Analysis of What is Happening with the Ordination of Women Pastors

[Gordon1]

The G.C. remains to this day, when in session and properly represented by men and women from around the world, the highest authority on earth.

"The voice from Battle Creek, which has been regarded as authority in counseling how the work should be done, is no longer the voice of God."

—Manuscript Releases 17:185 (1896).

"It has been some years since I have considered the General Conference as the voice of God."

—Manuscript Releases 17:216 (1898).

"That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be—that is past."

—The General Conference Bulletin, April 3, 1901, p. 25.

[monty]

This raises the valid question..........Who truly is the "voice of God" to the people today?

[Gordon1]

We have nothing to fear for the future except we forget how this Church has been led in the past.

Actual quotation:

"We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us,

and His teaching in our past history."

— Life Sketches of Ellen G. White, 196 (1902).

[Gordon1]

This raises the valid question..........Who truly is the "voice of God" to the people today?

Christ is the Voice of God, the "one mediator between God and men." (1 Timothy 2:5)

"even as Christ is the head of the Church." (Ephesians 5:23)

"This is the way, walk ye in it." (Isaiah 30:21)

"It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference."

—Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, 342 (1896).

[phkrause]

Excellent posts ClubV12, and also nice to see you. I hope you come around more often.

[Daryl]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

No, they have not clearly stated a wish to separate. Quite to the contrary. They have affirmed that they are a part of the world family and a desire to remain a part of the world family. (What about the church in China? Are they a part of the world family since they have been ordaining women for a long time?)

The suggestion of separation has come from those opposed to WO. Had separation been the objective, it would have happened long ago. Those who have been supporting WO have stayed with the Church for decades despite delay and inaction on the issue. It is only when there is movement forward toward WO that those in opposition start talking of separation.

And then there is the false charge of the decisions being unBiblical...

Read the article very carefully. It is all about church authority, who has it and who has it for what actions, and who does not.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has never ordained one woman in China! The Seventh-day Adventist Church doesn't have any structure or organization to speak of in China.

These ordinations have been approved by the government and the church can't do anything about it.

So, let's pray for God's Word to accomplish all God intended in China.

But, China is not an example of church sponsored ordination of woman.

Very good, clear, and true point about China.

[Daryl]

Tom, you claim Alchemy's statements are untrue.

1) He didn't claim there was no organization in the Chinese church, but rather implied that it was not under General Conference direction or control, and further, he stated that the SDA GC has not ordained any women in China.

2) Nor did Alchemy claim that ordinations were done by the government, but simply that they were government approved or permitted.

So obviously the church members carried out the ordinations. But this does not imply any connection with the SDA General Conference.

3) If the Chinese church structure is different, this will be a significant indication that they are independent from the General Conference.

4) Yes, the Seventh-day Adventist Church may recognize (and claim) half a million members in China.

But what do the Chinese believers say?

Do they recognize the SDA General Conference? Possibly not.

Perhaps like Ellen White they seek to distance themselves as far as possible from the GC.

5) The fact that Stan received Christian hospitality from the Chinese believers does not mean they recognize the SDA General Conference.

Maybe they told Stan "We want to keep our freedom."

6) Would you care to offer a report on your China trip, Stan? It might spare some speculation. If you've already posted such, could you provide a link?

Well said. :)

[Daryl]

We have sufficient evidence of the divine providence to indicate the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the last day Church raised up by the Father with the last message to mankind. We have nothing to fear for the future except we forget how this Church has been led in the past.

The Father will not remove every avenue of doubt, there are many hooks upon which to hang your doubts.

Korah's rebellion is applicable to the split in the leadership the Church is now experiencing. Men and women, who want to have a say in the structure of leadership, how things get done, who decides.

The issue could be some other topic they disagree with, it happens to be ordination. Rebellion is rebellion. This could be about where the tithe is spent, abortion issues, gay Pastors, any number of things. Ordination is just a smoke screen a red herring, reason from cause to effect, this IS rebellion.

I agree with you completely that this is rebellion against the authority of the world church in what was decided in GC Sessions. In fact, the PUC in failing to amend their own bylaws, is in rebellion with their own bylaws, which is a very interesting situation to be in. Even their own union president said that the WO vote wasn't really a win vote in reference to the failed bylaws amendment vote, and yet, they went ahead and approved WO requests.

[Daryl]

Originally Posted By: monty

This raises the valid question..........Who truly is the "voice of God" to the people today?

