WO & the Vote Wednesday

[Gregory Matthews]

There is a common expectation that the vote on WO will be taken Wednesday.

The question to be placed before the delegates is:  Shall the Divisions be authorized to decide whether or not women should be ordained to clergy status as are men. If the vote is "yes" then the Divisions would have the authority to say either yes or not.  They could  allow or they could prohibit.  If the vote is "no" then things would stay as they are and no change would be made.  A "no" vote would not prohibit women from being ordained.  IOW, this is a vote as  to whether or not to transfer the authority to decide to the Divisions.

In a move that has not been expected by many, a "no" vote is seen as being a positive step that favors the ordination of women!   It has been argued that some, and perhaps all, Unions already have the authority to ordain women.  A "no" vote would not change this.  On this basis, a "no" vote would likely continue the practice of certain Unions ordaining women and  it has the potential for additional Unions to begin to ordain women. 

 

[Naomi]

{scratching my head}  Sounds very similar  .... what's the point in all of this if either way the divisions and union will carry on as they choose. 

Either way our church is divided and a lady could be ordained in Columbia and more to NYC and if they are not ordaining women she would not be recognized as ordained. 

Sounds like a  real mess to me.

[Gregory Matthews]

The point.  The drcisions made at the GC are often highly political.

[DreamWeaver]

I still hope they say no.

[Gregory Matthews]

The delegates are scheduled to vote today on the WO issue at 4:30 PM, local, Texas time in San Antonio.

The vote is going to be by printed ballot, with the votes counted in front of the delegates, with the  results  released immediately, whenever they finish.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The voting is taking place as I write this.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Voting has finished.

 

The count of the vote is being made.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The vote is expected to be announced shortly.

 

The results are:

1)  2363 ballets cast.

2) 5 voted to abstain.

3) 977 votes Yes

4) 1381 votes No.

The Divisions do not have the right to decide whether or not women should be ordained in the same manner as men.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Gregory Matthews]

41.3 % voted to that Divisions should have the right to decide.

58.4 % voted to deny Divisions that right.

 

[Naomi]

Well, 'tis finished ....................... for today

[LynnDel]

I was not surprised that No was in the majority, but I was surprised that the vote was as close as it was. The results of the ovte may be surprising. It will be interesting to see if a move is made to change the rule that Unions have the right to make their own decisions. I remember EGW warning about the GC taking too much "kingly power." The vote today appears to have been against developing too much kingly power at the division level.

[DreamWeaver]

The numbers are very unsettling in terms of how many people were willing to say "yes", but I'm still a bit relieved and happy. I was so sure I was going to have to face more depressing news in a single year. I do hope, however, that people don't think that just because the GC votes something means that its a sign that its legit Scripture. While I believe that the vote on this issue went well, I would hope that no one (if any in the church) relied on this vote to determine whether they would change their position or not based on the GC's results.

[Gregory Matthews]

Comments:

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2015/07/06/actual-significance-san-antonio-ordination-vote

 http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2015/07/08/breaking-general-conference-delegates-vote-no-ordination-question-status-quo-prev 

http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story2988-%E2%80%8Bgc-delegates-vote-%E2%80%98no%E2%80%99-on-issue-of-women%E2%80%99s-ordination

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/seventh-day-adventists-vote-against-female-ordination/2015/07/08/42920f7e-25c8-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html

http://session.adventistfaith.org/assets/426590

http://atoday.org/vote-on-ordination-majority-says-no-to-women-as-adventist-ministers.html

Edited July 9, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Gregory Matthews]

The next five years will be interesting.  This vote is likely to result in change taking place at a greater rate than it has taken place in the past 20 years.  How it will change and the extent are purely speculative and I do not speculate as to what that will be.  But, I will suggest that five years from now we will be able to say that President Ted has been a force for change.

As to unity:  I will suggest that the potential is there for the denomination to be less unified than it has been.  However, I also believe that the leaders elected at this GC have it in their power to govern in a manner that promotes a greater unity.  Will they govern in that manner?  I do not speculate.

