Prs. Wayne Kablanow and Jim Brackett discuss women’s ordination. Is WO as we have seen its proponents attempting to introduce it to the church today, actually congregationalism just at a larger scale? Is letting each division decide independently in essence the same as letting each congregation decide independently? Kablanow and Brackett work their way into the topic carefully in this extended study. Unity in diversity is discussed. The core biblical components of unity are uncovered. 32 minutes. Pr. Kablanow is a successful church planter, presently serving West Plains in Airway Heights and also the Spokane North View churches.

12 thoughts on “Women’s ordination and congregationalism

  1. Once again, to the Brethren, of Councils of Adventist Pastors…. Prs. Wayne Kablanow and Jim Brackett.
    By “GOD’S” will. It is my prayer, and supplication that “GOD’S blessing be Upon both of you Gentlemen, as you remain faithful as one, with Jesus Christ, in the preaching of “HIS” Gospel!

    Living and knowing that we’re in the last days, it’s going to take every bit of heaven’s unity that has been outlined, to remain faithful and steadfast in these closing times of earths history.

    I would also, like to take this time, to bring attention to those that may have forgotten, that Satan, still comes in Disguises, and he only chooses the ones that work.

    Meaning, (and I am reminded,) of what is written: That there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. Job:1: 6,7
    I can imagine, all of the Son’s of “GOD” looking over both of their shoulder’s, saying, where, where! Because, nobody knew that Satan had slipped into the meeting, as they wondered amongst themselves; just how did he do it?
    Well, to their surprised, Satan got in because he looked just like one of them…… So Did Judas… Looked just like a chosen Apostle, and was not!

    Therefore, knowing this, we are also instructed, and it is also written: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.1:John 4:1

    For no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. 2 Corinthians 11: 14,15

    However, Brethren; and please excuse me! But I can’t seem to quote, Ellen G. White enough! But under the auspices of the “HOLY SPIRIT” Ellen G. White; Certainly wrote it! … and as a”WATCHMAN” (and not by choice)
    For it is written in the Spirit of Prophecy The Word of God declares that when it suits the enemy’s purpose, he will through his agencies manifest so great a power under a pretense of Christianity that, “if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect” Matt:24:24.-Ms 125, LDE 155.2 Ellen G White
    As the spirits will profess faith in the Bible and manifest respect for the institutions of the church, their work will be accepted as a manifestation of divine power. The Great Controversy,
    We have far more to fear from within than from without. The hindrances to strength and success are far greater from the church itself than from the world.
    Selected Messages 1:122 LDE 156.2 Ellen G. White

    Therefore, take heed and know that there is such a “SPIRIT” that has gotten into the “World Church” and it’s got power! However, as a ” WATCHMAN” I find it very, very, strange, of what the church is really caught up in. Who would have ever thought it would be about “Female Ordination”, and “HOMOSEXUALITY” which neither one, has a “Justification” or a place to be found written anywhere in the “WORD OF “GOD” that either should exist in the church!

    Bottom-line…. Gentleman! Satan is in our church!

    Because, the World Church of Seventh – Day Adventist is the only one, Left; “Standing” on this earth that “Keep the Commandments” of “GOD” and have the “Faith In Jesus Christ”! Happy Sabbath!!!

    Save Me JESUS!

    Reply
  2. Excellent video. I am so happy that unity is being discussed and defined by the Bible. Yes, I agree — unity is blending of our hearts and thoughts unity like the disciples in the upper room. The other type of unity is like union unity — signs and and marches — singular goal unity. Excellent. Thank you.

    Reply
  3. Here is a quote on the subject from a recent SS lesson: “When those who claim to believe the truth are sanctified through the truth, when they learn of Christ, His meekness, and lowliness, there will be complete and perfect unity in the church.” EGW in Signs, Sept. 19, 1900.

    I sense that this is a HUGE need for all of us in this whole process.To fail in likeness to Christ in one’s character and demeanor is to undercut the authority of the truth proclaimed.

