The Authority of the General Conference in Session

[rasell]

In the debate about the ordination of women to the Gospel ministry, an important biblical principle has not received much attention.
When the apostles faced the divisive issue about how to include Gentiles in the church, a meeting was held under the
influence of the Holy Spirit, and a united decision was reached (Acts 15). Many who came to the meeting opposed to the Gentiles
being included in the church were won over to a new position when they heard how God had blessed the Gentiles with the Holy Spirit.
The decision of the council was ‘the voice of the highest authority upon the earth’ (Ellen White, Acts of the Apostles, p. 196).
In a similar way, when the General Conference meets in session every five years, Ellen White says we should submit our
individual ideas to these decisions and regard them as God’s voice speaking through the church (Testimonies to the Church, vol. 3,
p. 492; vol. 9, p. 260).

Whatever decision is made in 2015 regarding the ordination of women, perhaps we need to have more confidence in the opinions
of representatives of the world church and less in our own opinions and ideas. That way the church can remain united and in
step with the Holy Spirit. There is safety in a multitude of counsellors (Proverbs 11:14); so whatever our strong opinions on
the subject let us remember the counsel of Paul that, ‘if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he
ought’ (1 Corinthians 8:2, KJV).

(This is a copy of a letter I sent to the Messenger: http://adventist.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/53922/Bam2015-06.pdf and I also have an article on my website on the doctrine of Unity in the Body of Christ: http://adventtruth.co.uk/downloads/newsletters/2015/Mar%202015.pdf )

[Kevin H]

There is a working with what the decision is to maintain unity. However the decision is not necessary the final or best decision. Don't forget it was the General Conference which sent Mrs. White to Australia. It was the 1923 General conference that threw out A. G. Daniels, demoted W. W. Prescott and while Willie White got to keep his job it was stripped of power and influence (basically he was fired but got to keep his office and paycheck.) and had witch hunts in our schools for non-fundamentalists.

Also, there was another General Conference; this one the members were apostles, prophets and Bible writers. Surely this one could not mess up: yet they sent Paul to the temple to sacrifice which lead to his death. (Read what Mrs. White has to say about them.)

[Ron Lambert]

Right, Kevin. We must never surrender our consciences to any human authority. That would amount to creature-worship. When in history has the majority ever been right? When has Satan not attempted to hijack the church--every church--in every age?

Rasell, please recall that some years after Ellen G. White made the statement that she regarded the word of the General Conferece to be "the voice of God on earth," she issued a new statement that she could no longer regard the General Conference as the voice of God on earth.

As long as men insist upon excercizing their strict control over the church, the Holy Spirit will not be given freedom to hold the reins in His own hands. But TM 300 tells us that eventually the Lord will take the reins into His own hands. That means that men who are used to controlling everything will be set aside.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Ron Lambert

[rasell]

There is a working with what the decision is to maintain unity. However the decision is not necessary the final or best decision. Don't forget it was the General Conference which sent Mrs. White to Australia. It was the 1923 General conference that threw out A. G. Daniels, demoted W. W. Prescott and while Willie White got to keep his job it was stripped of power and influence (basically he was fired but got to keep his office and paycheck.) and had witch hunts in our schools for non-fundamentalists.

Also, there was another General Conference; this one the members were apostles, prophets and Bible writers. Surely this one could not mess up: yet they sent Paul to the temple to sacrifice which lead to his death. (Read what Mrs. White has to say about them.)

​I would distinguish between a committee at the General Conference and the General Conference in Session.

Sometimes Ellen White said the GC has made mistakes, but she said when the GC meet in Session, with delegates from all over the world it has authority.

In Acts, some brethren asked Paul to make a sacrifice in the temple, this was a mistake. But it was not a request made by a General Council like in Acts 15 where under the Holy Spirit the delegates made the right decision.

About Ellen White going to Australia, she asked the Lord for light on this but received none, but after she arrived in Australia the Lord showed her it had been His will for her to go there.

I think the important thing is that we are united on the three angel's message, that is what we have been called to proclaim, rather than getting into a controversy about women's ordination.

Marc

[rasell]

Right, Kevin. We must never surrender our consciences to any human authority. That would amount to creature-worship. When in history has the majority ever been right? When has Satan not attempted to hijack the church--every church--in every age?

Rasell, please recall that some years after Ellen G. White made the statement that she regarded the word of the General Conferece to be "the voice of God on earth," she issued a new statement that she could no longer regard the General Conference as the voice of God on earth.

As long as men insist upon excercizing their strict control over the church, the Holy Spirit will not be given freedom to hold the reins in His own hands. But TM 300 tells us that eventually the Lord will take the reins into His own hands. That means that men who are used to controlling everything will be set aside.

