The Authority of the General Conference in Session

[Pickle]

Once again you insert the headship heresy into your thinking and interpretation of even the context.

​It will be difficult for some to take you seriously if you insist on declaring our Adventist pioneers, and probably the vast majority of Adventists over our entire history, to be heretics. I challenge you to find the earliest reference in our periodicals to an Adventist rejecting "headship" theology, and to show that that view was not the predominant view at that time among Adventists.

[Pickle]

 

I would like to circle back to this attempt to draw a distinction between the terms pastor and minister as used by EGW.  This is not a new idea to try to explain away her statements that clearly say that a woman can be a pastor.  The idea is to drive a wedge between these two terms to say that a pastor is different and that all she was talking about regarding women being able to be prepared to be pastors of the flock was just personal or welfare ministries, visiting the sick, tending the poor and aged, etc.,  or as Pickle seems to be trying to do, the role of local elders or even the deacons. The opposers of WO will then say that what we are talking about now is different.  Ministers/pastors of today are different than they were in her time.  So the role and function of a minister/pastor of today is quite different than it was in her day or that when she was talking about pastors it was some lesser role and function than what we would consider to be the role and function of a pastor of today.

That is simply a false dichotomy. A distinction without a difference. The meaning of those two words mean the same today as they did in the 19th Century  Ellen White used the term pastor and minister interchangeably.  They were as much synonyms in her day as they are today.

Just a few examples of her speaking of the same person with the same position in the church using both terms interchangeably in the same paragraph:

​Interesting that in trying to address this very real problem, you neglected to cite any place in the Spirit of Prophecy where Ellen White approved of ministers hovering over existing churches, or of being assigned as a general rule to pastor existing churches. Her 1901 and 1902 statements to the brethren and sisters in Iowa can be read in their entirety in 16MR 340 ff (note p. 346) and 1888 1762 ff. They say what they say.

Instead, you cited the following:

A pastor should mingle freely with the people for whom he labors, that by becoming acquainted with them he may know how to adapt his teaching to their needs. When a minister has preached a sermon, his work has but just begun. There is personal work for him to do. He should visit the people in their homes, talking and praying with them in earnestness and humility. There are families who will never be reached by the truths of God’s word unless the stewards of His grace enter their homes and point them to the higher way. But the hearts of those who do this work must throb in unison with the heart of Christ. – {AA 363.2}

The duties of a pastor are often shamelessly neglected because the minister lacks strength to sacrifice his personal inclinations for seclusion and study. The pastor should visit from house to house among his flock, teaching, conversing, and praying with each family, and looking out for the welfare of their souls. Those who have manifested a desire to become acquainted with the principles of our faith should not be neglected, but thoroughly instructed in the truth.—Evangelism, 350. – {PaM 223.2}

The flock of God have a right to expect to be visited by their pastor, to be instructed, advised, counseled, in their own homes. And if a man fails to do this part of the work, he can not be a minister after God’s order. The churches that have such labor are disorganized, weak, and sickly, and ready to die. The sermons are not vitalized by the Spirit of God, because the blessing of God will not rest upon any man who is neglecting the flock of God.—Appeal and Suggestions to Conference Officers (Ph 2)17, 18. – {PaM 223.3}

I would expect AA to be written in a way that the general public could relate to. The general public would not understand that an Adventist minister is supposed to primarily be raising up new churches, which is how we operated according to the U.S. Census Bureau until at least the 1940's. AA 363.2 is there to benefit ministers of all faiths, not just Adventist ministers.

Secondly, a minister who is raising up new churches has to do the work of a pastor among those he is seeking to win or train. So just because Ellen White writes about a minister needing to do the work of a pastor, that doesn't mean she was contradicting her clear counsel that our ministers were not supposed to be hovering over existing churches. In other words, we can't use these quotes to justify what we are doing today.

Note particularly your second quote, where she specifically says that the minister should visit those wanting to become acquainted with the principles of our faith, and these are seemingly part of "his flock." That certainly isn't talking about visiting established members.

