FOR PRINTABLE PDF FORMAT CLICK HERE.

Larry Kirkpatrick
2015-07-14

Two hermeneutical lines were seen in the run up to the 60th General Conference session held in San Antonio, Texas July 2-11, 2015. Those advocating that persons ordained to the gospel ministry be appointed only according to biblical qualifications (TOSC 1), agreed that those favoring women’s ordination (TOSC 2 and 3) generally were employing a hermeneutic different than the longstanding Historical-grammatical method used by Seventh-day Adventists. TOSC scholars and participants including Daniel Bediako, Steven Bohr, Laurel and Gerard Damsteegt, Jerry Moon, Gerhard Pfandl, Paul Ratsara, Edwin Reynolds, Ingo Sorke, and Clinton Wahlen agreed this was the case. In their joint document, “Evaluation of Egalitarian Papers,” they wrote “The hermeneutics used by egalitarians goes beyond the grammatical-historical method” (p. 22). Indeed, in their summary of the TOSC 2 position, they state:

In order to accommodate the push for women as elders in the church, every biblical argument that in the past had been used against women’s ordination to pastoral leadership has been explained away or reinterpreted by seeking a deeper meaning in the text, by an appeal to other supposedly contradictory texts (e.g., 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 speaks against 1 Corinthians 11:5), or by a reinterpretation of the meaning of biblical words. Some of the arguments are based on imaginative or creative reasoning and assumptions which are not supported by Scripture. At times, questionable information from non-biblical sources and hypothetical situations are brought into play in order to reinterpret or set aside the plain meaning of the text. We believe that what is simple and clear to the common reader of the Bible has been mystified and relativized (p. 23).

When the delegates came at last to San Antonio, the motion considered on July 8 included the following important clause in its preamble, repeatedly read to the assembled delegates: “After your prayerful study on ordination from the Bible, the writings of Ellen G White, and the reports of the study commissions. . .” The delegates were to weigh the issues in the light of Bible study and the study processes shared by TOSC 1, 2, and 3. Inescapably then, the vote was a referendum on the hermeneutical methods weighed during the TOSC process.

If someone still isn’t clear about this, the words of Raafat A. Kamal should settle it. Kamal is president of the Trans-European Division. After the vote, he wrote on July 10 that at San Antonio, “the gap between textual and narrative approaches to biblical interpretation was not bridged among us” (“Dear Colleagues, Women in Ministry” letter). According to Kamal, the world church heard the case for the modification in hermeneutics.

They rejected it.

The TOSC position 1 was that the Bible opposes the ordination of women to the pastoral ministry. It was the only negative position. TOSC positions 2 and 3 both favored the ordination of women and thus the vote permitting each division executive committee to decide independently of the others to make provision for the ordination of women. At the center of the question of women’s ordination is the issue of systems of biblical interpretation. So what happened on July 8?

San Antonio can only be seen as an affirmation of the hermeneutics of TOSC position 1.

In fair and open process the church engaged in study of these questions, and did so at length. It gathered its scholars, lay people and leaders. Finally, it sent for delegates from all 13 divisions and brought them together from across the globe. A decision was made. The new hermeneutics employed by those favoring the ordination of women is repudiated. Had the church approved the ordination of women the opposite would have been true; the outcome would have been understood as meaning the church had approved the new hermeneutics offered in support.

The church has now resolved a truly baseline question. There is a benefit for the whole church. United in our hermeneutics we can be united in mission. Many a denomination has been shattered, shipwrecked and pulled to pieces via the tensions of hermeneutical pluralism. The Seventh-day Adventist Church chose in San Antonio not to take the same dissipating course.

Nor is there any sign it will. The church also voted at San Antonio to clarify its fundamental beliefs language, expressing the plain meaning of Scripture even more clearly than before. Language was made clearer that marriage is between not just partners, but one man and one woman. Adventist teaching concerning creation was also clarified, insisting even more firmly in a recent literal creation in six literal days. None of these wording adjustments favor vagueness or complex theological parsing, but sustain better than ever before a “plain reading” of Scripture.