​Ellen White's concern was when power was being exercised by a few men, who were acting as a conscience for others. She said that in such circumstances Satan will seek to overpower these individuals but that it is much harder when decisions are considered my many people. This is why the GC is Session, with delegates from all over the world, considering issues has the highest authority, following the principle in Acts 15. Sometimes an individual or committee may make a mistake, but when the whole world church meet together, Satan cannot deceive everybody, so there is safety. Different people will view things from different perspectives and you get a more balanced outcome. The great danger is in entrusted doctrine to a few people.

[Tom Wetmore]

In those days when EGW commented about power by "a few men" it was literally a few men.  The officer group of the GC was just the usual 3 executive officers and the Executive Committee was just that plus mabe one or two other leaders.  Now the officers are a large group which indeed includes representatives from around the world.  The GC Executive Committee which acts on matters between sessions has over 350 members with representation from all of the world divisions and unions and many institutions of the denomination.  

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In the time of Ellen  White, the "kingly power" that she referenced was manifested by one to a very few men.  Today I will suggest, she would say the same about any person who exercised power by the control of who is placed on a committee and/or who chairs that  committee.

 

[Jeannieb43]

My concern is that "unity" does not equal "unison."  

Our church as a whole can have unity without mandating similar administrative practices in each geographical area.  There must be some deference to the cultural mores of each country.

[rasell]

My concern is that "unity" does not equal "unison."  

Our church as a whole can have unity without mandating similar administrative practices in each geographical area.  There must be some deference to the cultural mores of each country.

​That is one of the options being considered, but I think it would be a problem if someone was ordained in one part of the world and that was not recognised in another part of the world.

[Gregory Matthews]

. . .  I think it would be a problem if someone was ordained in one part of the world and that was not recognised in another part of the world.

 

And you think that does not exist now?

 

 

[ChildofChrist]

I would think that if one was ordained in the USA, they would stay in their neck of the woods to carry out their mission. Intelligence would say, if they were to stray from their official region, they would follow the custom that is practiced.  IE if one is a police officer in TN, they would carry no official weight in NY or FL. A Federal Marshall would be the 'law'! (or FBI or ...)

[Tom Wetmore]

The truth is that of the thousands of Adventist ministers throughout the world now, far less than 5% will ever leave their home territory. Most ministers continue to serve the Church not just in their home Division, but in their home country.  Ordination is already effectively a matter of local service.   The decision of whether and when to ordain any pastor has throughout the history of the Adventist Church always been made at the local conference level.   Why do we pretend otherwise?

[CyberGuy]

In a similar way, when the General Conference meets in session every five years, Ellen White says we should submit our
individual ideas to these decisions and regard them as God’s voice speaking through the church (Testimonies to the Church, vol. 3,
p. 492; vol. 9, p. 260).

 

(This is a copy of a letter I sent to the Messenger: http://adventist.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/53922/Bam2015-06.pdf and I also have an article on my website on the doctrine of Unity in the Body of Christ: http://adventtruth.co.uk/downloads/newsletters/2015/Mar%202015.pdf )

​My question to you is this. When the General Conference in session rejected Rightousness by Faith in 1888 was that Gods voice speaking through the church? On the contrary Ellen White makes it clear it was not. So the GC in session does not always speak for God but for mans opinions and viewpoints.

[Kevin H]

or the horrible general conference 0f 1923

[Johann]

​That is one of the options being considered, but I think it would be a problem if someone was ordained in one part of the world and that was not recognised in another part of the world.

​You think so? Take Norway where both a local elder or pastor have the full legal right to perform a marriage ceremony as long as they are serving as an elder or pastor of a local church in the country. The moment they move to another country and are no longer listed in connection with a church in the that country they have no valid licene to perform a marriage in that country. I know of a case where an ordained minister in Sweden could not perform the marriage of his own son because the wedding was to take place in Norway in the home church of the bride.

The idea of a universal ordination is no longer valid in the world we live in today.

[rasell]

​My question to you is this. When the General Conference in session rejected Rightousness by Faith in 1888 was that Gods voice speaking through the church? On the contrary Ellen White makes it clear it was not. So the GC in session does not always speak for God but for mans opinions and viewpoints.

​They did not vote on the issue at 1888, Ellen White cautioned them not to, but during the next 12 months a lot of work was done when people had calmed down and time was taken to study the issues, then by 1889 it was accepted.

[rasell]

​You think so? Take Norway where both a local elder or pastor have the full legal right to perform a marriage ceremony as long as they are serving as an elder or pastor of a local church in the country. The moment they move to another country and are no longer listed in connection with a church in the that country they have no valid licene to perform a marriage in that country. I know of a case where an ordained minister in Sweden could not perform the marriage of his own son because the wedding was to take place in Norway in the home church of the bride.

The idea of a universal ordination is no longer valid in the world we live in today.