Note how the very paragraph in Ph 2 that your third quote comes from speaks of sending foreign missionaries into new fields. So again, the idea of ministers doing the duties of a pastor is in the context of working with new folks and/or in new fields.

Of course, since the 1901 and 1902 letters to Iowa said that it was a general rule that the conference laborers should go out from the churches into new fields, that clearly means that there are exceptions. I would think our college churches would be clear exceptions, for good reason, since our colleges should be winning the souls of our young people. And then there would be existing churches that have some sort of serious problem that needs ministerial attention for a time. But our problem today in North America is that we have turned the exception into the general rule.

But here and there are hints that we used to operate differently. Not that long ago we were reading a book by a Scandinavian who became an Adventist after attending evangelistic meetings, one series of two held simultaneously. After a time the minister moved on, and the two congregations faithfully carried on, winning even more to the folds.

"Instead of keeping the ministers at work for the churches that already know the truth, let the members of the churches say to these laborers: "Go work for souls that are  perishing in darkness. We ourselves will carry forward the services of the church. We will keep up the meetings, and, by abiding in Christ, will maintain spiritual life. We will work for souls that are about us, and we will send our prayers and our gifts to sustain the laborers in more needy and destitute fields."--Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 30. (1900)" (Ev 382).

[Tom Wetmore]

Pickle, you strive vigorously to emphasize distinctions without a difference.  

 

Regarding your request for a referenceIt has been referenced repeatedly here in this subform in various topics  I would invite you to take the time to read through them. Read especially the pinned topic at the top.  A huge amount of info is contained there. I think we could avoid rehashing things that have been discussed before if you would do that.   

Here it is - .J. A.Mowatt,"Women as Preachers and Lecturers,"Review and Herald, July30,1861, 65-66. 

To make it easier a reference is made to it in the very beginning of this paper which I recommend that you read in its entirety - http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=1092&journal=1&type=pdf  

Here is a direct link to that archived issue of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald in which is found - http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18610730-V18-09.pdf 

And here is Uriah Smith's introduction to it:

We consider the following a triumphant vindication of the right of the sisters to take part in the public worship of God. The writer applies the prophecy of Joel—' Your daughters shall prophesy," &c., to female preaching; but while it must embrace public speaking of some kind, this we think is but half of its meaning. We have nothing to say upon what the writer claims to have been done by certain females. That to which the attention of the reader is especially called is the argument by which he shows that they have a right to do this, or any amount besides in the same direction.—u. s. 

[Pickle]

On the assertion that "husband of one wife" is literally "one woman man," I should have verified that before accepting it as true.

• 1 Timothy 3:2  "the husband [accusative] of one wife [genitive]"
• 1 Timothy 3:12  "the husbands [nominative] of one wife [genitive]"
• Titus 1:6  If any be blameless, the husband [nominative] of one wife [genitive]"

Not one of the three occurrences has "husband" and "wife" in the same case, indicating that "one wife" is not being used as an adjective for "husband." Thus, since "wife" is in the genitive case, "husband of one wife" is more correct than "one woman man."

One can note that often the Bible speaks of so and so's husband [man] or wife [woman], or his wife [woman], or thy wife [woman], or her husband [man]. If we can't find one single instance where "her man" refers to a wife or "his woman" refers to a husband, I think the idea that 1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6 could refer to women who have only one husband is on very shaky ground.

​Clear passage, eh?   If the "clear" verse 15 is read at face value, then the only women who will be saved are those who have borne children.  

That's ridiculous.

​And if Paul had said that men would be saved in sweating, would you have thought the verse was unclear? As if men who live in Siberia were less likely to be saved than men at the equator? Or would you have concluded instead that all Paul was saying was that the hard labor God sentenced men and women to in the Garden of Eden was meant to be for our salvation, meant to give us the experience in character development we so desperately need?

Do you have any problem with the idea that the sentence of hard labor for both men and women was meant for our salvation?

[Pickle]

This is not a new understanding of these two verses.  The founders of the Adventist Church were familiar with it. An article explaining this understanding about these two verses was published in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Uriah Smith introduced the article with the editorial note that it was a strong defense of the woman in the early Advent movement that they could preach.  

