by contemporary world standards. If we allow the world to dictate our actions, why dare to call the SDA a remnant. A remnant is one that remains constant on matters which have been clearly delineated in the word of God. The Apostles, and most importantly, the example of Jesus has provided the church adequate direction on how we should proceed on this issue. Though some will argue that not allowing women to be ordained is an oxymoron when considering that the church was founded by a woman. I say to them, simply, that the bible provides examples of prophetess, but not a single line mentioned for the ordination of women.

If we modify the church's pastoral directives on the ordination of women, than indirectly, the church is suggesting that the word of God is a 'living' document in a constitutional sense. For example, the constitution of the U.S. has been amended to correct particular injustices eg. the right for women to vote. A constitution should have the latitude to modify codification or it will have the capacity to collapse under in its own rigidity. However, to modify the biblical context, would be an admission by the church that Christ did not have the foresight for providing a more clear direction for the future church. In effect, this will create a latent ambiguity on other issues. Make no mistake, if we modify any of our long standing principles, especially on those which have been expounded in the word of God, it can be and will be used as fodder for those who wish to dismiss the church's claim of being the remnant. The word of God does not need modification, and Jesus as God, being our example does not error. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever Hebrews 13:8.

With regard to the ineffectivness of the SDA for attracting new members, it should not be the responsibility of the Church to convict souls. That responsibility solely belongs to the Holy Spirit. The church's position on membership should be only to deliver the word and the word alone, uninfluenced by a secular world. His ways are not our ways.

[rosh1182]

Textus Receptus, please provide the Scriptures you believe "strongly suggest" that women should not be pastors. As you do, please consider that while you tacitly admit that the Bible does not explicitly prohibit women serving as pastors, the rest of your post assumes that that the Bible actually does have such a prohibition.

Further, I would also hope that you consider ALL the Bible has to say about women serving in leadership positions, not just passages that may support your view. As Adventists, we believe that all passages of the Bible should be used to formulate doctrine. We should not take one passage and treat it as if it supersedes others thereby effectively ignoring passages that may be contrary to our positions.

Thanks

[Textus Receptus]

Other than the prenumbras that are found in Genesis and Ephesians, the strongest wording against the ordination of women are found in 1 Cor and 1 Tim, most notabliy 1 Cor 14:34 and 1 Tim 2:12.

[epaminondas]

"The word of God should be, and cannot be, influenced by contemporary world standards. " You of course mean the "word of God should not be". I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately in most churches, including the SDA church, conptemporary world standards set the tone. Political correctness reigns. I cannot see how anyone can even ask for texts against women's ordination. These are so clear and simple, no-one can misunderstand them, unlike those held up by the feminist movement and their toadies wich are all a very long way from "you should ordain women as ministers". Today it's women, tomorrow gays. You'll see, it's coming.

[Tom Wetmore]

Other than the prenumbras that are found in Genesis and Ephesians, the strongest wording against the ordination of women are found in 1 Cor and 1 Tim, most notabliy 1 Cor 14:34 and 1 Tim 2:12.

Care to show exactly what this says about ordination?

As for the women being silent in church part, are you suggesting that women not be allowed to speak at all in church? What about Sabbath School? And women teaching men - can a woman teach an adult Sabbath School class if men are in it? What about women teaching generally.

As for the authority part, explain Phoebe. (Romans 16:1-2, best read in the original Greek)

Paul identifies her as the minister of the church at Cenchrea, a leader of many, including Paul himself. And Paul directed the believers in Rome to accept her as such, and to assist her with whatever she needed as one who was put in charge. For indeed Paul had done just that by commending her to them. He appointed her to deliver his letter and appointed her to serve as minster to the believers in Rome.

[Tom Wetmore]

...Today it's women, tomorrow gays. You'll see, it's coming.

So soon we see the Adventist version of Godwin's law...

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Today it's women, tomorrow gays. You'll see, it's coming.

And after that, the rocks!

[CoAspen]

"The word of God should be, and cannot be, influenced by contemporary world standards. " You of course mean the "word of God should not be". I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately in most churches, including the SDA church, conptemporary world standards set the tone. Political correctness reigns. I cannot see how anyone can even ask for texts against women's ordination. These are so clear and simple, no-one can misunderstand them, unlike those held up by the feminist movement and their toadies wich are all a very long way from "you should ordain women as ministers". Today it's women, tomorrow gays. You'll see, it's coming.