​When a local Conference adopts policies contrary to the Church Manual they are not acting with proper authority. Because the local Conference is part of the Union, which is part of the Division, and they have no authority to ordain a woman as a Pastor at present. Where this is practiced, and women Pastors are allowed to practice ordination and marriage, this is not in harmony with the decisions of the General Conference in Session.

What would happen if every Conference and Union decided to do what they thought was right? What happened if a Conference decided it was better to worship on Sunday, or to reject one of the fundamental doctrines?

Whether we feel women's ordination is right or wrong, the church needs to have an organised system of doctrine and practice or there will be anarchy. The issue is one of unity in the body of Christ, one of our fundamental doctrines.

Ellen White once rebuked a man for teaching others not to eat pork, she said if this was right, the Lord would show it to others and the brethren would accept it. If ordaining women is right, it does not mean individual conference have the right to do it without authorisation. They need to wait for the brethren to come to some understanding on the issue.

If you look at the constitution of the Norwegian Union you will probably find that there is a clause in there regarding following the rules of Church Manual. Probably every Union has a clause like this.

Edited May 18, 2015 by rasell

[rasell]

If you look at the constitution of the Norwegian Union you will probably find that there is a clause in there regarding following the rules of Church Manual. Probably every Union has a clause like this.

​Or it may just make a reference to the doctrines and principles of the seventh-day Adventist Church. However, these principles are set forth in the Church Manual. The Unions don't have authority to form their own doctrines and practices contrary to those clearly established in the Church Manual.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In regard to marriage and ordination:  Marriage has a civil function.  IOW, it is the Stated that determines who can perform a marriage.  That may vary from place to place.  And, it may be independent of what the Church says.

1)  I once lived in a State, in the United States, where a congregational pastor had to obtain a license to perform marriages and as part of that process had to obtain a civil bond to cover any failure to follow the rules of the State.  That provided some interesting issues:

a) The Conference hired a new pastor, from another State.  Shortly after he came, he performed a marriage.  The State checked for his license when he turned in the signed certificate and he got into trouble for not being licensed.  The Conference had to send a letter to all of its pastors reminding them of the legal obligation to obtain a  license and to get a civil bond.

'b) One of my SDA pastoral friends  had his office just outside of the State border.  He did not want to obtain a license and a civil bond.  So, he would do the ceremony, in his office and  anything done in the State was simply a fake. 

2) I currently live in a State where the requirement to perform a marriage is simply to be a resident of the State, of legal age, and competent.  There is no obligation to be a clergy-person at all.

3) I once lived in a country where no clergy-person had any right to perform a marriage ceremony.  All marriages were civil.

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Gregory Matthews]

I need to clear up a couple of misconceptions that people seem to have.

1) THE CHURCH MANUAL:  I am well aware of what it says. The Church publishes a new one about every 5 years, following the General Conference.  It is considered by our members to be the governing document that tells Conferences, Congregations and other organizations how they are to operate  I have purchased a number of them as it is freely sold.  I am looking at a CHURCH MANUAL that is 3/4 of an inch thick which includes the two hard back covers.  The copy that I am looking at contains 270 pages.

Contrary to what most members think the actual working document that is followed by Conferences and Unions is the Division Working Policy.  IOW, in the United States there exists a document known as: NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE WORKING POLICY. .A printed copy of that document runs to hundreds of pages and is much larger than the MANUAL.  This is the document that Conferences and Unions are expected to follow.

2) Union Constitution:  For legal reasons, the Unions and Conferences are organized in a manner that complies with the civil laws in the area in which they exist.  And they generally are governed by what is called a Constitution.  IOW, the Unions are generally legally required to operate in accord with that Constitution.

The Division Working Policies contain a so-called model constitution that is written for Unions and Conferences.  That model constitution does not contain a provision that it be in harmony with the CHRUCH MANUAL, contrary to what has been stated in a previous post.  The reason is the  CHURCH MANUAL is not the governing document.   Instead it will likely contain a provision that the union conference must comply with the working policy of the division.

The issue that exists is that the so-called model constitution has changed, many times over the years.  IOW  the various constitutions that may be in effect around the world differ in some respects as they were not all put into effect at the same time.  At the time that they were put into effect they were in compliance with the division working policy and they were approved, by the division acting for the General Conference.

The process to amend the various constitutions is a complicated one.  First, it must be the process that is established in each constitution.  That process may differ in minor, but important ways.  It will likely require approval of the constituency, which is expensive.  NOTE:  The process for amendment of constitutional by-laws may differ from that of the constitution itself and may be less expensive.

The bottom line is:  While some union constitutions have a clause that says, in some form that the right to determine who is ordained belongs to the Union.  Where this clause exists, it is argued that the Union may ordain regardless of the wishes of the General Conference.  Others debate this, in some circumstances,

This is a complicated legal question on which sincere people may disagree.  But, it also means that a Union that allows for female ordination may have the legal justification to do so and may not be in rebellion.   