Christ is the Voice of God, the "one mediator between God and men." (1 Timothy 2:5)

"even as Christ is the head of the Church." (Ephesians 5:23)

"This is the way, walk ye in it." (Isaiah 30:21)

"It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference."

—Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, 342 (1896).

I think you need to look at the bigger picture, which I am endeavouring to do at the following link:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/main/?page_id=105

[ClubV12]

Gordon1 posts the classic Ellen White quotes so often used by offshoots, non-Adventists and those who wish to disparage the General Conference or the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I heard these same quotes as recently as two weeks ago, from a member of an off shoot Church attending my local Church and openly calling the Seventh-day Adventist Church Babylon.

I'm not saying Gordon1 represents any of the above, but the fact remains, the quotes posted are commonly used by people and in the context described. They are made to stand alone and twisted to mean something entirely different than what Ellen White was saying. Consider the date for one, the quotes are prior to the reorganization of the G.C. in the early 1900's.

When Ellen White made the statement she no longer considered the counsel of the General Conference the highest authority on earth, she was right, niether would I have considered it's counsel. It WAS NOT in session, it WAS NOT represented by men from around the world. Unions and Conferences didn't even exist at that time.

What we had was a G.C. President and his cronies "calling the shots" for everything and everybody, world wide.

One of the last deceptions Seventh-day Adventists will face is not the outright denial of the gift of prophecy that Ellen White had, it will be to make her work or no effect. To minimize it, denigrate it, question it's authority and render it useless. This will be done by "good people", sincere people, people who think they are doing the Lords work. People like Korah....

The G.C. when in session AND PROPERLY REPRESENTED (as we know it today) REMAINS the highest authority on earth. To ignore it, to fight against it, is to rebell against the throne of God. Ted Wilson does not have the power to make this kind of decision by himself. But that kind of power existed and was put to use in some cases in the late 1800's. Our Father spoke through His inspired messenger to correct this problem.

The Unions that have rebelled, as well as there supporters, are in grave danger. Ted Wilson's propehetic words of warning to them have been ignored by many. That warning has strengthened my resolve to respect, honor and obey the leadership structure our Father has ordained. Lucifer already tried to change the leadership structure in heaven and was cast out, there WILL BE a price to pay for insubordination.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

The G.C. when in session AND PROPERLY REPRESENTED (as we know it today) REMAINS the highest authority on earth. To ignore it, to fight against it, is to rebell against the throne of God.

I find it rather interesting that a few would have us follow the RC tradition. Their, RC, claim is to be following God, those described above claim the GC is following God.

I would rather be of the persuasion that taking the H*S guidance in the personal life and trusting only in the God of the Bible would be a safer path.

When the GC fails to make the claim of WO being against the will or God or the Bible in all of its studies, but only appeals to unity for its desire to not allow recognition of WO, I see that as coming seriously close to rebellion, albeit, perhaps blindly. To suggest that the church, even in session, is the highest authority on earth doesn't really say much because God is still in control. To suggest that the GC, in session, speaks for God because we have have Unions and conferences, leader from around the world, is spurious as well. No one speaks for God, He does quite well for Himself.

Man is interested in organization and control, God is interested in PEOPLE and seeing that none should perish. Lucifer is interested in seeing God fail. Whom do we choose to follow....God or Man?

The proof is in the pudding, if the H*S is not leading any endeavor, it will fail. Man does not hold the Church together, God does.

[ClubV12]

CoAspen, your post essentially echo's this posted earlier:

Christ is the Voice of God, the "one mediator between God and men." (1 Timothy 2:5)

"even as Christ is the head of the Church." (Ephesians 5:23)

Do we take this to mean that it's "every man for himself"? In one sense that IS true, each of us, individually will have to meet the test. Would the correct interpretation then be that every man and woman will decide for themselves how the Church should be organized? What time it should start? Who they will acknowledge as leaders? Obviously Christ is the head of the Church, what does that mean? It's certainly not "every man for himself". All of heaven operates under rules, laws and in perfect harmony.

The G.C. cannot demand any given Union ordain or not ordain. The rebellion here is that the G.C. has committee that in 2014 will make a recommendation to the 2015 G.C. counsel. The Unions are tired of waiting, for them, the debate is over. They have refused to consider the counsel of the G.C. and made they're own decision, independantly.

And what has been the fruit of this? For by their fruits ye shall know them. They have sown discord, caused division, disrespected the God given structure of leadership.

The problem is not ordination, the problem is open rebellion. Without a humble, teachable spirit, a willingness to follow, to submit to authority, one will never be able to discern where a balance is.