We call upon God to lead.  But the plan of salvation demonstrates that God both allows what is outside of His will and that God may give people what they want, even when it is outside of God's plane.  E.G. God gave Israel Saul, when  he the type of a king they wanted. 

 

 

[DreamWeaver]

The next five years will be interesting.  This vote is likely to result in change taking place at a greater rate than it has taken place in the past 20 years.  How it will change and the extent are purely speculative and I do not speculate as to what that will be.  But, I will suggest that five years from now we will be able to say that President Ted has been a force for change.

As to unity:  I will suggest that the potential is there for the denomination to be less unified than it has been.  However, I also believe that the leaders elected at this GC have it in their power to govern in a manner that promotes a greater unity.  Will they govern in that manner?  I do not speculate.

I like the way you shared the news on this. 

Matthews, do you think that the church, while becoming broken, will in some way make it easier to determine which groups, individual churches and people are more in line with the Scriptures? I don't like the idea of topics tearing up the unity of the church, because it could cause confusion for people entering the church. But its prophesied that this will happen and I was wondering if these issues will cause the shaking that is necessary for the church's future.

[Gregory Matthews]

I am going to respond, more from the perspective of where I am and what I think is a better course of action.

1) A broken Church:  I do not focus on that and do come from the perspective of some that the Church has departed from where God would want it to be.  Rather, I see a society that has changed much from that of the founding days of our denomination.  I see a Church that is in many ways ineffective in reaching the people who are living in our society today.  I see a Church that will die off in the future if it can not develop ways to make what it has to offer meaningful to people living today.

NOTE: I am clearly speaking here about one segment of the Church, which is the one in which I live.  What I say, may not be applicable to some other parts of this Church.

2) I see individuals who think somewhat like the above and are struggling to discover and develop methods of   attracting people to the mission and ministry of the Church today.  In their struggle, they are attempting many new ways.   I am shocked by some as they would never have been allowed in the early days of my life.  I am at a place where I say:  Let them try and see what God can accomplish through them.  Some will fail and some will succeed.  Let God demonstrate the direction that we should go.

3) A fundamental issue that the Church faces today is the role of our individual congregations.  Should they be a hospital for sinners who are on a spiritual journey and have not arrived at the end goal.  If so, what boundaries, if any, should be placed upon membership in the congregation?  Or should the congregation be a safe place for people who have reached a specific level of doctrinal understanding and life style?   IF so, what is the required level of doctrinal understanding and life style that should be required?  This issue is fundamental and we are divided on the answer to these questions.

NOTE:  This is the question that is being raised in the "Nothing IN MY Hands" series on the Adventist Today  website.  The woman in this story, which as presented is true, made it back to God, but not back to the SDA Church, prior to her death.

4)  I do not think that it is my God-given task to determine which groups, etc. are most in line with Scripture.  Yes, in a sense, I am to make judgments as they relate to me personally.  I am to make judgments as to what I believe to be valid doctrine and acceptable life style.  But I must remember that my understanding of doctrine is limited to a very small part of God's will for me and my life style needs continued work throughout this life. 

5) Unity, in my understanding is not uniformity.  One reason is that we are not all at the same stage in our Christian life.  But, we can be unified, even if not uniform.  That lack of uniformity should not destroy our unity.

6) Confusion in the Church:  I do not think so, if handled correctly.

7) The shaking:  Speculation that I am not going to engage in.

Well, does this answer your questions?

 

In brief, I follow the so-called "Big tent" approach that our leadership has followed in the past, and is being  challenged now.  I have not defined the appropriate boundaries, but, I have expanded them beyond what I held when I was a  congregational pastor.  And, I have not defined the boundaries that I believe are acceptable.  I am still thinking and asking.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[CoAspen]

Perhaps you could clear something up for me. This vote was not actually about allowing women to be ordained, but whether or not conferences should be allowed to do that....correct? The GC is making no decision in the matter of WO....corrrect?

It would seem to me it is a decision by indecision.  The GC is not really addressing the issue of WO in a direct manner. Is my thinking correct or incorrect? Maybe a little harsh, but I have this thought about "washing of hands".