There were clearly two different hermeneutics operating under the dome. Earlier in the session the president of the Belgium conference had asked for accommodation in the discussion of fundamental beliefs for homosexual persons who were “cohabiting.” In the July 8 floor discussion the Pacific Union president asked for accommodation favoring women’s ordination because the church had given accommodation before to Africans on polygamy (he is mistaken about this, but this was his argument). After Doug Batchelor connected the homosexuality issue, another delegate immediately called on the chair to forbid such mention.

But does anyone doubt that the “No” vote on women’s ordination saved the church from arduous debate over recognizing homosexual “marriage”? Here is seen the inevitable endpoint to the alternative hermeneutic. One viewpoint leads to the strong presentation of the third angel’s message. The other makes the support of politically-correct views of social justice the goal of the church. The first builds the church; the second kills it.

Different hermeneutical approaches lead to different outcomes in interpretation. Through the issue of women’s ordination the church has had a front row seat to see how hermeneutical pluralism works itself out. Distinct, mutually exclusive approaches to the interpretation of Scripture in the church mean different views concerning her mission.

Those voting “No” in San Antonio were not approving different hermeneutics but confirming the longstanding Adventist hermeneutic. They were indicating to the world church that the interpretations and systems of interpretation proposed by those advocating the ordination of women had been considered and found wanting.

With the clarifying vote at San Antonio, we can anticipate a stronger and more unified vision for the church. The remnant church has grown not less but more united in support of the longstanding Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutic. We may give praise to God, for there are remarkable days ahead! When the dust has settled we will see many precious members joined together in renewed proclamation of the three angel messages that are the inevitable outcome of a plain reading of the Scriptures.

What then of all the rattling and laboring by those who want us to think nothing happened and that unions will be permitted to go on ordaining women? The policies of the church remain as before. Units including Columbia Union, Pacific Union, Southeastern California Conference, and Netherlands Union of Churches have acted in insubordination. Their action was illegitimate when it happened and they will now come into line with the rest of the church. Watch and see. They will be helped to come. And most importantly, the church collectively has reconfirmed its hermeneutic. After San Antonio the church is way ahead of where it was before San Antonio.

The Adventist hermeneutic is confirmed.


BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE: Larry Kirkpatrick serves as a pastor to the Deer Park and Chewelah churches in the Upper Columbia Conference in the North Pacific Union.

50 thoughts on “San Antonio: the Adventist Hermeneutic Confirmed

  1. Alas, a synopsis of the profound, underlying significance of our denomination’s no-vote. Thank you, CAP. Forevermore. But especially thank you, Christ Jesus, for further establishing through MBSD-loyal delegates the hermeneutical principles unifying the Word of God—and now World Church!

    Reply
  2. I have seen most of the presentations on WO by Secrets Unsealed and the ones by Pastor Doug Batchelor and that has been a big help to put the whole matter in context and all the various implications. Based on what was presented, it is my understanding that the move by GC annual councils to ordain women as elders was done with the view that it was merely an administrative matter and not one of theology. Also, at least prior to the GC session 2015 in San Antonio, there was no official theology on women’s ordination, due to wording in previous sessions such as “not at this time” on the question of WO. It has been noted in various presentations that there is no distinction made in the New Testament between Pastor and Elder. If it is also accepted that it makes little, if any, sense to have someone in the position of Elder or Pastor without any possibility of being ordained in that capacity; then it should reasonably follow that the ‘No’ vote on WO after considering the Bible, SoP, and TOSC puts the matter of women as Pastors and Elders clearly in the domain of theology. From this perspective, the ‘No’ vote provides a rather solid basis for not having women in the roles of Pastor and Elder. At the same time, equal attention should be given to clarifying in what ways the “Mothers in Israel” can serve in God’s church and be compensated financially with equal pay to that of men.

    Reply
  3. Thank you Larry. This is like a breath of fresh air in the midst of all the comments that nothing much has really changed and those in favor of WO will just continue to move along in the same direction. I don’t think so. We need to pray for Elder Wilson and the world church as they respond to the insubordination that will most likely take place.

    Reply
    • Dear friends, remember that the decision the church did is not about one against the other. I can only lament the position o the author, because there are gramatical-historian who desagres with the church decision and are in favour of the woman’s ordanation. Like any other church decision, small as it is in a boardmeeting should either be taken with despise neither with glory. It is not a battle. We are searching for the truth and the best for the church. In my opinion if we cannot get along we are more in danger to miss heaven, since it is not a point of salvation neither a valid reason to confront the church, but an arrogant or an unforgiving heart is.