Tom, I see now that you worded what you said above in such a way that you stopped short of saying that Smith or any other Adventist agreed with such an interpretation. And indeed, I see no indication that Uriah Smith agreed with that non -Adventist author that Phoebe was appointed by Paul to be "the first pope of Rome." All this shows once again is that our pioneers were broad minded, sometimes publishing articles they thought were beneficial, even though they didn't agree with every last point presented.

And thus, given the level of misinformation out there, and the agendas, and the amount of time, money, and influence invested by various ones in those agendas, a certain amount of rehashing is appropriate.

As yet another example, the AUSS paper you cite is about our early pioneers' belief that women could preach. Since some of the very sources that paper cites indicate that men would be handling the business affairs of the church, and that women should not usurp authority over men, that paper seems irrelevant to the present discussion in the church about whether it is appropriate for women to serve, for example, as ex officio chairmen of the nominating committee and church board. The discussion is not about whether women may be ordained to preach. The discussion is whether they may be ordained to serve in the positions of authority that ordained Adventist ministers currently serve in. Women today can speak in religious meetings just fine, just like men can. They cannot officiate at baptisms or communion services or serve as a pastor without ordination of some sort, just like men cannot.

Lest my words above be misunderstood, no man can serve in the capacities I mentioned unless they either be ordained as a minister, or be ordained as a local elder and be elected to such office for the current term. Without one of those two types of ordination, they are not supposed to fill those roles.

[Tom Wetmore]

And women are ordained in those capacities now and have been ordained as local elders for many years with the blessing of the GC.  So what is the issue?

 

You and others keep trying to turn it back to an issue of authority.  You speak in terms of headship.  Understand that we are and have been since the beginning of the Adventist Church centered around the principle of servant leadership, not headship.  That sort of headship thinking is precisely that which EGW warned against in speaking agains "kingly powers".  Read the essays in the pinned reading assignment.

 

[Pickle]

Tom,

Anyone reading what our pioneers wrote about the issue can tell that I'm not turning it back to an issue of authority. That's what the issue has always been, from the beginning of our movement. And any essays written by people who have a pro-WO agenda won't change this simple historical fact.

And women are ordained in those capacities now and have been ordained as local elders for many years with the blessing of the GC.  So what is the issue?

​One of our ministers here who I assume is probably pro-WO stated at a constituency session that there are divisions that do not permit women serving as elders, so if he was correct, then women are not ordained as elders with the blessing of the GC everywhere in the world. In my last comments I did not raise any question as to the propriety of women filling the role of elder, but was merely pointing out a simple fact. However, I do agree with our pioneers that the Scriptures do not permit a woman to serve in the position of "ruling elder," as J.H. Waggoner put it using terminology taken from, I think, the Presbyterians.

Was the introduction of women elders made by a GC Session vote? I heard recently that it was not.

Understand that we are and have been since the beginning of the Adventist Church centered around the principle of servant leadership, not headship.  That sort of headship thinking is precisely that which EGW warned against in speaking agains "kingly powers".

​This is interesting. Are you advocating that we revise the Church Manual so that ministers no longer serve as ex officio chairmen of the nominating committee and church board, in order to avoid the potential exercise of kingly power, and any approach to the idea of headship?

The way we used to do it, the minister was only a member of the nominating committee if the congregation wanted him to be. He "served" as a member at the pleasure of the congregation. That isn't how the Church Manual says it should be done now.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

 

One of our ministers here who I assume is probably pro-WO stated at a constituency session that there are divisions that do not permit women serving as elders, so if he was correct, then women are not ordained as elders with the blessing of the GC everywhere in the world.

 

 

If the vote is at the Divisions shall have the authority to decide on the ordination of women, it is clear that in some areas female ordination will be allowed and in some areas  female ordination will not be allowed.  In modern times the General Conference has not given a blessing to ordination.  (Yes, in the early history of our denomination, at a time prior to the establishment of Divisions and Unions, The General Conference was involved.)