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I agree with CoA, the vote was not a succinct prohibition of ordaining women to the ministry.  If that's what was wanted, then the measure should have been clearly written to state such.  Seems like the "verdict" is as clear as mud...

[debbym]

I was wondering if these issues will cause the shaking that is necessary for the church's future.

i hope you do not mind my interjecting in your conversation.  i know this is not in very much depth.  There will be many issues that come and go, but the issue of the gospel accepted or rejected is what separates the tares from the wheat.

I asked the meaning of the shaking I had seen, and was shown that it would be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans. This will have its effect upon the heart of the receiver, and will lead him to exalt the standard and pour forth the straight truth. Some will not bear this straight testimony. They will rise up against it, and this will cause a shaking among God's people.--1T 181 (1857).

The message is we need three things,

1.Gold tried in fire, Faith and love

2. White robe, the righteousness of Jesus by faith.

3. Eye salve that we might see, the work of the  Holy Spirit John 16:8.  To reveal to us our true condition, to reveal the righteousness of Christ, and the  judgement of God  upon sin,  because the devil and all his works have been judged in the light of the Cross.  this is deepening repentance in view of our condition.

It is a message that prepares us us to meet Jesus.  Those who resist the drawing of God's love will harden their hearts, and it will be the separation of the wheat and the chaff.  Some will get ready some will choose not to.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

CoAspen has asked some questions:

1) As whether or not Divisions could allow the ordination of women.  A Division is not a Conference.  The vote did not address what a Conference, either Local of Union could do.

2) The position of President Ted, and others, is that the ordination of women to the gospel ministry (clergy status) is not presently allowed.  Therefore, the vote not to allow Divisions to decide to ordain women maintains the present position that women are not allowed to be ordained on this level.  NOTE: Presently they can be ordained as local Elders.  On this basis they are often being ordained as Deacons/Deaconesses.

3) A minority position is that the Unions (either some or all) presently have the authority to decide whether or not women should be so ordained.  That is the basis for women being so ordained in some Unions.  It is likely that such ordination will continue in these cases.  One Union voted, prior to the GC Session, that it would continue to so ordain women, but only after the GC Session.

4)  Yes, there was no direct answer, see # 2 for a reason.

5) Washing of hands:  Call it as you see it.  Some will agree with you.  Others will not agree with you as they will believe that the question has already bveen directly addressed and settled by all who believe in Church Order.

 

Her is what CoAspen asked:

 

Perhaps you could clear something up for me. This vote was not actually about allowing women to be ordained, but whether or not conferences should be allowed to do that....correct? The GC is making no decision in the matter of WO....corrrect?

It would seem to me it is a decision by indecision.  The GC is not really addressing the issue of WO in a direct manner. Is my thinking correct or incorrect? Maybe a little harsh, but I have this thought about "washing of hands."

Edited July 9, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[hch]

Well, 'tis finished ....................... for today

But tomorrow?

Truly this is a historic moment. The worldwide church of Seventh-day Adventists while in General Conference session has spoken rejecting woman's ordination.
 

The nature of the last church that is to give Christ's message to the dying world as described by Christ in Revelation as being lukewarm (neither hot or cold) has been clearly manifested in this historic vote by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in session. The past President of the GC took a stand in favor of Woman's Ordination and the current GC president took the opposite position against Woman's Ordination. Can both positions be right since they are opposing one another? Thus for the sake of comparison, one must be right (hot) and the other wrong (cold). But with such a mix of hot and cold, how can the church truly be anything but lukewarm?
 

The headship teaching that man is the head of his church has prevailed while the prayer of Christ has gone unheeded. Jesus' prayer to His Father was, "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." And in the book where Jesus pleads with Laodicea to turn from its lukewarm condition to keep God's commandments: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto Him," states that Jesus "loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father; to Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen [so let it be]" (Revelation 1:5-6). And so that there is no mistake, Jesus repeats this revelation that He "hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth" (5:9-10).
 

