By a vote of 185 yes, 124 no, with two abstentions, the General Conference Executive Committee (GCEC) on Oct. 14, 2018 adopted a plan to facilitate course correction for church entities rebelliously engaged in ordaining women to the gospel ministry.

One day later, October 15, NAD leaders issued their own statement. Disagreeing with the GCEC decision, they asserted that the newly voted plan “seeks to create a hierarchical system of governance.” Present NAD leadership indicated that “In a collaborative effort, leaders in the NAD are discussing how the church in North America will move forward.”

The Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP), a group including both conference-employed and retired North American Division pastors, decided to issue its own statement as follows:

At the 2015 General Conference Session held in San Antonio Texas, it was voted not to permit any Division to unilaterally engage in the ordination of women to the gospel ministry. Yet recent years have seen approximately 60 such illegal ordinations—many actually occurring after San Antonio. What was voted by delegates in 2015 was not a policy decision; the motion enacted was based on the word of God. Recall the motion’s wording:

“After your prayerful study on ordination from the Bible, the writings of Ellen G White, and the reports of the study commissions, and;
After your careful consideration of what is best for the Church and the fulfillment of its mission,
Is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry? Yes or No”

Church membership is always voluntary. The people of God by faith are bound to obey the decision voted. CAP pastors believe that for the NAD to manifest anything less than whole-hearted commitment to timely and full cooperation with the world church is profoundly misguided.

With rejoicing CAP reiterates its full support of the 2015 San Antonio decision and indicates its full support of the voted decision of the 2018 Annual Council. As pastors and workers presently serving Jesus in the North America Division, NAD CAP pastors treasure unity with the world church.

Consider these sample responses from some NAD CAP pastors:

* Pastor Kent Knight, ret., states “I found Sunday’s deliberation and the outcome of the resulting vote to be greatly reassuring of God’s leading. I retired last evening with a prayerful concern for those who were disappointed.”

* Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick says, “Here we stand at the end of time and just now some are trading present truth for a stale feminism that cannot be reconciled with Scripture. But Jesus is ready to help those who have become confused to turn to Him.”

* Pastor Lonny Liebelt wrote, “I was grateful that the motion was passed at Fall Council to move forward with the compliance issues in our church today.”

* Pastor Jim Anderson says, “God’s counsel is being followed, at least by our brothers and sisters in much of the world. Lord, may it be so in the NAD.”

* Pastor Dan Knapp, ret., said, “The vote to implement the Compliance Document Sunday, October 14 confirms once again that Biblically-based faith and governance practices will triumph over strained Biblical hermeneutics, secular cultural accommodation and radical gender obliterating social political correctness.”

* Pastor Alvaro Sauza writes, “I am praying for Elder Daniel Jackson to seize the opportunity of stepping up to the plate and humbly submitting to the decision we have made as a church. May our NAD president take the lead in surrendering personal agenda for the sake of unity. I believe God is waiting for a genuine demonstration of Micah 6:8 by the NAD.”

* Pastor Mike Lambert added, “I am part of something that is bigger than me. It is the Great Advent Movement, tasked with a mission that goes to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. On Sunday, our brothers and sisters in Christ from around the world voted a document to help keep order in our great mission. Let us faithfully pray for and support their decision.”

Refusal by GCEC to act decisively toward errant NAD leadership as necessary, would spread the virus of non-compliance to the General Conference Executive Committee itself, making the GCEC itself non-compliant. If present NAD leaders manifest anything short of full cooperation with the world church, let it be known that those leaders speak for themselves only and not for rank and file workers and members. Our hearts and prayers are with the God of heaven and His world church. Jesus never purchased peace by compromise (DA 356). Neither can God’s remnant church.

“Scripture, Church Structure, and the Path to Unity” is the title for a special symposium to be held at the Secrets Unsealed Studio in Fresno California on August 1-3. The event will be live-streamed.

