Annual Council sends WO question to 2015 General Conference session

So now it is in God’s hands and the vote of delegates to the 2015 GC.
I have recently retired. I have already responded to the editor of our Union paper shortly after Mrs. Roberts was elected that if I was in the SECC with Mrs. Roberts as president, I would be looking for a position in another conference, and if I could not find one in a few months, I would resign from ministry.
Since the GC has already considered and turned down WO I do not understand why the GC must consider this question again.
Retirement does have some benefits that are not in writing.
Pastors still in ministry- my prayers are with you.
-Douglas Carlson

Thanks Doug, from your friend Richard here in Michigan.
The GC should not have to consider this question again, since it was already posed in 1995 and VOTED DOWN. At least this time it will put the final nail in the coffin of WO if it is voted down again. . . we will see if the church representative will stand on a “Thus saith the Lord” on not.
The GC does not recognize Mrs. Sandra Roberts as a conf. pres., for she is not. She would have to be an ordained pastor, and a male, which she is neither. Her so called ordination is illegal and therefore a “analog” ordination that carries NO validity.
The question to the GC is really the wrong question. Its like asking if it is permissible for each division to decide for themselves if eart pork is acceptable given consideration to their culture and the need for food in their division. Or like asking if each division can decide whether the 7th day is the Sabbath. How foolish is that?
These things are really not up to the World Church to “vote” on whether they are Biblical or not. If it is clearly taught by the Bible NO vote is necessary. A woman can never be “the husband of one wife” and therefore can never be ordained as a pastor/elder.
The real question should be;
“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 THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE AND SUPPORTED BY THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY, so that 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.
The answer is obvious as a train wreck . . . NO!
If this were the question posed to the World Church in GC Session it would forever END all debate just as EGW has told us:
“The word of God is the great detector of error; to it we believe everything must be brought.
The Bible must be our standard for every doctrine and preaching. We must study it reverentially. We are to receive no one’s opinion without comparing it with the Scriptures. Here is divine authority which is supreme in matters of faith.
It is the word of the living God that is to decide all controversies.”
The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials. 1987; 2002 (44). Ellen G. White Estate.

Here is the rule for accepting a new doctrine or practice by the GC Session;
“God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority–not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support.”
Ellen G. White – The Great Controversy, p. 595.

Yes, we are a Bible teaching church. So we should stop ordaining all together. You cannot find three levels of ordination in the New Testament: pastor, elder, deacon. Even the Theology of Ordination Study Committee in its consensus statement on a Theology of Ordination listed only two ordained offices: elder and deacon. It is little known that our practice of three separate ordinations owes its existence to the Catholic church and not to the Bible.

Hogwash! David. You should know better . . . The says Jesus “ORDAINED twelve!” and EGW says in Desire of Ages, the chapter entitle “He Ordained Twelve” that Jesus call the twelve, trained them, and then knelt down with them and laying His hands on them, “ORDAINED them” JUST as the Seventh-day Adventist Church does today!
What we do find in the Bible is the ordination of Apostle and Elders and even Deacons (See Acts 6 where the apostles “appointed” the deacons that were selected by the churches to do the work or caring for the physical need of church members, while the elders focus of the ministry of prayer and the word.
The Reasons why the TOSC listed only 2 offices of ordination is because their are NO Apostles living today! They did include deacons though, which didn’t you just say could not be found in the NT?
You better get the facts straight, we, as the Seventh-day Adventist Church DID NOT get our practice from the Catholic Church but from the Bible, first and foremost for IT DOES TEACH that Jesus “ordained” only men to the gospel ministry and so did the NT Apostles, and the Bible teaches that only MEN who were husbands of one wife were ORDAINED as elder “in every city” where there was a Christian church. If you don’t believe this then READ Desire of Ages and Acts of the Apostles where Jesus ordained the twelve and where Paul was ordained and accepted by the NT Church and “ordained a preacher” and “an apostle of Jesus Christ.”
1 Timothy 2:3-7 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. {to…: or, a testimony} 7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
Please NOTE that Paul was ordained an apostle “according to the FAITH/Belief of God’s elect” or in other word THE CHURCH, which means the whole church had to be convinced of Paul’s calling as an apostle and preacher BEFORE he could be ordained as the sign of acceptance of his call to the gospel ministry by the Church Body! That’s just what the Seventh-day Adventist Church does, because ITS BIBLICAL!

“The fact is that whatever the world church decides, Yes or No, on women’s ordination, its decision is the last word. The Council of Adventist Pastors rejects any notion that after the GC in session has spoken, units will be at liberty to proceed independently of the world church.”
With a “no” vote, it will no more be the “last word” than were the decisions in 1990 and 1995. Conferences and Unions will continue to ordain women as pastors and elders, and, based on the legal structure of the church, combined with pragmatic realities, there’s not much that opponents or the GC can or will do about it.