To borrow....."Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good."

Thanks TW.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Paul identifies her as the minister of the church at Cenchrea, a leader of many, including Paul himself.

Now here we have the heart of the matter. Note the "the minister." As if it's in the Bible.

Political correctness is not factual correctness. On the contrary, I know of none of the precepts of political correctness being factually correct. It should come as no surprise that the proponents of political correctness play fast and loose with facts. In by far the majority of English translations Phoebe is called "a servant of the church." The Greek word is apparently "diakonon". It's translated as deaconess in some translations. Ministrant is used in Young's Literal Translation.

The English “minister” comes from the same Latin word, meaning servant.

Even cursory research of Romans 16:1 shows that there is no way one can even approach calling Phoebe "the minister" of the church at Cenchrea. Similarly there is no way one can even remotely say Paul said she was "the leader" of many, including Paul himself. Apparently it may be that she was the helper or patron of many, including Paul himself.

Calling Phoebe "the minister" goes beyond cherry picking - selective presentation of facts to make a case - which is one of the corner stones of misleading people. To present the least likely of several possibilities as fact - what is that? Is that dishonesty?

When will the politically correct ever use a straight forward, clear Bible passage about which there is no question to support their specious arguments?

You may not like what I've said, but is it not true?

[epaminondas]

Quote:

So soon we see the Adventist version of Godwin's law...

What does this have to do with Hitler or the Nazis? Feminist ideas often precede similar gay liberationist ideas. Gays are ordained in some churches. That was preceded by female ordination.

If one tries to appear clever one shouldn't make mistakes.

[Neil D]

Now here we have the heart of the matter. Note the "the minister." As if it's in the Bible.

The English “minister” comes from the same Latin word, meaning servant.

Even cursory research of Romans 16:1 shows that there is no way one can even approach calling Phoebe "the minister" of the church at Cenchrea. Similarly there is no way one can even remotely say Paul said she was "the leader" of many, including Paul himself. Apparently it may be that she was the helper or patron of many, including Paul himself.

When will the politically correct ever use a straight forward, clear Bible passage about which there is no question to support their specious arguments?

You may not like what I've said, but is it not true?

I'm going to do 2 things....

First, I'm going to ignore the diatribe of "political correctness"...that is YOUR problem...not ours.

Second, without looking at the passage, and relying on YOUR use of the word "servant"....Translators of the bible take thier responsiblity very seriously. Hence, they do thier absolute best to translate the greek to english as best they can...And there are inherant problems, due to culture to culture translations....Nevertheless, it occurs to me, that the word 'servant' in this case does carry with it, some inhertant meanings...including minister, a leader with preaching capabilities...Are you saying that when Paul, who had many other words to choose from, was a liar or chose to mislead the church in this woman's directive?

If you think you really have a case against ordination of women, or specifically, that this Pheobe was not really a minister of the Gospel, then give me cause to look at the passages again, and let's really compare biblical notes.....

[Woodenavaklu]

Originally Posted By: Textus Receptus

Other than the prenumbras that are found in Genesis and Ephesians, the strongest wording against the ordination of women are found in 1 Cor and 1 Tim, most notabliy 1 Cor 14:34 and 1 Tim 2:12.

Care to show exactly what this says about ordination?

[John317]

As for the women being silent in church part, are you suggesting that women not be allowed to speak at all in church?

Paul didn't say women could never speak in church. See 1 Cor. 11: 5ff.

Paul did, however, write the following:

1 Cor. 14:33-40

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

As in all the churches of the saints, [34] the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. [35] If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

[36] Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? [37] If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. [38] If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. [39] So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. [40] But all things should be done decently and in order.

[mickbaker]

I really see two issues at stake

Women ordination, and the leadership ladder.

Perhaps we should be more cautious about the second issue than the first. In opening the ability for those who are not ordained we are allowing the "creeping compromise" of the nominal churches, the ability for deviant theologians to lead as principle and policy.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Textus Receptus

Other than the prenumbras that are found in Genesis and Ephesians, the strongest wording against the ordination of women are found in 1 Cor and 1 Tim, most notabliy 1 Cor 14:34 and 1 Tim 2:12.