Presenters and topics, in sequence of presentation, are:

  1. Stephen Bohr, “Why Another Symposium?”
  2. Daniel Scarone, “Developments After San Antonio”
  3. Larry Kirkpatrick, “Biblical Hermeneutics and Church Leadership”
  4. Mike Lambert, “Scripture and Church Authority”
  5. Mario Veloso, “The Gender of Elders in the Church Manual”
  6. Kevin Paulson, “A Biblical Theology of Church Discipline”
  7. Mario Veloso, “That They All May be One”
  8. Mike Lambert, “Unity at What Cost”
  9. Mario Veloso, “Two Paths to Unity: John 17 and Isaiah 4”
  10. Kevin Paulson, “Message and Mission: Internal Church Controversy and the Challenge of Distraction”
  11. Larry Kirkpatrick, “Dissolution or Revolution: Church Structure and Doctrinal Faithfulness”
  12. Mike Lambert, “Fitly Joined Together”
  13. Phil Mills, “The Government of God: The Model for Church Structure”

In addition there will be town hall meeting segments on August 2 and 3 with questions and response by the presenters.

The link for the live streaming is YouTube.com/SecretsUnsealed

Kevin Paulson, Larry Kirkpatrick. 10 de octubre del 2016


[REVISED 10:43 a.m. PST]

“Hay quienes desarrollaron la idea de que a medida que nos acerquemos al fin del tiempo, cada hijo de Dios actuará independientemente de toda organización religiosa. Pero me ha instruido el Señor que en esta labor no hay tal cosa como que cada persona se mantenga independiente” (Testimonios, vol. 9, 258).

Planteamiento #1: Se ha sugerido que los primeros adventistas, bajo la dirección de James White se desplazó “desde una hermenéutica literal que sostenía que lo único admisible fuese lo que claramente establecía ls Escritura a una en que todo era permisible en tanto no contradijera la Biblia y estuviese en armonía con el sentido común”.

Respuesta:
White no sugería un cambio en la hermenéutica, sino que la iglesia continuase “perfecta[mente]” en el orden bíblico establecido en la Escritura (cf. Hechos de los Apóstoles, 88-92).

La Escritura ofrece orientación en relación con el orden y la organización de la iglesia:

Miembros – 1 Corintios 12:27 / 1 Pedro 2: 5 :: Piedras vivas
Iglesias – Tito 1: 5 :: Cada ciudad
Pequeñas regiones – Hechos 9:31 :: Judea, Galilea
Regiones mayores – 1 Corintios 16: 1; 2 Corintios 1: 1 :: Toda Acaya
Continentes – 1 Corintios 16:19 :: Asia
Participación de todos por representación – Hechos 15 :: Toda la Iglesia

Este planteamiento ignora el contexto del comentario de James White. Él se refiere a cosas que podrían mejorar el orden (como un boletín semanal de iglesia, o la publicación de la página impresa) que, aunque no está claramente establecida en las Escrituras, no se “opone a la Biblia, y es aprobada por el sentido común” (James White, “Yearly meetings” [Reuniones anuales], Review and Herald, 21 de julio de 1859, pág. 68, col. 2). El “perfeccionamiento” de la organización incluía la celebración de “conferencias anuales, y la acción sistemática de todo el cuerpo” (ibíd).

Planteamiento #2: Se afirma que las acciones actuales de la Asociación General (AG), como en los días de J. White, se modelan en un “poder regio”, al que Elena de White señaló no representando la voz de Dios en la tierra, y que las Uniones fueron establecidas para proteger (al resto de) la iglesia contra de un posible liderazgo erróneo de la Asociación General.

Respuesta:
Nada más lejos de la verdad. Es deber y responsabilidad de la AG ejecutar los votos aprobados por la iglesia mundial. Dichas acusaciones caen en la categoría del “hablar mal” y recuerdan a una de las tácticas utilizadas por la rebelión de Lucifer. Este planteamiento ignora el contexto. Elena de White es clara al afirmar que “a veces, cuando un pequeño grupo de hombres. . . en nombre de la Asociación General, intenta llevar a cabo planes imprudentes y limitar la labor divina, yo. . . ya no puedo considerar que la voz de la Asociación General, expresada por un puñado de hombres, sea la voz de Dios”. Las instrucciones destinadas a la reorganización fueron para corregir este aspecto, es por ello que tenemos Uniones. Elena de White continúa: “Pero ésto no quiere decir que las decisiones (tomadas) en una sesión de la Asociación General, compuesta por un conjunto de delegados debidamente convocados, representando todas las partes del territorio, no deban ser respetados. Dios ha ordenado que los representantes de su iglesia convocados de todas partes del mundo, cuando se reúnen en una Asociación General, tienen autoridad. El error que algunos están a punto de cometer, es en el de dar a la mente y el juicio de un hombre, o de un puñado de hombres, la plena autoridad e influencia que Dios ha conferido a su iglesia en el juicio y la voz de la Asociación General reunida para planificar para la prosperidad y el desarrollo de su obra” (Testimonios, 9: 260, 261).