      Reply
  4. Oh what deplorable language !!! Why do we have to have 3 phds in order to understand all this non sense ! Would someone with a 3rd grade education please tell us what happened in Texas. I have several dictionaries but not the time or energy to look up the meaning of all these big fancy words.
    Also would someone tell me and others that are asking what the penalty is for going against the church as they have done in the past ? I see no where any kind of fine or imprisonment or pulling your hair out or dis-fellowship or knocking your teeth down your throat or any other sweet and kind way of handleing these adorable monsters !! My guess is that without any threats on their lifes that life will go on just as it did before that is they will continue to totally disregard the GC decisions and those of the church. And why not they have been allowed to do so for decades. Therfore all the fuss and expense and time was useless.and we call it unity !!! I think all women elders and their supporters ought to be given life sentences without any possibility of parole !!

    Reply
    • Strait to the point, brother!
      This WO in the Church looks much like the gay marriage in the world – everybody see it’s nonsense but nobody knows how to fix it

      Reply
    • The use of force to punish heresy is the essence of the papacy.
      It’s an awfully small God who can’t set His own church right in His time and in His way. (It is his own body!) We just saw how he overruled in Austin.

      Reply
  5. The Adventist web site said the discussion at the GC was “acrimonious” not harmonious, if the past is any indication of the future I would expect more disobedience. They will probably try to “do something” as they did after Utrecht.

    Reply
  6. I think we need some more clarification regarding what is happening with our church in Belgium. Unless something was lost in translation, I am apalled at the question asked by the conference president.

    Reply
  7. They say that WO is just the tip of the ice berg that all manner of evil is there waiting to come in so evil WO will look good compared to it. One good thing at the Texas GC was that even tho Jan Paulson tried to influence and swing the votes to a yes vote no one backed down and basically told him to take a flying leap !!

    Reply
    • What I would do, if I may to say that..
      Since the GC became so tightly connected to the world by making itself incorporated with government, and being forced to follow their rules and requirements, and one of them is gender equality at work, and that is the prime reason why our leader are not in rush to change something, to my opinion,..
      I would just created another affiliated organization based on different principals, aimed to the dynamic mission work rather then to be established solid organization. Then I would transfered to it all GC assets and all work that Church suppose to do, and kept the GC Inc. as the name holder for legal relations with the world only.
      But I’m just speculating 🙂

      Reply
  8. Truth is ultimately not an an intellectual exercise but a Person. It is a Terrible in Majesty Person; this is not about principles of biblical interpretation and titles and the positions of men in administration but about Him. It has always been and it will always be. We must never allow ourselves to be fabricated by human thinking and posturing into forgetting that. We are tempted to think that scholarship is the ultimate arbiter of truth and scholars as the supreme court of things God. This is not so. God speaks for Himself way above human intellect and deep in the souls of the simple. We can save ourselves a lot of money and time by understanding that the Spirit of Truth is the arbiter of God’s things and that He speaks mostly to the simple people of our church. 1Co 6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. While we acknowledge that it is not the best thing to be stupid, God has demonstrated that He can lead the blind and He can give sight to them. None of us must ever think that God needs Phds to save the world. We need to become a church that is as well informed as we can be; as well educated as we can be, but never exalt it before the people. In the presence of the crucified God, it is shameful to even mention it. We should be a very humble and simple and ashamed people for what we collectively have put God through. The cross should silence every mouth. Ellen G. White feared we would lose our simplicity and it is clear now, why. We should never have ordained or commissioned women to ANY position of authority in this church. The SPIRIT of the Bible on this matter is clear. In His silence God is ELOQUENT. 1Co 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
    1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
    1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. ALL of us need to hear the warming in these words. It is the exaltation of man that has brought us to this pass and it is a disease that we now host in all our work. We need to become brethren again. The sisters need to become sisters again and God needs to remain God: High and Lifted Up.

    Reply
  9. The evidence clear, TOSC 1&2 are both weak. We need to carefully & prayerfully consider Gal. 6:1, Matt.7:1-5, & Matt. 18:15-17 then
    1. Examine ourselves
    2. Ask for forgiveness where needed
    3. Follow the steps of Matt. 18
    -start with “between thee and him alone”

    It’s not complicated, we need to be obedient.