[Tom Wetmore]

Actually appealing to and citing at the Church Manual on this issue is not appropos at all.  In the very first chapter, "Why a Church Manual?" under the heading "Authority and Function of the Church Manual" it says that the Church Manual "describes the operation and functions of the local churches and their relationship to denominational structures in which they hold membership" and that the principles for standards and practices as set forth in the Church Manual 'are to be followed in all matters pertaining to the administration and operation of local churches."  (Emphasis mine.) 

[Jeannieb43]

In regard to marriage and ordination:  Marriage has a civil function.  IOW, it is the Stated that determines who can perform a marriage.  That may vary from place to place.  And, it may be independent of what the Church says.

//elision//

2) I currently live in a State where the requirement to perform a marriage is simply to be a resident of the State, of legal age, and competent.  There is no obligation to be a clergy-person at all.

3) I once lived in a country where no clergy-person had any right to perform a marriage ceremony.  All marriages were civil.

 

 

 

​The State of California once granted me a commission as a wedding commissioner -- for one day only.   The bride-to-be (a licensed attorney who knew the ropes) obtained the commission for me from the local county clerk's office.   She and her fiance wanted to be married in a civil ceremony only -- they wanted no religious part to the ceremony.   So I complied.   The bride happened to be my son's sister-in-law.    The fact that I was an active member of the State Bar had no bearing on my eligibility to serve as a wedding commissioner.   I performed the ceremony, gave a short homily (without mentioning God's name),  had the parties repeat their vows to the entire assembly [held in a restaurant], and we all signed the marriage certificate and it was filed and recorded by the County Clerk.  That's my only experience as a wedding commissioner.

I saw the young couple again this month, on Mother's Day, at my son's house where they honored his wife's mother and me together.   The young couple have three children now -- twins about seven, and a younger boy.   They live 400 miles from where I live so I don't see them often.   But apparently my wedding ceremony was successful.   [The reason they wanted a non-religious ceremony was that they came from two different religious backgrounds and didn't want to be rude to either set of parents.]  

I must add that it was terribly difficult for me to "preach" a wedding ceremony with no mention of God or a Higher Power whatever.   I studied ministers' wedding books, but drafted my own comments from them.  I must say I believe God is of ultimate importance in a new marriage.  But that couple were of age, educated [both had postgraduate degrees], and I was working for them.   They're certainly not agnostics, either of them.   But it wasn't my position to inquire.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Jeannieb43

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, under California law, a person may be granted the authority to perform one (1) wedding ceremony, on one specific day. The individual counties in California set up the process and the charges for issuing such a license.  In San Diego County the charge is $80 and in San Francisco it is $75.

 

For more about the requirements in San  Diego see:  https://arcc.sdcounty.ca.gov/Documents/cc402.pdf

 

Edited May 19, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[rasell]

This is a complicated legal question on which sincere people may disagree.  But, it also means that a Union that allows for female ordination may have the legal justification to do so and may not be in rebellion.   

I don't see the issue as being whether to ordain or not to ordain, but rather what is our sense of church unity in the body of Christ. Sometimes people arise in the church with a new doctrine that is contrary to the established doctrine of the church, and how can we say to them we need to abide by the doctrine of the world church if we ignore things the world church has decided when we disagree with it.

Ellen White said that every one who has arisen with some false doctrine claimed to be following the Bible. And while the Bible is the ultimate rule of faith, are we going to say that only our interpretation is correct and the whole world church is in error? This is where some humility is needed and caution.

I accept that in the time of Luther the church was corrupt, but the SDA Church is God's remnant church of Bible Prophecy, and when the whole world church represented by its delegates comes to a decision I think we need to consider that in humility and for the sake of unity.

[Gregory Matthews]

Again:  The Biblical issue is not whether or not to ordain.  For the Bible does not use the word Ordain.   it is the  role that women should have in spiritual nurture.

In the development of the SDA Denomination, our early leaders fought this issue out as a doctrinal one.  Some were convinced that women should not have a teaching, public, role in spiritual development, just as some believe to be the case today.  Others believed, as some argue today, that women may have a teaching, public role, in spiritual development..  That issue came before our members in a very early General Conference Session.  But, that issue was not the doctrinal issue.  Rather it was a policy issue:   No decision was made as to the policy.   Rather no policy was voted either way.  IOW, no policy was set in place.

So, from this perspective, one cannot say that there is a new, established doctrine that prevents women from being ordained.  That simply is not true.

And, it should be remembered that  for a number of years, as is well known,  the SDA Church gave Ellen White the credentials of an ordained minister and so listed her in the official records of the denomination.  She accepted those documents, without rebuke.  She must not have felt it was a sin for a female to be ordained.