Care to show exactly what this says about ordination?

As for the women being silent in church part, are you suggesting that women not be allowed to speak at all in church? What about Sabbath School? And women teaching men - can a woman teach an adult Sabbath School class if men are in it? What about women teaching generally.

As for the authority part, explain Phoebe. (Romans 16:1-2, best read in the original Greek)

Paul identifies her as the minister of the church at Cenchrea, a leader of many, including Paul himself. And Paul directed the believers in Rome to accept her as such, and to assist her with whatever she needed as one who was put in charge. For indeed Paul had done just that by commending her to them. He appointed her to deliver his letter and appointed her to serve as minster to the believers in Rome.

Same ol questions,Tom.We've all been down this road before.The practical effect of extrapolating more out of the "silence in church" argument is to arrive at the "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" instruction of the Holy Spirit to be tossed into the "cultural argument" trash can also. Which is exactly what the intent of question in the first place.And if Phoebe was, as you claim, a leader of Paul then you make Paul a hypocrite for demanding that the man be the spiritual leader of the home while commending Phoebe for being the spiritual leader a church full of spiritual leaders. My NIV/KJV/NKJV/Bible calls Phoebe a servant not the leader.Paul says that Phoebe helped him and many others,he does not say that she was their leader.Obviously Phoebe had an important ministry ("whatever business")which involved helping in assisting the needs of others.Paul notes the importance of this but that doesn't redefine "servant" as "the leader".

[doug yowell]

Thank God for the World Church. Thank God for Ted Wilson.

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

Paul identifies her as the minister of the church at Cenchrea, a leader of many, including Paul himself.

Now here we have the heart of the matter. Note the "the minister." As if it's in the Bible.

Political correctness is not factual correctness. On the contrary, I know of none of the precepts of political correctness being factually correct. It should come as no surprise that the proponents of political correctness play fast and loose with facts. In by far the majority of English translations Phoebe is called "a servant of the church." The Greek word is apparently "diakonon". It's translated as deaconess in some translations. Ministrant is used in Young's Literal Translation.

The English “minister” comes from the same Latin word, meaning servant.

Even cursory research of Romans 16:1 shows that there is no way one can even approach calling Phoebe "the minister" of the church at Cenchrea. Similarly there is no way one can even remotely say Paul said she was "the leader" of many, including Paul himself. Apparently it may be that she was the helper or patron of many, including Paul himself.

Calling Phoebe "the minister" goes beyond cherry picking - selective presentation of facts to make a case - which is one of the corner stones of misleading people. To present the least likely of several possibilities as fact - what is that? Is that dishonesty?

When will the politically correct ever use a straight forward, clear Bible passage about which there is no question to support their specious arguments?

You may not like what I've said, but is it not true?

Please note that I said to read it in the original Greek as the 1st Century readers would have understood it. Also be mindful of the "political correctness" adhered to by translators. They stick to tradition more often then we think and are reluctant to stray to far from the "political correctness" of the original translators of an era many centuries ago.

It helps to compare the secular Greek usage to really understand its original meaning. Most lexicons are built on religious tradition of translators.

The original diakonos in masculine form is consistently translated in the NT as "minister". The original secular meaning was servant, more particularly a servant of the king which made it meaningful of the concept that this was not an ordinary household helper, but a servant of importance not of their own but of who they represented and served.

The leader concept comes from the specific word used only here - prostatis. The 1st century usage was specifically governess, or a female leader. It is derived from specific terms of rulership. If you read the instructive context used by Paul in verse 2 this role of Phoebe as leader makes more sense than as a succoring servant .

James White published an article in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald that reflected this clear understanding of who Phoebe was with regard to the Church in Rome, even declaring her to be the first pope [or Bishop] of Rome.

[Neil D]

thanks tom for the explanation....twas a good instructive, which show the bias arguements of others....Not a good thing.....

I use to believe in a male dominated first century religion...after all, doesn't corthin. and timothy say that women just are not qualified in leading???

And then I got chewed out by a male who probably went overboard in countering the arguements that I put out....but I did see the opposing point...There is a valid case for the ordination of women and women leadership within our church....

i did my studies....I repented of the "headship theology"....