My position, as I have stated, is that Unions have the authority to decide who should be ordained in their territory.  The support for my position is based upon the reality that some Union Constitutions grant that authority to the Union.  [It should be noted that those Union Constitutions were put in place with no objection from the General Conference.]  There appear to be some Unions that have Constitutions that may have restricted their authority to decide who may be ordained in their area.  So, there may be some complexity in the situation in that some Unions still have that authority and some do not.  My position is also based upon the reality that for many years, as long as I have been clergy, The decision as whether or not to ordain has been made by the Union and no higher level.

Recently a denominational administrator with experience has proposed in idea that differs, in part with my thinking.  He has suggested that the  Divisions had the authority now, to decide the issue and that it is not an issue that should go before the General Conference.  While I am not yet in total agreement with his position, I will say that it should be carefully considered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Tom Wetmore]

​It will be difficult for some to take you seriously if you insist on declaring our Adventist pioneers, and probably the vast majority of Adventists over our entire history, to be heretics. I challenge you to find the earliest reference in our periodicals to an Adventist rejecting "headship" theology, and to show that that view was not the predominant view at that time among Adventists.

​I can't argue with that first sentence.  But I really don't need to. Because not a single bit of it is true.  I have not called anyone a heretic.  (Truth be told I do claim that title  for myself now and then...) There is no need to personalize it.  There is a big difference between that and identifying an idea, teaching, theology, or doctrine as a heresy.  I don't doubt that many are quite sincere in their faith and loyal to the Church even if they may subscribe to or teach the headship heresy.  I wouldn't say being wrong on one topic makes that person a heretic. 

Now that I have set that diversionary nonsense straight, lets go for something  of real substance.  I think the burden of proof is on you to show that this is a foundational teaching of Adventism.   I am not inventing the tag out of thin air.  People infinitely more qualified than either you or I say just what I have said about it.  

Why don't you start with identifying which of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs support it.  Go argue at the seminary where  a nearly unanimous faculty refuted the headship heresy.  (One hold out over specific wording on one point...)

Maybe it is you who are mistaken about our Church history.  

 

 

[Tom Wetmore]

 

Was the introduction of women elders made by a GC Session vote? I heard recently that it was not.

​

​Didn't need to be.  It was not a matter that was reserved only to the GC in Session.  (For that matter, the item to voted on in San Antonio also is not a matter that could be acted upon only by the GC in Session.  It is a fairly limited number of things that can only be acted upon by the GC in Session.  Yes, things that don't need to be are still referred to the Session.

The vote of the GC Executive Committee between sessions carries the full authority of the Church and does not need to be confirmed by a Session vote, except for those few specific matters reserved only to the Session by the Constitution and Bylaws. The approval of the ordination of women elders is valid.

It is worth noting, that the fear-mongering idea that ordaining women as pastors by some divisions and not others will destroy the unity of the Church is  greatly eroded by the simple realization that female elders in some divisions now for a number of decades has not resulted in any discernible fracturing of the unity of the Church.    For that matter, neither has the presence of female pastors in some and not in others. 

Edited June 8, 2015 by Tom Wetmore
typo correction and clarification of wording...

[Tom Wetmore]

 

​This is interesting. Are you advocating that we revise the Church Manual so that ministers no longer serve as ex officio chairmen of the nominating committee and church board, in order to avoid the potential exercise of kingly power, and any approach to the idea of headship?

The way we used to do it, the minister was only a member of the nominating committee if the congregation wanted him to be. He "served" as a member at the pleasure of the congregation. That isn't how the Church Manual says it should be done now.

 

Once again you are attempting to put words in my mouth and a re twisting what I have said.  And missing the point...

​Exactly how does serving as a chairman of any committee, or the nominating committee in particular result in the exercise of kingly power?  You do understand the role and function of a chairperson I assume.  Wow!   As the chairman of a board myself, I really didn't realize I had the opportunity to crown myself king and supreme dictator of the organization.  You seem a tad confused about power and authority. 

[Pickle]

My position, as I have stated, is that Unions have the authority to decide who should be ordained in their territory.

God's position, as he has stated, is that the highest authority on earth under Him is the GC Session. And His position trumps yours and mine.