I support more women Pastors, bible workers, evangelists, like Ellen White, licensed, commissioned and recognized not only of the Lord but by the Church. Should they be ordained as well? I will wait for the counsel of the highest authority on earth to weigh in on that question, and many other questions where it is applicable.

[Gail]

Nice to see you, Club! :)

[CoAspen]

Quote:

The problem is not ordination, the problem is open rebellion. Without a humble, teachable spirit, a willingness to follow, to submit to authority, one will never be able to discern where a balance is.

It is not about balance, one either follows God or Man.

Since God is the authority, one must follow God.

Quote:

They have sown discord, caused division, disrespected the God given structure of leadership.

An opinion, not supported by evidence. Where is the discord, division or disrespect for God?

Is one to presume, as suggested, that not following the GC, man, that God is not being followed?

The not so subtle premise being set forward, is that the H*S is not leading these women! Why is a human made service, ordination, being put on the pedestal that only male should aspire too?

Quote:

I support more women Pastors, bible workers, evangelists, like Ellen White, licensed, commissioned and recognized not only of the Lord but by the Church. Should they be ordained as well?

You separate out ordination from your above statement. Do you and others see that as a 'higher' calling?

I would suggest that those against the ordination are causing or at least trying, to cause the discord or or division. They are the ones saying it is not Biblical, not the GC. Again I ask, why do the few, yes, the minority, speak against when the majority or in favor? What is the concern, the real concern? Loss of seeing the GC as voice of God on Earth? God has always and will continue to be His own voice on this speck of dust in the vast universe! How can His creation claim to speak for Him?

[CoAspen]

I find it interesting that the initial issue/problem was 'ordination', now the initial issue/problem has become the perceived 'rebellion'! What is the next issue/problem to be called the real ____________!!!!!!

[olger]

As we approach the end of time, it will become more and more difficult to remain faithful to Scripture while remaining, in any degree, sympathetic to the prevailing culture.

[Tom Wetmore]

I find it interesting that the initial issue/problem was 'ordination', now the initial issue/problem has become the perceived 'rebellion'! What is the next issue/problem to be called the real ____________!!!!!!

Yes, the issue of WO is now being made to appear beside the point. It has come down to an issue of authority. And authority naturally views any opposition or effort to change/reform it as rebellion.

The protestant reformers were declared by the Catholic hierarchy to be in rebellion against the authority of the Church. As has been noted already a view of our past history is vital to understanding where we are going in the future...

Indeed it is true -

"We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history."

[ClubV12]

WO is beside the point.

The same reasoning applies to Korah's rebellion. In Korah's case it was about wanting to share the power with leadership in ways they were denied. In this case the Unions have declared their independance and have rebuffed the counsel of the brethren. Rather than press together, than have made a choice to pull away, under the guise of following God, not man.

WO is simply a justification to do so. Whats next? Union, Conference or local Church independance on other issues, deemed sufficiently important to ignore the counsel of the brethren?

There will come a time when we will have to stand alone. Don't bring the time of trouble upon yourself prematurely. Many have died what they thought was a martyrs death but in a spirit of presumption and pride. They were in delusion and sacraficed eternal life as a result. They lacked discernment and balance.

Korah's rebellion didn't just suddenly blossom, it started with murmuring and complaining around the home, with the neighbors, (on the internet in forums), using good reasoning and logic to sustain the position. Massing a number of "false sympathizers" (as Ellen White would say). Perhaps it took years for it to come to fruition. Lucifer didn't just suddenly incite a rebellion. He also presented an apparently very reasonable position that generated much false sympathy among his followers. Many of the angels were fooled, for a time, but repented, were forgiven and remain in the heavenly courts. But for a third, there was no way back, pride would not allow them to change their course.

This is a crisis of no small proportion. I have said my piece, some will hear and understand.

...just passing through...

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Rather than press together, than have made a choice to pull away, under the guise of following God, not man.

Again, an unsupported opinion and stating they have the ability to read the hearts and minds of others.

I believe it is Only God who can read the hearts and minds, man only looks at outward appearance.

At least we are getting a clearer picture of the real position of those against WO, they also do not agree with the GC position of WO not being anti God or Biblical. So as God calls more and more women will those against continue to say 'it is not of God'? Will they split away from the church or be a thorn in the side like the many offshoots claiming to be the real church?

We have a .org for management, the Church of God includes all who believe in God.

All ready the slippery slope arguments have started with out any supporting evidence except in the mind of the nay-sayer.

We do not have and will not have a RC model of leadership, although some would seem to enjoy that!!