The history of Israel shows that they rejected God so that they could have a king like the nations about them. The history of Israel repeated at Christ's first Advent when Israel rejected Christ while claiming that they had no king but Caesar. And now that Christ's Second Advent is even at the door, have the majority of God's professed people affirmed that man is the head of God's Church?
 

If Heaven views the General Conference's decision regarding Woman's Ordination as a rejection of Jesus in favor of man's supposed authority over God's remnant church, will history have repeated itself in a most portentous way of which Christ warned?

"A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return... and said unto them, Occupy till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. And it came to pass, that when he was returned... those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:12-15, 27).
 

Though we like to think that truth always triumphs, we have but to look at Israel's continuous rejection of God as their king and the way that the 1888 General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in session opposed the will of God to see that the Lord often allows man to have his own way until God sets things in order in His own time.
 

I hope that my assessment of this situation is faulty, but I fear that we will not have long to wait to see that cause is followed by effect with certainty.
 

Christian regards,

The vote is expected to be announced shortly.

 

The results are:

1)  2363 ballets cast.

2) 5 voted to abstain.

3) 977 votes Yes

4) 1381 votes No.

The Divisions do not have the right to decide whether or not women should be ordained in the same manner as men.

This is encouraging. It upholds the unity of the Church without forbidding Woman's ordination.

[Gregory Matthews]

The  NAD responds to the vote.  See:

https://blu179.mail.live.com/?tid=cmx6e0-d0l5RGDy9idZ1x5iA2&fid=flinbox

NOTE:  The question remains as to what Unions will do, to include the NAD.

Henry Carroll Hills has said:

 

Truly this is a historic moment. The worldwide church of Seventh-day Adventists while in General Conference session has spoken rejecting woman's ordination.

Actually you are wrong.

1) The World wide church has only said that the decision can not be made by he Divisions.  It did not directly address the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.  It did not address the ordination of women as Elders.  It did not address the ordination of women as deacons/deaconesses.

2) HCH also said that this vote maintains the headship teaching of males.  Actually this vote did not address that issue.  While it is true that some who reject female ordination also accept the headship teaching, there are others who reject both the headship teaching and female ordination.  This vote only addressed one aspect of the issue of female ordination.  It did not in any way address the headship teaching.

 

 

Edited July 9, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[lazarus]

Actually you are wrong.

1) The World wide church has only said that the decision can not be made by he Divisions.  It did not directly address the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.  It did not address the ordination of women as Elders.  It did not address the ordination of women as deacons/deaconesses.

2) HCH also said that this vote maintains the headship teaching of males.  Actually this vote did not address that issue.  While it is true that some who reject female ordination also accept the headship teaching, there are others who reject both the headship teaching and female ordination.  This vote only addressed one aspect of the issue of female ordination.  It did not in any way address the headship teaching.

Indeed.

Women are going to continue to be Pastors and ALL the things that pastors do. Nothing has changed essentially. Women will continue to be commissioned in the NAD which in reality is ordination. I actually think that some Unions like my own will continue to Ordain women.

[Gregory Matthews]

I believe that Unions will ordain women in more than one Division in the World.

I am told that some Division Working Policy's  contain clear statements that the Unions have the authority to decide who should be ordained as SDA Clergy.   Probably there are other statements to the effect that the Unions will act in accord with GC policy. The net result of this is that some will (and have done so) argue that the GC Does not have the authority to tell Unions whom they can ordain.

This issue is clearly not settled.

The question now is:  How will the GC react then a Union ordains more women, as one has indicated that it will do.  NOTE: I do not reference the NAD in this statement.

 

 

 

 

[lazarus]

 

The question now is:  How will the GC react then a Union ordains more women, as one has indicated that it will do.  NOTE: I do not reference the NAD in this statement.

 I am quite confident that my Union will CONTINUE to ordain. My gut tells me that Ted Wilson will see the vote yesterday as a mandate to deal harshly with the officers of that Union. I think he will have greater support in that effort. To my knowledge this is what he wanted to do in the first instance. I think there are difficult times ahead.

Edited July 9, 2015 by lazarus