    Reply
  4. Unity unifies. Diversity divides. By definition one is the complete opposite of the other. God required unity before Pentecost and will require it again before the outpouring of the Latter Rain. Yet somehow we as a church are trying to co-mingle these two divergent concepts into one common truth. Applying a oxymoron to theology/spirituality doesn’t work. Kudos to Pastors Kablanow and Brackett for the courage to state this fact, one I have been waiting for years to hear.

    Reply
  5. Yet we clearly do not have unity on this issue and no vote of the General Conference Session will change this fact. It then becomes a matter of whether the church can live with diversity on the issue of WO (which, remember, is not a fundamental belief), or whether a painful and ultimately futile attempt will be made to shoehorn the denomination into uniformity. Remember, the Pacific and Columbia Unions have voted to approve WO and there are likely other unions waiting in the wings that will approve WO regardless of the outcome at the GC session next year. President Ted Wilson would be well advised to dial back on the high stakes gambit on which he’s embarked. Unity cannot be imposed at the ballot box, regardless of which side prevails. Perhaps we should embark on a multi year or generational pause, where we wait and watch. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” If God’s spirit is with those women who have received the spiritual authority signified by ordination, it will be evident, and nothing will stop them. On the other hand, if the Spirit is not with them, they will fade and wither away. A vote would then be unnecessary.

    Reply
    • You are right when you state that we do not have unity at present, for some conferences have already in flagrant rebellion decided to disregard the authority of the world church (and Scripture for that matter) and thereby destroy the unity of the church.

      Neither is the current position regarding WO a fundamental belief, but I don’t think we should smugly/complacently assert or even imply that because it is not a fundamental belief we can safely disregard or change it. The Bible has a very clear comprehensive sexual ethic, which includes the gender-role differentiation evident in the office of elder, and our lack of a fundamental belief on that point (the point being the comprehensive sexual ethic) is a serious indictment against us, not something to be take pride in. See also: http://advindicate.com/articles/3289

      Furthermore, the stakes in this gambit cannot be reduced by compromise on the side of the Biblical Qualifications camp (or Ted Wilson, as you put it) because both the pro WO and the pro BQ side have recognized that the only way to allow WO is to adopt a radically different hermeneutic than the officially accepted methods of Bible study, which details the historical-grammatical approach – the only hermeneutical approach that does not place human reason over the Word. Those are vey high stakes indeed, and they are intrinsic to the question at hand – one cannot divide them and deal with them seperately.

      No, unity cannot be imposed at the ballot box as you correctly state, but neither can unity be preserved by allowing for apostasy (which some would euphemistically call diversity) while still pretending that nothing serious has happened. As a church we are not a social club that just has to get along well enough to be succesful, rather the church is to be a pillar and foundation of truth (1 tim.3:15). Yes unity is important, but if “unity” (actually pseudo-unity) comes at the cost of truth, then let there be division, even war (Great Controversy). Yes there are some areas of truth that are not “live issues” in the sense that they should not divide us (the daily, 144.000, and other private issues), but this is not one of them.

      The only way to be unified is to be transformed by the renewing of our minds into the mind of Christ, to be sanctified by the truth. I admit, that’s a long road, but officially watering down the teachings of Scripture is not gonna help us progress along that road, rather it will stall us, if not outright push us in the opposite direction.

      Also, as time progress things tend to get worse. Modern culture has largely eroded biblical literacy and a generational pause on this issue will not reverse that – hence only those that are willing to submit to God’s Spirit and His leading in the study of the Word are going to be able to stand against popular opinion, but there is no guarantee that they will be the majority, or even that there will still be any left after time has passed, even though they are led by the Spirit.

      What I am saying is: It is foolish to think that somehow truth will be more readily accepted when we cease to defend it and uphold it for a certain period of time. Your approach would easily destroy any and all doctrines, eventually the whole Christian faith, if applied to every issue that is controversial. I doubt you would advocate this approach if you were not in favor of the culturally popular and politically correct side of this issue, rather than the scripturally accurate side. One cannot equate the progression of time, with progression in truth or the leading of the Spirit. Time is an arbitrary decisionmaker.

      Actually I agree that a vote would not be necessary, because the issue is so clear that even giving it the option of vote is to concede too much. It does show respect that the established order wants to give a fair hearing to those that oppose it, but this was not necessary. Which course of action is wisest, only God knows. For now, I trust in the GC doing the right thing by studying things out and looking at things afresh.