Hogwash! David. You should know better . . . The says Jesus “ORDAINED twelve!” and EGW says in Desire of Ages, the chapter entitle “He Ordained Twelve” that Jesus call the twelve, trained them, and then knelt down with them and laying His hands on them, “ORDAINED them” JUST as the Seventh-day Adventist Church does today!
What we do find in the Bible is the ordination of Apostle and Elders and even Deacons (See Acts 6 where the apostles “appointed” the deacons that were selected by the churches to do the work or caring for the physical need of church members, while the elders focus of the ministry of prayer and the word.
The Reasons why the TOSC listed only 2 offices of ordination is because their are NO Apostles living today! They did include deacons though, which didn’t you just say could not be found in the NT?
You better get the facts straight, we, as the Seventh-day Adventist Church DID NOT get our practice from the Catholic Church but from the Bible, first and foremost for IT DOES TEACH that Jesus “ordained” only men to the gospel ministry and so did the NT Apostles, and the Bible teaches that only MEN who were husbands of one wife were ORDAINED as elder “in every city” where there was a Christian church. If you don’t believe this then READ Desire of Ages and Acts of the Apostles where Jesus ordained the twelve and where Paul was ordained and accepted by the NT Church and “ordained a preacher” and “an apostle of Jesus Christ.”
1 Timothy 2:3-7 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. {to…: or, a testimony} 7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
Please NOTE that Paul was ordained an apostle “according to the FAITH/Belief of God’s elect” or in other word THE CHURCH, which means the whole church had to be convinced of Paul’s calling as an apostle and preacher BEFORE he could be ordained as the sign of acceptance of his call to the gospel ministry by the Church Body! That’s just what the Seventh-day Adventist Church does, because ITS BIBLICAL!

Brother Gerald. If some unions or divisions go against the general vote of the GC it is called “rebellion.” It will be too sad to see many of our brother and leaders go into that direction. After all, there are just sad stories in the Bible linked to the word “rebellion.”

Gerald is right If the vote is no the issue is not resolved. Ordination of women will still take place. The larger issue will become authority in the church.

David, If the 2015 GC session determines that women shall not be ordained to male-headship roles in the SDA church, that is the resolution. That is the end of the matter. After that is only setting things in order in harmony with the vote of the world body. We are not a loose confederation of regional denominations but a world church practicing a remarkable degree of unity. Those who have made their minds up on WO will have to reflect, after the finalized GC session decision pertaining to these topics, whether or not they wish to remain part of a world church or whether they would like to try their hand at being a separate denomination and practice whatever they conscientiously determine they must.

Larry says: “David, If the 2015 GC session determines that women shall not be ordained to male-headship roles in the SDA church, that is the resolution..”
But, Larry, that’s not the question being referred to San Antonio.
Rather, they’ll be voting on this question (I’m quite sure you actully knew this!)
“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.”

That is correct. Whatever the vote women will continue in their headship roles. As I have said it now becomes discrimination.

The point Pastor Larry and I are trying to make is that if the vote next year is NO, women will not be permitted to occupy headship roles in the church. That is because no provision will be made for such ordinations. Those that have already been thus ordained have been ordained illegally, which is why their names aren’t found among the ordained ministers in the denominational yearbook. Thus there will be no future ordinations of women, and none in the past, as those in the past run contrary to church policy.

David, If the Holy Spirit did not give any women the GIFT of apostle or pastor in the NT Church when on the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out on BOT men and WOMEN, and He did this according “as He willed” to place each member in the body, then according to your standard, the Holy Spirit is instituted discrimination against female pastors and elders.
BUT if the Holy Spirit did not give even one woman the gift or apostle or pastor back then in the NT Church, why would He do any different now?

GeraldS, AC is one waymark on a multi-year process. I anticipate that when GC 2015 is concluded, the position of the world church will be essentially resolved. I believe taht God has led so that thousands of representatives of the whole church will resolve this, not just a few North American voices.

It is foolish to assume that all will remain the same regardless of how the question is adjudicated next year at the General Conference session. The decisions by the rebellious Unions will only stand if the world church and its leadership permits them to stand. The General Conference and NAD Working Policies are clear as to the disciplinary options available in case of either rebellion or apostasy (those are the words used). Any entity within the church which defies a General Conference session can in fact receive such discipline.
Revival and reformation are never easy, and sometimes they involve severe measures—corporately as well as individually. I believe our General Conference President and a majority of the world body are quite determined that the very destructive and divisive Age of Pluralism in the Seventh-day Adventist Church must at last come to an end.