    Reply
  10. Noel, my understanding is he asked that homosexuals be approved !!! My feeling is if the vote would have gone yes then homosexuals would have been given the go ahead to be and practice anything they want. SICK !!!

    Reply
  11. How does he remain an Adventist, let alone a representative of ANYONE in this church? How does he remain a President or a Minister of this church? How does he even become anything in this church when he cannot even respect his Bible?

    Reply
  12. We are glad for the NO-vote in San Antonio to the issue of WO. It is difficult to interprete the motives of the delegates – probably the main reason could be the hermeneutic princible. But this is only a start for a reformation. Big mountains are still before us!
    What about the new rebellion of the Netherland? Will T. Wilson and the GC discipline it? What about the ordaining women as elders and the commissioning of women as minististers? Will the GC this now reform, or is this transgression the only Instrument to make peace in the church, especially in NAD? Have the rebellious repent about this and changed their mind? Can we now work together on this basis? And have the thousend, who voted Yes, changed their hermeneutic princible? You see, the No-vote is only a good start, but not more. We must reform the other things too, only than we can have the blessings of God and can work together succesfully. In germany have more than 400 members and ministers now signed, that they are sad about the No-vote, and they comfort the poor women. We can hardly ignore all this and going forward to evangelize. The first thing is, to clean the camp from Achans and then we can conquer Canaan.

    Reply
    • Brother, I think the issue has nothing to do with theology or hermeneutic or whatever else.
      It has strictly practical background, because this trend started without any theological research.
      And now the main argument in favor of WO (and the argument sounds strong as for the people with weak faith) is a contradiction with civil lows.
      But I wonder how catholics managed to handle the situation. It doesn’t seem like they have any issue neither with WO nor with the low of the lands.

      Reply
  13. This disobedience is not acceptable, those supporting ordination of women as elders have been proven wrong from scripture. Even with “new” hermeneutics they still are unable to have solid support for their position. Bold disobediene to authority that God has placed in that position is dangerous. They are not only disobeying those in authority they are disobeying Gods word which tells believers to submit to authority. The only exception being an authority that commands you to disobey a clear cut scriptural principal. This is obviously not the case here.

    Reply
    • Brother, please wake up!
      They will officially continue to do what they’ve been doing, i.e. practicing the women ordination.
      There is no rebellion whatsoever!
      So if there is no rebellion, then why should anyone get punished?

      Reply
  14. And Elder Wilson sustains the wrong practices:
    July 10, 2015 | San Antonio, Texas, USA | Andrew McChesney, Adventist Review / ANN staff
    General Conference president Ted N.C. Wilson said Friday that a vote this week on the issue of women’s ordination meant “we maintain the current policy.”
    Wilson told delegates at the General Conference session in San Antonio, Texas, that Wednesday’s vote simply barred the church’s world divisions from making decisions on the ordination of women.
    He said the vote has nothing to do with women being ordained as local elders, a practice based on church policy that has been in place for several decades.
    Furthermore, he said, the vote was not related to commissioned ministers, who can be male or female under the church’s policy.
    Whom honors Wilson? God and his word or the rebellious people? Because the transgression of scripture since “several decades” we can going on!?

    Reply
    • Erich, you are only sharing part of the whole story. According to the news report, Elder Wilson sustains the idea of male spiritual leadership. The vote has brought an end to illegitimate ordinations and all that will be set in order now. As far as women elders and related issues, let’s give our leaders space to find the way forward. Many feel, and rightly so, that criticism of elder Wilson at this time is misguided. The corner has been turned let’s support those leaders who are seeking to be faithful and see what happens the the weeks and months immediately following San Antonio. Let’s seek to maintain a positive stance here in the comments on this website. We would encourage persons to pray personally for elder Wilson for wisdom so that as many as possible can be led to see God’s guidance in these matters. We know things are very difficult in the field where you are. We are praying in sympathy with those who seek godly winning reform.