The support for my position is based upon the reality that some Union Constitutions grant that authority to the Union.

But I think it highly hazardous for you or me to give any encouragement to unions to rebel against the highest authority on earth under God. I just don't think God will look too kindly upon our making public comments that encourage rebellion.

It would be far different if we had Bible passages that say, Thou shalt ordain women to the gospel ministry, to hover over churches. Then there would be no rebellion in disregarding a GC Session vote.

[Pickle]

​I can't argue with that first sentence.  But I really don't need to. Because not a single bit of it is true.  I have not called anyone a heretic.

​I think you're playing games. You repeatedly call a teaching a heresy that was repeatedly endorsed by our pioneers. It's disparaging, disrespectful, and insulting.

​I think the burden of proof is on you to show that this is a foundational teaching of Adventism.

​Again, I think you're playing games by trying to focus on "foundational teachings" rather than evaluating the arguments of our pioneers, who you have repeatedly made out to be heretics.

​Why don't you start with identifying which of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs support it.

Fundamental Belief #1, and Baptismal Vow #1.

Go argue at the seminary where  a nearly unanimous faculty refuted the headship heresy.

Between 2001 and 2006, ​I had two people tell me on two different occasions that they wouldn't be able to get a position at the seminary because they didn't believe in women's ordination. If hiring decisions at the seminary have ever been made on the basis of whether or not one believes in women's ordination, there is no possible way that the seminary can be looked upon as a neutral body issuing an opinion after careful, objective deliberation.

Further, I think it would be far more courteous of you if you would quit calling it a heresy.

Maybe it is you who are mistaken about our Church history.  

​If I was mistaken, then you would be able to provide a quote from a periodical saying something different than what I have quoted.

[Pickle]

(For that matter, the item to voted on in San Antonio also is not a matter that could be acted upon only by the GC in Session.

​I don't understand your reasoning. If the GC Sessions of 1990 and 1995 voted down women's ordination, I don't see how you can say that some other entity can push it through anyway. There is no higher authority on earth under God than a GC Session.

The vote of the GC Executive Committee between sessions carries the full authority of the Church and does not need to be confirmed by a Session vote, except for those few specific matters reserved only to the Session by the Constitution and Bylaws. The approval of the ordination of women elders is valid.

No, it wasn't valid, since the GC Executive Committee does not have more authority than Scripture, and since Scripture does not permit women to serve as elders. That vote, then was invalid, not valid.

​It is worth noting, that the fear-mongering idea that ordaining women as pastors by some divisions and not others will destroy the unity of the Church is  greatly eroded by the simple realization that female elders in some divisions now for a number of decades has not resulted in any discernible fracturing of the unity of the Church.    For that matter, neither has the presence of female pastors in some and not in others. 

Thus far, no woman can serve as a local pastor or as a local elder without the approval of the local church. Thus local churches that do not approve of the practice can continue on just fine. But if we ordain women to the gospel ministry, then a woman could be appointed as the pastor of a church that on biblical grounds rejects that appointment, and a woman could be voted as a conference president over the objections of a local church. I do not see how we can maintain unity under such a scenario, unless we permit multiple unions to cover the same territory, or churches in one territory to belong to divisions that now cover another territory.

[Pickle]

Once again you are attempting to put words in my mouth and a re twisting what I have said.  And missing the point...

​Exactly how does serving as a chairman of any committee, or the nominating committee in particular result in the exercise of kingly power?  You do understand the role and function of a chairperson I assume.  Wow!   As the chairman of a board myself, I really didn't realize I had the opportunity to crown myself king and supreme dictator of the organization.  You seem a tad confused about power and authority. 

​And how did you get the position of chairman of that board? Were you selected by the organization that has that board, or were you selected by some other entity?

Maybe you're the one who was missing the point. Under the present Church Manual, when does the local church choose whether or not they want the pastor to serve as a member of the nominating committee? As the chairman of the nominating committee? That's not how it used to be.