There is a larger issue. There is a moral issue. Those who are opposed to women’s ordination as elders or pastors are consistent in saying that women should not be serving in these roles in the first place. But here is the moral issue. The chiurch has agreed that both men and women can serve as pastors and can do all the same functions (except for ordaining elders, organizing a church or uniting churches). But in the normal operation of the church they are the same with both male and female serving as senior pastrs and women teaching men at the Seminary. However, they cannot receive the same credential which is discrimination based on gender. Moral issues always trump policy issues. Until the church revokes its stand on women elders and pastors it needs to end its discrimination against women.

David, inconsistencies can always be straightened out by leaders and by the world church. Once Biblical authority is upheld with regard to gender roles, the re-ordering of those roles within the body of Christ will follow.

David, If the Holy Spirit did not give any women the GIFT of apostle or pastor in the NT Church when on the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out on BOT men and WOMEN, and He did this according “as He willed” to place each member in the body, then according to your standard, the Holy Spirit is instituted discrimination against female pastors and elders.
BUT if the Holy Spirit did not give even one woman the gift or apostle or pastor back then in the NT Church, why would He do any different now?

Kevin You are such an optimist

So is Jesus when He says: “come out of her my people”. We are called to leave behind the confusion of Babylon and accept, live, and preach truth consistently. The WO question is one area where we have not paid attention and have become *like* Babylon. Revival and reformation is both necessary and possible.
So, let’s be optimistic for the Lord 🙂

Kevin the vote says nothing about headship roles The vote is simply about ordaining women Regardless of which way the vote goes the role of women pastors remains the same The vote is not about whether women can be pastors. The Church has already said yes to that. The vote is whether to end discrimination based on gender.

David, I am confident the issue of headship will be clarified, and the inconsistencies in our practice put away, under the present leadership of the church. San Antonio is coming. As the president said, this issue belongs to the session. And overwhelmingly, our world church supports the Biblical premise of spiritual male headship, and the need to carefully distinguish the roles of men and women in church life.
This is not a “discrimination” issue. Let us cease using the language of the world here. Equality is not the point, as Elder Wilson so articulately noted in his speech at the General Conference of 1995 on this very subject. The roles of men and women are of equal value and importance. In the home, the roles of father and mother are of equal significance. But those roles are not the same. And neither are they in the church.

The issue of WO is so messed up and I agree with David that to a great degree, it’s because of inconsistencies in the policies of the church.
The church allowed election and ordination of women as elders. Do we have any Biblical basis for that, Pastor Kirkpatrick? (How about deaconess?)
Do we even have a Biblical basis for “Pastor” ordination?
As much as I don’t agree with WO, I can see inconsistencies all over.I am an RN. I can’t imagine allowing someone to do everything an RN can do without an RN license. And yet, that’s what the church is doing with our women pastors. We allowed women to function as pastors, they can do almost everything an ordained pastor can do, but not ordain them. We voted a woman as GC Vice president but we will not allow a woman to be a conference President (which is a lower position I think) just because of ordination.
That’s why this issue is just messed up.
I congratulate Kevin for his optimism. I hope his prediction will come to pass.

Ariel, the ordination of men to the post of elder/overseer is plainly taught in First Timothy 3 and Titus 1. And as Ellen White speaks of deaconesses being ordained (DG 254; 21MR 97), we have inspired authority for that practice. But no authority whatsoever for ordaining women as gospel ministers or local elders.

Ariel, No, I can find no biblical approach that would be valid that would support the practice of women elders, but in contrast, clear evidence that qualified males are specified to serve in those capacities. Nor is thos a matter of whether a women can preach, baptize, have good administrative skills, or anything like that. I believe that a woman could accomplish any of those things and do them as well as a man. The issue has to do with creation order. God places men in the headship/congregational leadership roles quite intentionally. In His designs, there are things particular to women and particular to men. A father, no matter how nurturing he is, is never a mother and cannot replace a mother, and the same with a mother and a father. The roles are not reversible or interchangable.
You mention the problem of inconsistencies. At present there are inconsistencies and these should be resolved. They way those came into being is from smaller local units making decisions and the expanding of those innovations on larger and larger levels, until a previous Annual Council introduced the unbiblical practice of “women elders.” Even having been approved at AC level, women elders have never been implemented in many divisions and never substantially even in those where there are such.

I am curious, though; if ordaining women to the gospel ministry is NOT Biblically acceptable, then, according to the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, IS it appropriate to have a woman as a GC vice president? I ask this because I am unclear as to whether GC members are to be ordained or not; I don’t really know which category they fall under. If you could shed some light on this, it would be much appreciated.