      Reply
  15. admin, please could you give me the source, where Elder Wilson sustains male spiritual leadership. I think, that a positive stand is, to point to the precepts of God. Elder Wilson has had years space and time to discipline for example the netherland Union (Wo + homosexuality) and I cannot believe that he will change his handling. Sister Damsteegt said the same: if we wait to long, disobedient children to diszipline, then we fail. The argumentation of Elder Wilson above, seems not so, that he will change this wrong practices. And God wants, that we correct wrong doings if we are aware of it. We are not satisfied if somebody who wants to be baptized, believes only 25 of our 28 fundamental believes. And so can God a church not bless, if it knowingly from three sins only one is doing away. Sin separates from God! A leader has first to do God´s will and then the best for the congregation. It would be very good and nessescary if CAP would make an appeal to Br. Wilson and the GC-Executivecommittee to put an end of this wrong doings. I will pray for Br. Wilson too, that God may give him wisdom and strength, to do His will.

    Reply
    • http://www.nadadventist.org/article/1073743003/news/archived-news-stories/2015-news-archives/7-15-15-ted-wilson-statement-to-clarify-the-vote-regarding-women-s-ordination-accommodation
      Read the above carefully. Pastor Wilson is clear that the present policy “makes it very clear that men are to be ordained.” He also makes clear that the women elders policy originally entered the church via an Annual Council, and can be repealed at an Annual Council. Annual Council for 2015 is less than 90 days away.

      Reply
      • Dear admin. This is interesting that the 2015 AC is less than 90 days away. Thanks for the heads-up on this. Perhaps CAP or other related supporting ministries could do a few run-up advisory articles on this event and inform us whether WO will be on the agenda and what needs to be done to have it added on the agenda if needs be. This would greatly help keep the world church informed and actively engaged in monitoring how things unfold. Our leaders representing the world Church at the AC, particularly those from Divisions opposing WO should be vigilant in standing up for truth and a our biblical basis for our faith. They should also be helped with proper training in gaining a full understanding of all parliamentary processes and proceedings in order to equip them to participate actively in the AC meetings. At times I am quite concerned that many good leaders have been marginalised due to a lack of having a thorough knowledge of parliamentary rules and procedures hence disadvantaging them from active participation in the decision making process. At times I wonder if doing an overkill of dogmatic parliamentary proceedings may even be suggestive that the Holy Spirit be also subject to such strict parliamentary regulations. That would be tragic.

        Reply
        • I think hair-splitting is not a good solution in this case. If those who led the session were sincere they would explain to the delegates that they are going to vote not the WO but the whole different question, because discussion showed clearly what the delegates were thinking about. But it looks like they didn’t.
          And this is a bad sign.
          So I think some surprises might happen during the Annual Council and we should be ready that this question will be postponed one more time.
          And there is another thought that bothers my mind.
          I’m highly amazed by the fact that among more than 20 hundred delegates didn’t happen to find even one who could properly read the vote question.
          I very accurately assume, that they all were under some kind of spiritual influence which didn’t allow them to realize the obvious thing. I don’t know if this was from God or from other source, but such a confuse to more than 2.000 people cannot be called as a normal situation.
          What do you think of it?

          Reply
        • I think hair-splitting is not going to help in this case. If those who led the session were sincere they would explain to the delegates that they are going to vote not the WO but the whole different question, because discussion showed clearly what the delegates were thinking about. But it looks like they didn’t.
          So I think some surprises might happen during the Annual Council and we should be ready that this question will be postponed one more time.

          Reply
          • Ok, i give up. Every other post disappears, so I let admin enjoy himself.
            Stay blessed, everyone!