[olger]

It is supported in many ways, cO ASp. You just haven't witnessed most of them. For instance, I know of one executive member who attended PUC in full support of WO, and was so turned off by the proud spirit he saw there, that he left anti-WO--for the first time in his life. I like those kind of stories-they have a unique power to them.

Stay blessed!

G

[olger]

We do not have and will not have a RC model of leadership, although some would seem to enjoy that!!

I am glad that we don't have a "RCC model" of church leadership.

I am glad for the representative model of leadership that we have and the voice that the world church has in matters of high theological significance.

When we respect the right of the world church to agree on theological matters we extend a Biblical kind of dignity to them. After all, what makes us all Seventh-day Adventists is that we adhere to a unique body of Biblical truth (the descriptive word for that is doctrine). Without that unison between us, a person might as well be a Calvary Baptist, Methodist, or Charismatic etc.

I believe the WO issue has revealed a tipping point where liberal-minded brethren are willing to break away from the unifying ideal of doctrinal harmony. This makes WO a symptom of a deeper issue. What is the deeper issue? Many in the church are marching to a different drummer--namely culture.

And since culture is a dynamic element that changes rapidly, we are left living without solid guidelines for life. This is what makes the WO issue so crucial. When we take that first step - saying that we don't care if we agree on theological matters, we end up extolling culture as a viable source of authority.

That leads to shipwreck of faith.

Be blessed always,

G

[lazarus]

It is supported in many ways, cO ASp. You just haven't witnessed most of them. For instance, I know of one executive member who attended PUC in full support of WO, and was so turned off by the proud spirit he saw there, that he left anti-WO--for the first time in his life. I like those kind of stories-they have a unique power to them.

Stay blessed!

G

I know of one VP who has since turned 180 degrees in favor of WO as a result of attending the two union session. I recently had a long conversation with another VP who indicated that he was in full support of ordination but had an issue with the way it was done.

Heard yesterday that the thinking is that there will be never be any world consensus on this issue and so at the next GC session admin will move to allow NAD to ordain. I was surprised by this but that's what was said.

It was made clear to us that the key issue is definitely authority. GC is keen to establish itself as the key policy making body.

[BobRyan]

I am glad that we don't have a "RCC model" of church leadership.

I am glad for the representative model of leadership that we have and the voice that the world church has in matters of high theological significance.

When we respect the right of the world church to agree on theological matters we extend a Biblical kind of dignity to them. After all, what makes us all Seventh-day Adventists is that we adhere to a unique body of Biblical truth (the descriptive word for that is doctrine). Without that unison between us, a person might as well be a Calvary Baptist, Methodist, or Charismatic etc.

Amen!

The independent spirit and rebellion against authority is seen in Genesis 3:1-4 why do we need to follow that example as if it has not already been tried?

Yet at the same time as you point out - this is not the papacy model where 1 man or even a group of appointed individuals not selected by the membership make all the decisions.

There is "a tendency" among those with administrative responsibilities to treat the church as their own personal toy as if they are free to do with their conference or their union, or division or department "as they please". But that idea is flawed and they need to shake off that tendency.

in Christ,

Bob

[lazarus]

There is "a tendency" among those with administrative responsibilities to treat the church as their own personal toy as if they are free to do with their conference or their union, or division or department "as they please". But that idea is flawed and they need to shake off that tendency.

With 80/20 vote at both constituencies it could hardly be said that administrators are doing as they please. They are responding to their constituents.

[BobRyan]

Who are the "constituents" in that case and how was the agenda determined? What % of the "constituents" were conference owned and directed employees for that union?

For example I was recently at a "constituency" meeting at the local conference level and found that the current "system" is setup so things like the nominating committee have a "majority" representation by conference owned employees - not laity.

I also was rudely introduced to the fact that discussion on subjects and information on decisions is not "allowed" on the floor when it comes to a vote by the real lay constituents at that meeting - in areas of conference officers.

That sort of "pattern" may be carried up to the Union where the "constituents" are in fact primarily conference employees when it comes to key committees and "open discussion" is limited in a similar fashion.

That would be a problem I think. So it is easy to see how a conference could go "off the rails" in that sort of system and it is not too difficult to see how a union of such conferences could then reflect that fact.

But derailing the entire denomination that way would take quite some time, and I don't think they have the patience for it. So this idea of cracking open the barn door and running rogue is being tried out. For those at the forefront the blind assumption is "of course nobody else will do this same thing with their own pet agenda of issues. Just WO. yeah that's the ticket... just WO". Time will tell just how damaging that short-sighted solution is - and time is ticking like it or not.

in Christ,

Bob