Stephen, A woman GC VP is not an issue as I see it. A GC vice president is not in a situation of giving headship for a congregation, nor is she in a pure president role like the GC president. She is in a helping role which is biblically fitting if she is spiritually qualified.

But Larry, GC conference president is also not giving any headship for a congregation. So, according to your logic a woman could be a General Conference president. If, however, you consider the General Conference president as the ultimate head of all congregations then we have a pope, not a president.

Is a non-ordained male lay pastor being treated any different than how women are being treated? They are not ordained as a pastor. They are working under an ordained pastor at the conference level. You don’t have to be ordained to do what God calls you to do, but you must follow what God’s word plainly states. God’s ways are different than the worldly ways. At times we may not fully understand why, we must have faith in God and follow what His word plainly states, and we must not change it to say what we want it to say, so we can do things our way instead of His way.

J David Newman wrote: “Whatever the vote women will continue in their headship roles. As I have said it now becomes discrimination.”
As a sidenote, the GC “Working Policy”book is unambiguous with regard to options the World Church has to encourage compliance with its voted policies. Gerry Chudleigh nicely lines them up in his “Who Runs the Church?” document:
“Organizational membership and status are entrusted to entities that meet certain qualifications such as faithfulness to Seventh-day Adventist doctrines” (B 05); “All subordinate organizations and institutions throughout the world will recognize the General Conference in session as the highest authority under God” (B 10 20); “The General Conference Working Policy shall be strictly adhered to by all organizations in every part of the world field” (B 15 10); and “Every effort should be made to avert the need for dissolution by counseling with the leadership and members, seeking to bring healing and reconciliation, and to preserve the organization as a witness for God and His saving truth. If conciliatory efforts fail and discontinuation appears to be the only solution, the higher organization shall have authority to act as set out under B 90 10, B 90 15, and B 90 2.”
More could be said, of course, yet whatever “discrimination” implies, if anything at all, one thing is certain: our denomination is on solid legal ground.

If Unions continue to authorize ordination of women what can the General Conference do?
One of the challenges for General Conference leaders is the fact that we are a representative body not a hierarchical body. We have three separate legal entities: conference, union, General Conf. Each owns its own assets. GC leadership can try to persuade but they cannot order. This is illustrated by the Davenport scandal . Robert Pierson, GC President and Neal Wilson, NAD president met with the Mid America Union Exec Comm to out the president. This the committee voted to do. They then travelled to the Southwest Union Comm to also oust its president. This the Committee refused to do and the GC went home having failed in its mission

“This the Committee refused to do and the GC went home having failed in its mission”
Yes, of course, one can’t deny the reality of this unfortunate for-all-involved situation as you describe it.
Nevertheless I don’t believe the Working Policy statements I provided were addressing situations such as this. The point Chudleigh emphasized in his PUC document is that the General Conference administration does in fact have the power to dissolve or discontinue church units, which is why Chudleigh had to acknowledge in “Who Runs the Church” (p. 61) that,
“The 2005-2006 Working Policy states that because unions and conferences were created by vote of the GC, they can be disbanded by the GC, and therefore must — while they are allowed to exist — strictly comply with all policies and procedures of the GC, with no exceptions.”
While the Davenport case does have some precedence-setting potential, the GC’s “no exceptions” policy nevertheless remains in the back pocket of the World Church, as Chudleigh confirms—whether or not they have ever, or will ever, utilize it—which is the only point I meant to emphasize. That said, I do understand your viewpoint.

I believe a good share of the Working Policies we now have were developed long after the Davenport affair.

Jovan, While the GC president does not serve as a pastor of a particular congregation, his position is one that the world church has recognized as far back as the earliest Adventist Church Manuals go, that “the conference president stands at the head of the gospel work in the conference.” As such, a conference, union, or general conference president is called to serve in a directive and authoritative spiritual leadership-role over those congregations. He thus exercises a headship role, and according to Scripture, must be male. A vice president type slot is quite different in this regard, as such persons are in a helping role. A vice president for X is NOT over all the churches in a conference, union, or division, but a president for X is. Therefore you are mistaken.

Larry, if this is the case, and if the conference president is male, then all other workers in the conference, including senior pastors, serve under his headship, correct?

Jovan, As I presently understand it, in his presidency, the conference president serves in a kind of or variety of headship role. He is in a position of authority over the male pastors and elders leading the churches in his conference. Only if he also serves as an elder or pastor over a particular local congregation does he exercise headship proper, the kid of headship most widely seen in the NT. But this is very different than papal power or position. For example, as pastor/elder is a member of the church where he leads, and thus participates as a voting member in church elections and business meetings, even where members may be removed from membership. A conference president however only has such a vote in the congregation where he holds membership. A GC president is elected by thousands of delegates, many of whom he will have never met; a pope is elected by a small number of cardinals and probably knows them all; the laity of a church have no say whatsoever in who is elected pope. A president serves a term of office; a pope serves until he dies or abdicates. Frankly, it is a bizarre and perhaps desperate comparison to try to make. What is your point?