We ought to avoid situations that allow or encourage kingly power. That's why the GC Executive Committee has so many more persons today, and why the GC President can't call all the shots. Effectively replacing local elders elected annually by the local church with ministers appointed by someone else, and making those unelected ministers ex officio members and chairmen of the nominating committee when they used to not be, that seems contrary to what you yourself said about servant leadership vs. kingly power.

[Pickle]

​No, it wasn't valid, since the GC Executive Committee does not have more authority than Scripture, and since Scripture does not permit women to serve as elders. That vote, then was invalid, not valid.

​I'll backtrack on that comment and reword it this way:

Since the GC Executive Committee does not have more authority than Scripture, that vote would have been valid if the Scriptures permit women to serve as elders. Thus far I have seen no such Scriptural authorization, and thus I think our pioneers were correct when they said that women could not serve in that capacity because the Bible does not allow it.

[Gregory Matthews]

About two hours ago, Bob responded to a post of mine that suggested that on some things the authority rested in the Unions, by suggesting that the General Conference trumps the Unions.  Bob neglected to consider the following statement by Ellen White:

 

A Council of Men--Not Just One Man--It has been a necessity to organize union conferences, that the General Conference shall not exercise dictation over all the separate conferences.  The power vested in the Conference is not to be centered in one man, or two men, or six men; there is to be a council of men over the separate divisions. The showing by the past leadership of the conference is not after God's order.  There has been a work done of a character that has not been approved of God.  The result we have before us in the ruins where once stood that large printing plant, [The Review and Herald Office in Battle Creek] with its expensive facilities . . . . {ChL 26.1}

 

Edited June 8, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Gregory Matthews]

On the basis of the quote that I have posted above, it is clear that EGW wanted the General Conference to be less involved in decisions as to how the work was conducted in the local area.  She wanted this reduction regardless of whether a GC decision was made by one person (a king) or a group of people.  I believe that if EGW  were to walk into the GC Session in Texas today she would speak about the "kingly power that is exercised by people who control committees. 

The above quote is just one reason why I believe that the Unions have some authority to make decisions and the GC may not trump them.

In any case, as Bob knows, there was a time when Ellen White clearly stated that the GC was not speaking for God.  If she said it once, she could say it again.

Out Protestant heritage tells us that the Bible is the final authority.  The GC itself, as I pointed out in a previous post, says that the Bible is the final authority.  That authority is not my understanding of what the Bible says.  It is not Bob's understanding of what the Bible says.  Why, because the Bible's authority is independent of both Bob's and my understanding of it.  As a human, my understanding of what the Bible says I lacking, just as is Bob's due to the fact that he is human and also lacking in a full, complete and total knowledge of what the Bible says. 

 

[Kevin H]

​

God's position, as he has stated, is that the highest authority on earth under Him is the GC Session. And His position trumps yours and mine.

But Pickel, what trumps your use of this argument is that it was the General Conference in session that gave the unions the power to make this choice. You are arguing for the General conference is session to contradict it's self.

[Kevin H]

Also, when it comes to the General Conference in session being the highest voice of God on earth: Don't forget that it was the 1923 General Conference that threw out or demoted Mrs. White's hand picked and trained leaders. They accepted views that Mrs. White fought against. They rejected views that she supported. The church in the 20th century had to suffer the consequences of that General conference in session. It lead to witch hunts through out the church, It set us up for both the Desmond Ford and Walter Rea crisis as well as the friction over women's ordination.

Also, many of us have pointed out Biblical evidence for women's ordination but you act like an income tax lawyer looking for loopholes and straining out nats to not accept the Biblical evidence.

[Gregory Matthews]

My understanding, according to my friends who are in a position to know, the following is the current denomination position, which is not intended to be changed at the upcoming General Conference:

NOTE:  This has been the historic position of the Church for many years and existed when I was a denominational pastor. 

Different elements of organizational authority are distributed among the various levels of denominational organization. For example: the decision as to who may/may not be a member of a local Seventh-day Adventist Church is entrusted to the members of the local church concerned; decisions as to the employment of local church pastors is entrusted to the local conference/mission; decisions regarding the ordination of ministers are entrusted to the union conference/mission; and the definition of denominational beliefs is entrusted to the General Conference in session. Thus each level of organization exercises a realm of final authority that has implications for other levels of organization.