En esta era de desarrollo de las comunicaciones y de los viajes rápidos, la iglesia es una comunidad global, en la que lo que se hace en una parte del organismo se puede experimentar en tiempo real en diversas partes del mundo. Por esta razón, la acción unida en relación con los diversos aspectos del ministerio se hace necesaria para que la misión avance de manera efectiva. Ciertamente, la selección o la sustitución de líderes es una de esas áreas donde se necesita una póliza unida, sobre todo luego de años de estudio y deliberación.

Planteamiento #3: Algunos sostienen que la ordenación no es aprobada en la Escritura o en el Espíritu de Profecía y, por ende, ni siquiera debería haber sido discutido en la sesión de la Asociación General. Sostienen que la Asociación General al adoptar medidas relativas a la ordenación, fue más allá de su jurisdicción. Estos proponentes desean que tanto el establecimiento de criterios y la selección de líderes se produzca en el ámbito de la Unión.

Respuesta:
La iglesia mundial jamás consideró que dicha postura tenga fundamento bíblico. La “Declaración de Consenso sobre la Teología Adventista de la Ordenación, “votada por el Concilio Anual del 2014, demuestra la base bíblica de nuestra comprensión de la ordenación, a la que la comisión de estudio TOSC “llegó en un alto grado de acuerdo relativo a una teología bíblica de la ordenación”, indicando que “los Adventistas del Séptimo Día entendemos la ordenación, en un sentido bíblico, como la acción de la Iglesia en reconocimiento público hacia quienes el Señor ha llamado y equipado para el ministerio de la iglesia local y universal” (https://www.adventistarchives.org/consensus-statement-on-ordination.pdf).

La acción tomada por la iglesia mundial en una sesión (debidamente) convocada (incluyendo a presidentes y laicos de asociaciones y uniones) rebate este planteamiento ya que fue elegida sobre la base de los delegados (por medio del) “estudio profundo de la Biblia, y de los escritos de Elena G. White y los informes de las comisiones de estudio sobre la ordenación …” (http://www.adventistreview.org/assets/public/news/2014-10/statement.pdf).

Cualquiera que sea la postura con respecto a quién debe ser ordenado, “El peligro para nuestra unidad no reside principalmente en quién ordenamos, o qué credenciales emitimos. El principal peligro radica en aceptar la posibilidad de una acción unilateral. Eso tiene implicaciones potenciales que van más allá de la cuestión inmediata. Sin embargo, si tuviéramos que sacrificar el principio general de representación, colegiada, en el fundamento de consenso en la toma de decisiones, si aceptáramos que las unidades organizativas pudieran actuar unilateralmente, entonces toda nuestra política eclesiástica y el sistema de gobierno de la iglesia estarían en peligro de fragmentarse (“A Study of Church Governance and Unity,” Secretariat, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Septiembre del 2016 p. 41).

Si la Iglesia aceptase las confusas nociones de algunos proponentes, ¿qué habría de impedir que en un futuro las asociaciones ó misiones y las uniones promoviesen puntos de vista carentes de fundamento bíblico respecto a la autoridad profética, la Creación, el diezmo, el juicio investigador, o la conducta hacia un mismo sexo? De este modo, se abriría la puerta a creencias y prácticas que destruirían la proclamación mundial del Evangelio adventista.

Planteamiento #4: Se expresa temor porque vayamos a perder a nuestros jóvenes si no abordamos el tema de la coordinación y la estructura de la iglesia en la forma propuesta por este sector [opositor al status quo].
 
Respuesta:
Esta misma táctica de miedo se utilizó cuando se habló de la Doctrina del Santuario en la iglesia. Entonces éramos sólo 4 millones. Sin embargo, fue superado. Hubo pérdidas, pero ahora la membresía es de casi 20 millones. Afirmar la verdad no pierde, sino atrae a los jóvenes.