Well, you may be correct. Continuing this discussion might be counterproductive. The point you ask for is this: none of your theorizing on male headship, presidency of the conference and GC presidency has any support in the Scripture whatsoever!. Find me a verse that speaks of “pure presidency!” Or that we have to be organized the way we are. Find me a text that would state that a conference president has to be a man. Find me a text that would state that it is OK for a woman to be a VP? I understand that you believe that you found a principle in the Scripture that you think is eternal and valid. But so do I! And the truth is: we both may be mistaken! Except, that I am willing to acknowledge this. What about you? In all our past conversation you always end conversation saying: “you are mistaken.” Ending discussion by telling others that they are mistaken is not conducive to a civil conversation. Are you infallible?
Let me conclude with this: Why does it bother you if in my church there is a woman senior pastor who is doing a great work of ministry according to her gifting? The church has grown and has been blessed because of her ministry. What is that to you?

Yes, I am well aware of the dissolution of unions power of the GC. First it can only be done at a GC session. So 2020 would be the earliest it could happen. Second, because of our representative structure the dissolved union would still hold all its assets. The new union that the GC would organize would have to build a new headquarters and rebuild its treasury. The conferences could choose whoch entity they wanted to be part of.

This is wrong, once the GC disbands the union all the assets are still in the possession of the Association of Seventh-day Adventists and belong to the constituents of that division and that of the world church. The GC could just replace all officers in that union who are not submissive to the world church. We would not have to build new headquarters and rebuild the treasury, for those who have been disband would have to leave all church property and assets behind. They don’t belong to them, just like a conference who disbands a local church by vote of the conference constituency, all properties and assets belong to the Association of Seventh-day Adventists, not to the leaders of that local church.

Does the PUC have its own Woking Policy book where I can find the above information?
All I could locate, at least for now, was this vaugish statement from the GC Working Policy 2007-2008 regarding “in apostasy or rebellion” dissolution (p. 92), which I’m not sure applies to the scenario under discussion:
B 95 15 Dissolution of Union Missions and Expulsion of Union
Conferences/Union Missions:
6. In the event of the dissolution of a union mission and/or the
expulsion of a union conference/union mission from the world sisterhood of unions, audits of the financial records of the union conference/union mission shall be conducted. All assets remaining after all claims have been satisfied shall be transferred to a legal entity authorized by the division, or dealt with as specified in the union conference constitution and bylaws/union mission operating policy.

I’m not sure if this is outdated or not but this document is available online in a .doc file (http://tinyurl.com/n9dd6tt): “The Bylaws of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists” — August 29, 2011 (p. 17).
ARTICLE XVI
“In the event of the dissolution of this Union, all assets remaining after all claims have been satisfied shall be transferred to the General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists, a non profit religious corporation organized pursuant to the laws of the District of Columbia, with headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland.”

I am not sure that expulsion equals dissolution. Expulsion simply means that the union is no longer part of the sister hood of unions. Only the union can disolve itself. We need a lawyer here.

We don’t need a lawyer here. Our organization is a voluntary association of believers. Those who are Christlike will not be using lawyers to fight over furniture and fixtures–that is Satan’s work. Christians are willing to be defrauded (1 Corinthians 6:7) and leave their cause with God, the righteous judge.
We have Christ’s plain instruction: “But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two” (Mt 5:39-41).

I see the entire discussion here is based on the “No” vote scenario. What will happen if the result is a “Yes” vote, and what are the chances?

No one has any idea what will really happen at the General Conference session. It may be “no” or “yes” or something else entirely. But, one thing is certain, neither a no vote or a yes vote will make the issue go away.
During the rebellion in heaven, Satan declared that the way of restoring harmony and peace in heaven was to give the dissatisfied angels their way. But it would not have brought peace.
Ultimately, the only way for peace in heaven was for the discontented angels to be expelled, but that did not happen for a long time because in mercy “God bore long with Lucifer” (PP 39.1). He is long suffering with his erring children. He will wait until the spirit is fully manifested and all can see the fruit of discarding His order, then He will cleanse the camp.

Let this settle the issue;
“The word of God is the great detector of error; to it we believe everything must be brought.
The Bible must be our standard for every doctrine and preaching. We must study it reverentially. We are to receive no one’s opinion without comparing it with the Scriptures. Here is divine authority which is supreme in matters of faith.
It is the word of the living God that is to decide all controversies.”
The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials. 1987; 2002 (44). Ellen G. White Estate

Phil. Can you defend three levels, three separate hierarchical ordinations in the NT?