 

[brotherly love]

 

Also, many of us have pointed out Biblical evidence for women's ordination but you act like an income tax lawyer looking for loopholes and straining out nats to not accept the Biblical evidence.

​To be honest, I have hardly seen much in the way of opening the Bible on this site

[Pickle]

A Council of Men--Not Just One Man--It has been a necessity to organize union conferences, that the General Conference shall not exercise dictation over all the separate conferences.  The power vested in the Conference is not to be centered in one man, or two men, or six men; there is to be a council of men over the separate divisions. The showing by the past leadership of the conference is not after God's order.  There has been a work done of a character that has not been approved of God.  The result we have before us in the ruins where once stood that large printing plant, [The Review and Herald Office in Battle Creek] with its expensive facilities . . . . {ChL 26.1}

​Read the above again and you will note that Ellen White is not talking about a GC Session having less authority than a Union Conference. The GC Sessions in 1901 and 1903 were never composed of 1, 2, or 6 men. She's referring to pre-1901 days when the GC Executive Committee was composed of just a few men.

The above quote is just one reason why I believe that the Unions have some authority to make decisions and the GC may not trump them.

In any case, as Bob knows, there was a time when Ellen White clearly stated that the GC was not speaking for God.  If she said it once, she could say it again.

​"At times, when a small group of men entrusted with the general management of the work have, in the name of the General Conference, sought to carry out unwise plans and to restrict God's work, I have said that I could no longer regard the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few men, as the voice of God. But this is not saying that the decisions of a General Conference composed of an assembly of duly appointed, representative men from all parts of the field should not be respected. God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work" (9T 260, 261).

Where Ellen White might say that a GC Session was not speaking for God is if it contradicted Scripture, tried to stifle study and discussion, or arrived at its conclusions through political maneuverings.

The fact remains that without a clear Bible mandate to ordain women to the gospel ministry, for unions to go ahead and do it anyway despite the votes of GC Sessions, constitutes rebellion, and no Seventh-day Adventist should be encouraging rebellion.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Pickle

[Pickle]

  But Pickel, what trumps your use of this argument is that it was the General Conference in session that gave the unions the power to make this choice. You are arguing for the General conference is session to contradict it's self.

​But Kevin, nowhere has a GC Session ever given the unions the authority to ordain women as gospel ministers. That much ought to be crystal clear from the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes, as well as the 1881 resolution that was never voted.

[Pickle]

Also, when it comes to the General Conference in session being the highest voice of God on earth: Don't forget that it was the 1923 General Conference that threw out or demoted Mrs. White's hand picked and trained leaders. They accepted views that Mrs. White fought against. They rejected views that she supported. The church in the 20th century had to suffer the consequences of that General conference in session. It lead to witch hunts through out the church, It set us up for both the Desmond Ford and Walter Rea crisis as well as the friction over women's ordination.

​I am unaware of what you are referring to, but if you are somehow referring to A.G. Daniells no longer being GC president, then his length of term was quite long as it was. I seem to recall that Ellen White thought that Butler being replaced by Olsen was a good thing, but Olsen serving too long was not a good thing. That's just the way it works.

And do recall Daniells' irresponsible comments at the 1919 Bible Conference, when he downplayed the eyewitness testimonies Loughborough had collected regarding Ellen White holding up a heavy Bible in vision, and yet endorsed the utterly false slander that Canright had just put in print, apparently for the first time that very same year, that Conybeare and Howson were going to sue over LP. Why Daniells would put more stock in Canright's recent diatribes than in Loughborough's older writings is beyond me.

And then there is Daniells saying that Conybeare and Howson, and LP were the same word after word, page after page. Ellen White's worst critics have yet to produce any examples of copying that go on for word after word, page after page. So we have to be open to the idea that Daniells' time to serve was ready to end.

Also, many of us have pointed out Biblical evidence for women's ordination but you act like an income tax lawyer looking for loopholes and straining out nats to not accept the Biblical evidence.

​I don't recall any such evidence being presented.