Planteamiento #5: Supuestamente, el voto adoptado por la AG en contra de permitir que las divisiones tomaran sus propias decisiones relativas a la práctica de la ordenación manifiesta un despliegue de “autoridad regia” y un criterio de autoridad descendente (de arriba hacia abajo) que imita “los errores más serios cometidos por la Iglesia Católica”.

Respuesta:
Este alegado desesperado es falso. La naturaleza interdependiente de la iglesia adventista hoy es más diversa y representativa que nunca antes. Décadas de estudio y deliberación de todos los niveles en todo el campo del mundo llevaron a la decisión adoptado en la AG en el 2015, y la decisión a tomarse en el 2016 debiera evidenciar nuestro compromiso en la toma de decisiones colectivas.

La opción es clara: el Documento de Unidad preparado por la Secretaría [de la AG] es un recurso poderoso y destacado por el respeto hacia las decisiones colectivas de la iglesia, por el respeto a la unidad de la iglesia y por el respeto a la organización de la iglesia. Es bíblicamente coherente y armoniza con los consejos del Espíritu de Profecía. La opción que tenemos por delante ya no es sobre la ordenación de damas al ministerio sino, si nuestra estructura eclesiástica continuará siendo interdependientes o seremos forzados hacia el congregacionalismo.

Kevin D. Paulson, Larry Kirkpatrick. October 10, 2016

CLICK HERE: DOWNLOAD THIS DOCUMENT IN 1-PAGE (FRONT/BACK) PDF FORMAT FOR SHARING


Introduction

“Some have advanced the thought that as we near the close of time, every child of God will act independently of any religious organization. But I have been instructed by the Lord that in this work there is no such thing as every man’s being independent” (Testimonies, vol. 9, 258).

Claim #1: It has been suggested that early Adventists, under the direction of James White moved ”from a literalistic hermeneutic that held that the only things permissible were those specifically spelled out in Scripture, to one in which everything was permissible that did not contradict the Bible and was in harmony with common sense.”

Response
White was not suggesting a change in hermeneutics, but that the church should further “perfect” upon the biblical order already established in Scripture (cf. Acts of the Apostles, 88-92).

Does Scripture give indications concerning church order / organization?

Members – 1 Corinthians 12:27 / 1 Peter 2:5 :: “Living stones”
Churches – Titus 1:5 :: “Every City”
Small regions – Acts 9:31 :: “Judea” “Galilee”
Larger regions – 1 Corinthians 16:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1 :: “All Achaia”
Continents – 1 Corinthians 16:19 :: “Asia”
Input by all through representation – Acts 15 :: The Entire Church

The claim ignores the context of James White’s comment. He was discussing things that could enhance order (having a weekly church paper, a publishing press) which, while not specifically spelled out in Scripture, is not “opposed by the Bible, and is approved by sound sense” (James White, “Yearly Meetings,” Review and Herald, July 21, 1859, p. 68, col. 2). The further “perfecting” of organization included the holding of “yearly conferences, and systematic action of the entire body” (ibid).

Claim #2: It is claimed that the actions of the General Conference (GC) today, as in White’s day, modeled “kingly power,” that Ellen White indicates that it did not represent the voice of God on earth, and that unions were put in place to protect against possible misguided leadership from the General Conference.

Response
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the duty and responsibility of the GC to carry out the voted actions of the world church. Such accusations fit the category of “evil speaking” and remind one of the tactics used by Lucifer in his rebellion. The claim’s context is ignored. Ellen White is clear that “at times, when a small group of men . . . in the name of the General Conference, sought to carry out unwise plans and to restrict God’s work, I . . . could no longer regard the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few men, as the voice of God.” The instructions for reorganization were to correct this, which is why we have unions. Ellen White continues: “But this is not saying that the decisions of a General Conference session, 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” (Testimonies, vol. 9, 260, 261).

In this age of enhanced communications and rapid travel, the church is a global community where what is done in one part of the body can be experienced in real time in many parts of the world. For this reason, unified action concerning many aspects of ministry is necessary if mission is to move forward effectively. Certainly the selection or replacement of leaders is one such area where unified policy is needed, particularly after years of study and deliberation.

Claim #3: Some claim that ordination is not supported by Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy and thus should not even have been discussed at the General Conference session. They say that the General Conference in taking action concerning ordination, went beyond its proper jurisdiction. They desire that both the setting of criteria and the selection and setting aside of leaders should take place at the Union level.