Yes.

Phil. To be helpful you need to spell it out. Even the Theology of Ordination Study Committee could not find three ordinations. They settled on two.

In this context it could not be helpful. It wouldn’t help those on either side who simply love a fight and lose interest when the fight is over. They would simply use it as more material to continue the fight. Even if it is true (as I believe it is), it wouldn’t be helpful to those who do not love truth, since they would seek to evade the truth, anyway. Neither would it be helpful to those whose minds are already made up, they won’t be persuaded “though one rose from the dead.” It wouldn’t be helpful to those who know the clear Bible reasons of the pioneers, they already know it and are not wondering about it. Lastly, it would not be helpful in this context since it is not the foundational teaching and has become a mere distraction for the quibblers who would like to take the mind off the real issues: The plain teaching of the Bible, God’s appointed order in the universe, and the purpose of the church.

Phil, you are quite right that it would not be helpful to spell out your view on three ordinations. You were part of the TOSC Consensus Statement on ordination. There you agreed there were only two ordinations. That is why it is difficult for you to argue there are three.

It suddenly sounds like you’re unsure of the endgame for egalitarians, Dave:
(1) is to denounce Adventism’s “practice of three separate [“Catholic”] ordinations”?; (2) is it to assure Adventist leadership that even “if the vote is no” at GC2015 the “ordination of women will still take place”?; (3) is it to have complementarians prove to you from Scripture the “three separate hierarchical ordinations in the NT”?; or (4) is it to acknowledge, in the end, that “the larger issue will become authority in the church,” or what is in fact Adventism’s “authority” via her voted policies—and its disciplinary procedures—policies through which she remains doctrinally cohesive and spiritually united?
Your apparent angst and uncertainty is all over the map, my friend.

My dear friend. You have posed some great questions. And no, I have no angst at all. You see, my belief all along is that we have been pursing the wrong questions. The real issue is not whether women can be ordained pastors. The real issue is why do we practice ordination at all? Phil says he can prove three ordination levels as we practice them today in the NT. (Even the TOSC Consensus Statement on a the Theology of Ordination could not find three ordinations) I am anxious to see his proofs. I have written a paper called the Fourth Option (instead of the three that theTOSC posed). In this paper I submit a Biblical study that shows that ordination as we practice it cannot be found in the NT. Of course another issue has arisen that muddies the conversation. Now some are proposing that women cannot serve as elders and pastors. So we have two separate issues: ordination itself and the role of women in the church. Right now I am staying with ordination. Let’s settle one issue at a time.

Mr. J David Newman, I think the issue is about this:
Is the office of church elder/pastor a male-headship role? Or, stated another way, is there a gender prerequisite for the office of elder/pastor (e.g. such as existed for the OT priesthood)?
From that flow all the issues that we are debating about. Namely, that if a woman cannot occupy the office of an elder, she consequently cannot be ordained as such, since that would be a contradiction in terms. This is what those who propose the Biblical Qualifications have always argued for. Ordination is not the issue, but the office to which they are ordained. If, after all, women could become pastors/elders, why quibble about ordaining them? Don’t all pastors/elders get ordained?
To argue merely about ordination, then, is to only addres a symptom/fruit, but ignore the cause/root. This is an easy rhetorical strategy that muddies the waters and confuses onlookers (not saying that you do this deliberately), distracting them from the real issues by framing the question in the wrong way. Others have done the same by claiming this is just a policy issue and not a doctrinal issue, which is patently false.
I hope you still agree that there are indeed such offices in the church as elder/pastor and deacon? If yes, then let’s start at the root FIRST, which is the principle of spiritual male-headship in the church (as well as in the home) and its bearing on the offices of church leadership. After that we can see whether or not the ordination ceremony is Biblical, unbiblical or, traditional. As it stands now, calling quits on ordination will not solve the problem, but only excarbate it by tearing down the church organization. Also any decision merely on ordination will be premature as there are more foundational issues (like spiritual male-headship) that need to be taken into account, if one is to come to a comprehensive resolution.