      • Dear ADMIN. I respectfully would like to add a comment. Unfortunately, we keep talking about ordination, but we are way past this word. This word no longer means what it used to – it has been adulterated. It used to mean, as most of us here know, a setting apart for a leadership role in the church; whereby the man is considered to be an under Shepard for Christ. Since those in rebellion aren’t ‘officially’ ordaining women; they are, however, ‘commissioning’ them as church pastors (minister of the Gospel) or union presidents which are leadership positions reserved only for qualified males who meet the other Biblical requirements. Consequently, this is the practice that must be stopped as soon as possible. This horrible word & practice became familiar to the SDA leadership years ago because the IRS would no longer give tax-free status to the housing allowance for licensed male pastors during their probationary period. The church should just have allowed this housing allowance to be taxed by the federal government. Because they didn’t make the right choice, this loop hole became a weapon for Satan to use against the leadership structure of the Church. Obviously, the church policy manual does NOT have anything in it disallowing woman as ‘commissioned ministers’. This is the ITEM that needs to be corrected in the GC policy or whatever it is called. If we had a Fundamental Belief about God’s governmental hierarchy (re His Culture) in our church, and it is worded correctly, then there would be no loop hole for Satan. Our leaders need to be honest and get rid of this practice of ‘commissioning’ period. It feels dishonest to me. We should just pay Caesar what he thinks is his. I guess the IRS will only allow the housing tax exemption to someone that is ordained or commissioned, but not to anyone that is licensed only. Even if the rebels aren’t ordaining women – they are still placing them in male only positions. I do realize that woman Elders are being ordained, because of another loop hole allowed to Satan by the GC. I don’t know how they got away with this? Where were the watchmen & why didn’t the World Church make a big stink about this under-handed allowance that they didn’t get to vote on?

        Reply
        • And there is another thought that bothers my mind.
          I’m amazed that among more than 20 hundred delegates didn’t happen to be found even one who could properly read the vote question and explain the matter to brothers.
          I cannot exclude some kind of spiritual influence which didn’t allow them to realize the obvious thing. I don’t want to speculate on this, maybe God closed their eyes I don’t know, but such a confusion to more than two thousand people hardly could be called normal.

          Reply
        • Dear Doris, the positive outcome about this recent turn of events with the no vote in San Antonio is that what was previously done in the quiet behind the scenes has now been exposed and brought to light, and as a result, commissioning and ordination of local Church elders will have to be dealt with sooner or later. Traditional Adventists in the world Church body will obviously need to apply the same pressure that the NAD has used in the past but should simony be a factor then one hurdle will be the buying power leverage that the NAD has been using thus far; except that the good news is that 1) not all in the NAD support WO and also 2) how much money does it take for error to become truth.

          Reply
  16. Where to now for the church. As it has been said above if the bible doesn’t distinguish between pastor/bishop/elder, then as a church we need to as based on Pastor Larry’s above explanation:
    1) Admit we have made a mistake in allowing women as elders
    2) Revoke all positions where women have been placed as elders and elect male elders in their place.
    How can we evangelise and try to win souls for Christ if we all believe something totally different.
    There is no time for delay. We must be decisive and act now – we are going home shortly, and we want as many people as possible to share eternity with.
    As Mrs White says: God wants people who can stand on the bible, and the bible alone.

    Reply
    • Totally agree on this.
      But I cannot imaging how all of this can be fixed without huge financial consequences.
      Especially if we consider what action might be taken by government if someone suit GC Inc. for discrimination and win the case. The GC easily can loose his status of nonprofit organization and fill be forced to pay back all taxes for the previous decades or so..it sounds as a bankruptcy with confiscation all assets that belongs to the Church now.

      Reply
      • Fear monger, much? This is God’s remnant church; whatever the future holds is under His control. Since this has been such a dividing issue since the 70’s, I think it is time that the church add a new FB that states what God’s divine order is for His church – which is the same one He has for Heaven & His other worlds. This FB must state that there is a distinct difference between the spiritual gifts bestowed by the Holy Spirit & the authoritarian ROLES that He inspired Paul to mandate in scripture for leadership positions in the church, such as Elder and Minister (overseer, bishop) of the Sacred desk. All of the pro WO advocates seem to have a total lack of understanding of what constitutes spiritual gifts. The HS cannot contradict Himself – if certain positions in the church are male only specific leadership roles; then the HS will NOT be calling women to these positions. Hence, due to the current age of ‘do what thou wilst’ and church members not understanding the basics of spiritual gifts bestowed by the HS – the we MUST have a FB that states just what is Biblical & therefore what the church must believe. If we have a FB for male ordination for leadership positions – then the laws of the land can’t touch us.