Response
The world church has never considered such a position to be biblical. The “Consensus Statement on a Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Ordination,” voted by the 2014 Annual Council, shows the Biblical basis for our understanding of ordination, that the TOSC study commission “did reach a high degree of accord concerning a biblical theology of ordination,” indicating that “Seventh-day Adventists understand ordination, in a biblical sense, as the action of the Church in publicly recognizing those whom the Lord has called and equipped for local and global Church ministry.” (https://www.adventistarchives.org/consensus-statement-on-a-seventh-day-adventist-theology-of-ordination.pdf).

The action taken by the world church in session (including conference and union presidents and laypersons) differs from this claim, because it was voted based on the delegates “thorough study of the Bible, the writings of Ellen G White, and the reports of the study commissions on ordination…” (http://www.adventistreview.org/assets/public/news/2014-10/statement.pdf)

Whatever one’s view concerning who should be ordained, “The danger to our unity lies not primarily in who we ordain, or what credentials we issue to them. The chief danger lies in accepting the possibility of unilateral action. That has potential implications which go far beyond this immediate issue. Yet if we were to sacrifice the overarching principle of representative, collegial, consensus-based decision-making—if we were to accept that organizational units can act unilaterally—then our whole ecclesiastical polity and system of church governance would be in danger of breaking down (“A Study of Church Governance and Unity,” Secretariat, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists September 2016 p. 41).

If the Church accepts the confused notions now being offered by some, what in the future would prevent conferences and unions from promoting unbiblical views regarding prophetic authority, creation, tithing, the investigative judgment, or same-sex behavior? The door will be opened for beliefs and practices enormously destructive to Adventist global gospel proclamation.

Claim #4: It is feared that we will lose our young people if we don’t address the issue of ordination and church structure in the manner advocated by some.

Response
This same scare tactic was used when the sanctuary doctrine of the church was being discussed. Membership was then 4 million. The issue was met head on. There were some losses, but membership is now nearly 20 million. Standing for truth draws young people; it doesn’t drive them away.

Claim #5: Supposedly, the GC session vote against allowing divisions to make their own decisions concerning ordination practice is exhibiting “kingly power and top-down authority,” adopting and replicating “the most serious mistakes of Roman Catholicism.”

Response
This desperate charge is clearly false. The interdependent nature of the Adventist church is more diverse and representative today than ever before. Decades of study and deliberation at all levels throughout the world field led to the decision in 2015, and the decision to be made in 2016 must evidence our commitment to collective decision-making.

The Choice Is Clear: The Unity document prepared by the Secretariat is a powerful and outstanding appeal for respect toward the collective actions of the church, church unity, and organization. It is sound biblically and in accordance with Spirit of Prophecy counsels. The choice is no longer about women’s ordination, but whether our church structure will remain interdependent or be forced into congregationalism.

Pr. Larry Kirkpatrick has the take-away from the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference session held in San Antonio Texas, July 2-11. Kirkpatrick explains why the session as a whole was the world church confirming the longstanding Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutic sustaining the plain reading of the Bible.

Many are saying that San Antonio doesn’t matter. They wish. We encourage readers to review the article here and see if the idea that San Antonio doesn’t matter is valid or not.

There are impacts in both the short and long term. There is an impact on mission. And it is all good.

Click here and find out! http://ordinationtruth.com/featured/san-antonio-adventist-hermeneutic-confirmed/.

WO Symposium “Dangers on the Horizon” | Pr. Larry Kirkpatrick

DOWNLOAD HANDOUT for Kirkpatrick Bakersfield presentation.
WO Symposium PANEL DISCUSSION Allen Davis, Gerzon Gomez, Larry Kirkpatrick, Laurel Damsteegt, Jennifer Arruda, Daniel Mesa

WO Symposium “The Forgotten Story of 1989″ | Laurel Damsteegt

WO Symposium “Gift Versus Appointment” | Allen Davis

WO Symposium “We the People, Must Speak” | Jennifer Arruda

WO Symposium “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth” | Pr. Daniel Mesa

WO Symposium “The Impact of Culture and the Desire for Unity” | Allen Davis

WO Symposium “A Woman’s Full Participation in Ministry” | Julie Mesa

Bakersfield, California is the location for a special symposium sponsored by the Hillcrest church and Secrets Unsealed. The event is titled, “Women’s Ordination Symposium: Crisis Ahead” and will occur Friday and Sabbath, June 12 and 13. Presenters include Pastors Stephen Bohr, Louis Torres, Larry Kirkpatrick, Daniel Mesa, as well as Allen Davis, Julie Mesa, Jennifer Arruda, and Laurel Damsteegt. There will be a lively panel discussion Sabbath evening. //UPDATE//: Symposium times and links updated below:

WOS-Bakersfield-Web-1

The event will be livestreamed across the internet.