      Reply
      • Voting to disallow women’s ordination on the basis of Scripture will not necessarily bring unity to the church, but it will be the first step toward correcting a dangerous and unscriptural hermeneutic that is rampant among us, and the first step also in reversing decades of compromise. It’s called revival and reformation.

        Reply
        • I have been a Bible worker and missionary for many years and I am always proud to be able to say to those I study with that Adventist are a people of the book. That the Bible is the final authority in my church.
          I read Finley’s five steps for church unity. He said
          “Whatever your viewpoint is on the ordination of women, whether you are convicted on one side of the question or the other, there comes a point when you do not tear the body of Christ apart,”
          “There comes a point where you say, ‘We will accept the decision of the corporate body, namely the General Conference session. And whatever my personal view is on that, no matter how I believe I am right, I have come to the conclusion that I will accept as God’s will whatever the session votes and move on with our mission.”
          I must respectively disagree. What if the issue of gay marriage and gay pastors comes knocking at our doors? Which we should not be so naive to think that it never will. What if the world church approves gay marriage and pastors? Do we just go along with it as believe it to be God’s will because the world church says it is? What price are we willing to pay for unity?

          Reply
  6. Unity is important because means more energy concentrated on any task. The problem here is that we do not have a unity of task. Others are pursuing an agenda to make the church as much like the world as possible and others are working to convert the world and make it as much like God as possible. This is the origin of the current tussle for world leadership of the church. It is intended that liberalism shall reign in our church and that women will one day soon not just be conference presidents as in California but Division presidents. These people are not playing. They are serious in seeking to “change” the Adventist Church and we better be very in earnest to resist them.

    Reply
  7. When we unite we are more effective, faster and the load is made lighter. Ours is a world work and we need global unity. What is intended though is to create a situation where Divisions can take independent positions and eventually drag the rest of the world church into a shaky unity that attenuates our global effectiveness. We must not allow it. We must throw out this proposal. We need to rediscover our oneness of missionary calling, our fervent attack on the world of error all around us. We need to resolve issues of identity; who we are as defined by God’s call to us as champions of truth to these end times. What concerns me is that an announced need to refer this matter to the 2015GC could be a platform for a technical coup to saddle us with a GC position that will impose a scripturally indefensible position to the great offense of the majority of church members leading to a crisis of confidence in the church leadership and the church itself. While it is true that we will always have disagreements and while we believe the “church will appear as if” it is about to fall: in other words we cannot insist that we will maintain administrative cohesion to the end, we have a duty to work to retain unity for as long as we can. At the same time we must not be afraid of people walking off into congregationalism or independent movements. God will take care of that. Our duty is to be faithful to Him where we are at.

    Reply
  8. By the way, the issue we are discussing is very important not so much for its political threats but for the spirit behind it. We have seen a coming in of a spirit to weaken our convictions on just about everything about us by painting us as odd and out of touch. We must not be afraid of that. We are odd by calling and definitely need to be out of touch with the world by which I mean out of harmony with its liberal agenda. Nothing wrong with that. We have a duty to be informed; not a duty to conformed. The spirit of the world is not just rebellious against God but it is oppressive, duplicitous and does not take no for an answer. God knows that and it explains why he just buried Korah and his friends to finish their conversation at the second resurrection. While we cannot physically bury present day Korahs and Dathans we really to appreciate that this is no paintball. This is the enemy himself and we need to be resolute in moving the whole church to arouse to the danger posed by this spirit. “If the salt loses it savour, it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be trodden under foot.” The world is still looking for a church that has scriptural integrity as its sole foundation. We need no unity with error and if men and women will rebel and leave the world church and become some extraneous conglomerate because the world church has taken a scripture based position, they are welcome to it. We do not owe it to anyone to lose God’s favor for the world’s accolades. The world has NOTHING to offer, nothing.

    Reply
  9. To be fair to those in favor of wo, the position seems to be the issue of ordination is not specifically prohibited for women so the issue is similar to other issues such as what color of carpet our churches should have or the like. They just don’t see the issue as a major theological issue

    Reply

Leave a reply

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

required

*