        Reply
    • Brother Brian is spot on. The root cause of our current dilemma is the 1975 and 1984 Annual Council meetings which allowed for the election and of women Local Church Elders first in the NAD in ’75 and then worldwide in ’84 with a few guidelines which I think were never followed even though allowing this in itself was wrong. Is there any information on how this all happened and if the minutes and any transcript of the meetings are available? It would be rather interesting to review how all this went down on those two occasions. The Southern Africa-Indian Ocean Division has recommended that the actions to elect and ordain women elders be reversed. Will other Divisions stand up and support this too?

      Reply
  17. Dear Doris,
    this is a good idea about a new fundamental believe 🙂
    The only flaw i see in it is that the government, which is invisible partaker of any corporation, is not going to buy this. We cannot make any changes in policy unilaterally without their approval.
    But other than that..it just sounds great.

    Reply
  18. admin, thank for this source, though Wilson adresses here only the WP. And he did not clear say, that the next Annual Councel could repeal it. Is your thinking not only a vague wish, that he would do it? Do you think really, that he makes in this call (so NAD) a „Accommodation“, and will then go after three month a hard course with Dan Jackson on his side? If we see the long delays in the last four years and no leader or union was disciplined by the GC-Executivecommittee. I think this is only a good dream but not the reality. And shall wie wait about 90 days, until we the sin of ordaining women as Elders stop – we are aware of it more than ever before through TOSC-Position 1 (and this position is very clear and biblical), so that we have foul freedom? Do we want to evangelize without God and His blessings, because sin separates from God? How many days did Joshua wait until he punished Achan? The GC needs not an annual councel to make right decisions, it can come together whenever is need of it. And is this not a matter, that we must hasten, that the sin will be blotted out and we can cleansed going on in the battle for Jesus Christ? It is very nessecary to give the GC-Executivecommittee an impulse to councel about this very important matter. CAP has done until now a very good work to inform and to fight for our biblical understaning as advenists, now it is necessary that CAP is doing all, what it can and to make an earnest appeal to the GC. We cannot glorify a leader more than Christ. We cannot wait with vague feelings one month after another – we must do the best what we can now! The earlier the better to have God´s rich blessing – than the evangelizing brings more and better fruit.

    Reply
    • “CAP has done until now a very good work to inform and to fight for our biblical understaning as advenists, now it is necessary that CAP is doing all, what it can and to make an earnest appeal to the GC.”
      ***
      Do you mean to start an adventist’s protest like Luther did? 🙂
      It sounds awesome. But I think we should study history and prophecy first.

      The prophet Zechariah said in 14:2 “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.”
      But Jesus Christ said this – “But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:”
      We have to understand what our Lord Jesus wants us to do in that situation.

      As I see it we as the Church precisely follow the apostolic Church. Apostasy entered the Church exactly in the same manner as a new spirituality. We’ve got new “spiritual” leaders, which glorify the other spirit, not the Spirit of Jesus Christ, not the Spirit of Golgotha. Our leader call this spirit “sweet spirit” without defining what he means by that.
      And under this influence they do not hesitate to play politics and to cheat even during the GC session.

      I’m not a pastor.
      But if some group of pastors would unite and proclaim their protest against manipulation of GC (which is exactly what happened there, I think), against dishonesty and insincerity and reveals in their appeal what is actually going on, I think not only me but many other brothers and sisters add their voices to this appeal.

      Reply
  19. admin, is it possible, that CAP or ordinationtruth.com makes a petition like spectrum for “unity”, that can be signed from every true believer? This signed list with an appeal in the beginning could for example after a month or before send to the GC.
    Or is the opposite side more wise than the children of light? Please think about this good possibility, that every true Adventist can share this call or appeal for the obedience to God and His word, and to confirming our biblical hermeneutic too. It is necessary that we do not only fight for a theoretic theme, but for practising the orders of God. I think, that many SdA would be glad, to have the occation, to sign a Petition! Please speak with CAP. Than we would done the best, what we can. This is much better, than to be silent and wait of a miracle. Thank you in advanced. May God bless you and CAP!

    Reply
    • I would support such appeal. If someone don’t hesitate to manipulate the Church we have to speak. Our Lord Jesus wouldn’t understand our silence.

      Reply
      • I call it manipulation because the entire world Church was waiting for clarifying this question of WO, But instead they proposed to vote something really pointless, because they would continue to ordinate women in any case no matter what. Isn’t it some sort of manipulation?
        But you can call it cheating if you’d like to.

        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

*