As important as this “belief” on ordination is for you, and I did just now read your paper (http://jdavidnewman.us/uploads/Fourth_Option.pdf), the “real issue” facing GC2015 delegates—and only issue, really—is “the role of women in the church,” as you put, and the “divisional autonomy” Question driving it:
“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.”
For me, then, the point is elementary. Elder Sakae Kubo yesterday suggested in an article at Spectrum that “the issue of women’s ordination IS NOT A THEOLOGICAL ISSUE,” while Elder Ted Wilson shared at the GC Session in 1995 that “the ordination of women as local church elders and as gospel ministers IS A THEOLOGICAL ISSUE.” Quite the conundrum for a church supposedly unified on the Rio Document, right? Or so said everyone at TOSC.
But, of course, the underlying issue isn’t really about Women’s Ordination and to ordain or not ordain, as some in this debate have already noted, the real problem is our denomination’s two distinct hermeneutical constructs informing two diametrically opposed conclusions on texts like I Timothy 2:11-15. So, for example, when we discover that an egalitarian like Kubo finds Paul’s linking of teaching authority with creation order to be “culturally-conditioned” (see 1975’s “An Exegesis of I Timothy 2:11-15 and Its Implication”), but then group-one TOSCians find a transcultural principle in the same text after applying “sound principles of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) to arrive at the author’s intended meaning” (see Group #1 Review of Position Summary #3), you know we have an epic interpretative challenge directly in front of us, one needing immediate resolution. Make sense?
To make matters worse, however—or better, depending on which side of the aisle you’re exegeting from—group-one goes so far as to directly point out that “the pro-ordination group (group-two) fails” because “after applying their hermeneutical principles [think: PBHC], they arrive at a meaning that is quite different from the plain reading of the Bible on the topic” (cf. NAD Report).
So with this hermeneutical divide no doubt on his mind, Elder Wilson at Annual Council had to emphatically warn against “historical-critical and higher critical methods of Biblical interpretation.” Which suggests to me that if Adventists were to have applied only the historical-grammatical method on texts like I Timothy 2:11-15, we might never have witnessed our once-game scholars intentionally or unintentionally avoiding Paul’s teaching authority/creation order principle, as did the Seminary in “On the Unique Headship of Christ in the Church” and Davidson in “Should Women Be Ordained as Pastors? Old Testament Considerations”—two of the NAD’s most reliable allies on its proWO front.
Thus, I’ll definitely agree with you, JD, “Let’s settle one issue at a time.”

Jovan, the Scripture you seek clearly says “I do not permit a woman to exercise authority over a man.” If you search your Bible carefully, I believe you will find this verse.

If you search your Bible carefully you can also find Acts 15:8-9. While the context is different, I believe that the same principle applies to our current debate.
Well, at this juncture I guess it is appropriate to quote Gamaliel (Acts 5:38-39) so I rest my case. Bless you Larry. Please forgive me for any harsh words. May God work on the hearts of both of us and bring us into unity one day.

I am not going to keep prolonging this discussion accept to say I find it very curious that the more conservative side of our church who see Roman Carholics as leaders in end time events would so strongly support a Roman Catholic theology of ordination. And before you disagree please read my paper on the subject whose url is posted on this thread

Unfortunately David, position 2 seems to be following the footsteps of Rome. And before you disagree, please see my paper which is on the GC archive site for TOSC June 2014. Position 3 must also be evaluated in light of the danger of placing the church above the Bible.

Hey, not all is lost, my friend. At least “the more conservative side” now knows just how willing and ready “the less conservative side” is with encouraging strict doctrinal-biblical fidelity within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Thank you.

The TOSC consensus committee was a good group of men and women seeking to be true to their convictions while stating things in a way that could be the most widely acceptable. That is the strength of a consensus statement and it is also its weakness.
I can understand why you might misunderstand the statement, that is the weakness side, but contrary to your assertions the TOSC consensus statement does not say there were ONLY two positions that necessitated ordination, but at least two.
I quote from the document, “While most elders and deacons ministered in local settings, some elders were itinerant and supervised greater territory with multiple congregations, which may reflect the ministry of individuals such as Timothy and Titus (1 Tim 1:3-4; Titus 1:5).” If you care to count, that is three, two local and one that was supervisory over a greater territory, which is exactly how the Adventist church has historically understood the Scriptures. But it’s not an “in your face” statement. Those good people on the committee who failed to see three in the Bible could support the statement and the good people who saw three in the Scriptures could support the statement as well.
To say the consensus statement supports either of those positions is inaccurate. I was the secretary of the group and personally worked with the nine others on wording that would keep this non-foundational issue from dividing us. It allows for more than one view, it was meant to. I hope that clarifies the ambiguity inherent in the statement.

I hear you but the most significant part was the sentence preceding your quote. “Aside from the unique role of the apostles, the New Testament identifies the following categories of ordained leaders: the elder/ supervising elder (Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; 1 Tim 3:2-7; 4:14; 2 Tim 4:1-5; 1 Peter 5:1) and the deacon (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8-10).”
Notice that after the colon only two offices are listed. The rest is
Commentary . And there is no hint in the statement of a hierarch of ordination such as we have. I have had several NT scholars review my paper and they agree with my conclusions. I would welcome a NT scholar to critique my paper and show where I am wrong. You believe very strongly in a literal reading of Scriptue. I have done exactly that.