Event dates: June 12th and 13th, 2015.

Meeting times:

FRIDAY NIGHT June 12:

6:00 pm Louis Torres: “Reflections on the Ordination Controversy”
7:45 pm Stephen Bohr: “Male and Female He created Them”

SABBATH June 13:

8:15 am Julie Mesa: “A Woman’s Full Participation in Ministry”
9:30 am Allen Davis: “The Impact of Culture and the Desire for Unity”
11:15 am Daniel Mesa: “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth”
2:00 pm Jennifer Arruda: “We the People, Must Speak”
3:00 pm Allen Davis: “Gift Versus Appointment”
4:15 pm Laurel Damsteegt: “The Forgotten Story of 1989”
5:30 pm PANEL DISCUSSION
6:45 pm Larry Kirkpatrick: “Dangers on the Horizon” (Hermeneutics impact on future outcomes)

Location: Bakersfield Hillcrest SDA Church, 2600 Kenwood Rd. Bakersfield CA. RSVP 661-871-5000 or hillcrestadventist@gmail.com, visit: http://hillcrest.adventistfaith.org/ (A fellowship lunch will be provided) Live stream links for the event: http://www.youtube.com/user/secretsunsealed and http://www.secretsunsealed.org/streaming/

AOC-Cover

A new book has just been released addressing the present crisis over women’s ordination in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It is the result of a careful two year collaborative study of several Adventist leaders, including pastors, university professors, conference administrators, physicians, teachers, and lay-leaders—men and women alike—from around the world. Featured contributors include Doug Batchelor, Stephen Bohr, Allen Davis, Laurel Damsteegt, Michael Hasel, C. Raymond Holmes, Jim Howard, Wayne Kablanow, Larry Kirkpatrick, Daniel Knapp Sr., Kent Knight, Mike Lambert, Junie Lawson, Don Mackintosh, Carrisa McSherry, Phil Mills, Kevin Paulson, John Peters, Eugene Prewitt, David Read, Edwin Reynolds, Alvaro Sauza, Ingo Sorke, Mario Veloso.

This 128 page book concisely yet carefully addresses the key issues. Chapters address hermeneutics, spiritual gifts, church offices, qualifications, Ellen White’s example, gender role differences, headship, Ellen White’s teaching on gender roles, culture and consequences, and the way forward. Special material is included addressing the facts about General Conference action on elders and also the “China” question.

This is an important book offering a concise summary of key factors in the decisions faced by Seventh-day Adventists in the General Conference session to be held in San Antonio Texas in July 2, 2015!

The book is available in quantities of 10 or more for only $1.00 each. Order yours now. Every Adventist in your congregation should have an opportunity to read this book!

The book is available through Amazing Facts: http://www.afbookstore.com/item/i/BK-AOC/n/The_Adventist_Ordination_Crisis/

More than 18M members, gathered from across the globe, make up the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Every five years delegates are elected and called to General Conference session. They seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit for collective leading in key decisions of the Church. This July (2015), delegates will meet in San Antonio, Texas, USA. The issue of women’s ordination is to be addressed. On two previous occasions (1990, 1995), the General Conference voted not to permit the ordination of women to the gospel ministry. The short video appeal above calls for delegates to reject the proposal to permit each division to decide for itself on women’s ordination, and that the Church instead implement TOSC position #1.

Larry Kirkpatrick compares two viewpoints on human sexuality: the creation viewpoint (or essentialist or complementarian), and the constructionist. One view holds that humans are fundamentally male or female and that this is part of the created order. Another view holds that human sexuality is humanly constructed and therefore shifting, flexible, mash-up-able and humanly redefineable. Does the constructionist approach led itself to targeting institutions with an agenda of societal “transformation”? Part one opens this discussion.

FIND THE ARTICLE HERE: Women in male roles, pt. 1.