The elder/supervising elder can be one or two depending on your view as explained in the next sentence of the consensus. The word “two” or the phrase “only two” is not in the statement. Most of those who believe two offices is sufficient have been comfortable with the two sentences; and most of those who believe three offices is more accurate have been comfortable with the two sentences.
By the way, your guess as to my “very strongly” held beliefs is not correct (and totally irrelevant).

On a final note, in your article “Wanted: A Theology of Ordination” (AToday, Summer 2010) you and Elder Batchelor coming to opposite conclusions when exegeting I Timothy 2:12 is precisely the concern I spelled out earlier, where two divergent hermeneutics are being applied when interpreting key texts on the ordination question—not unlike what the World Church finally discovered at TOSC.
So whatever else your Theology of Ordination includes as outlined in this article, interesting as it may be, you unfortunately decide that I Timothy 2:12’s “context” is culturally-conditioned (p. 7), or what Richard Davidson says occurs when “the historical context is responsible for the production of Scripture” (see “The Bible and Hermeneutics”). Perhaps that Annual Council warning has some relevance after all.

It must be rather boring to having mostly everyone agree with you so I am back to add a little variety. Let’s leave theology for the moment and concentrate on practice. It is amazing how Catholic our practice is. Note the statement from the Consensus on a SDA Adventist Theology of Ordination: “While ordination contributes to Church order, it neither conveys special qualities to the persons ordained nor introduces a kingly hierarchy within the faith community.”
But here is our practice in some places. Where I grew up our churches often had two platforms. Sabbath school was conducted from the lower platform while only ordained people could ascend the higher platform. In churches that were too small to accommodate two platforms Sabbath school was conducted from the floor. When I came to pastor in America I had several families who would not attend Sabbath school because unordained people stood behind the pulpit. In one country I preached in it was so hot I left my jacket in the hotel. When I arrived at the church, despite wearing a tie and shirt, I had to borrow a jacket before I could preach from behind the pulpit. No one in the congregation wore a jacket. In the conference, Chesapeake, where I later pastored, our conference treasurer visited a church which he could not preach until he had removed his colored tie and put on a black tie provided by the church.
It seems clear that in the minds of many of our people we still have a holy place and a most holy place in our churches and only “holy” ordained people can enter there. And in some places there must be dressed a certain way just as they were in the Old Testament. In the Catholic church there are also areas restricted for use only by ordained people. Even if we keep our three levels we should change our terminology to commissioned rather than ordained. Especially as only the King James Bible is the only one that uses ordained. Even the New Kings James recognizes that the Greek words translated ordained never had that meaning.

1T 650.1 It is [Satan’s] studied effort to lead professed Christians just as far from heaven’s arrangement as he can; therefore he deceives even the professed people of God and makes them believe that order and discipline are enemies…. All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery.

Hmmm! There must not be too many people on this site. It seems you would rather debate theory rather than practice. God bless you all

“The real issue is why do we practice ordination at all? ”
AMEN AMEN!!!

Hi A. Way,
I believe we can together say because the Bible gives us guidance to, for it is written “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:” (Titus 1:5 KJV) There are other Bible references as well, also if you do a SOP search for ordain or ordination this may help with your study. Hope that helps a little and may the Lord bless you as you follow Him!

Hi Way. Please consult the New King James where it says “appoint” instead of ordain. You will find that the word ordain does not appear in the Greek which is what Paul wrote in.

“AntiAdventism” doesn’t exist in Paul’s Greek, either—neither does “theistic evolution” nor “homosexual normalization,” for that matter—and yet here we are with two conflicting theologies.

The possibility of rebellion and fractures in the church is real and may well materialize into the North American Division or its unions leaving the world church with all the catastrophic financial fallout, but God is not sleeping. He neither slumbers nor sleeps. We can be faithful to Him and cry aloud and spare not and then leave the outcome of this contest to Him. It is also not true as we can plainly see that everyone in North America supports this crusade against Biblical integrity: to the contrary. We must just brace ourselves for a bruising contest in this church as the enemy within seeks to tear down everything that defines and holds us together. Those who love the truth and God must resolve to stay with the world church even if the decision goes against scripture. We must minimize in as much as it is in our power the turbulence and live to fight another day for the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. We have no permission to leave or cause others to leave. Loyalty to God demands that we take a stand right here and fight from here. This is the instruction from the SOP. Other issues will come even if we win this one for it is Satan’s objective to unite the whole world even our church with his rebellion and the issues will change but the goal will be the same: the abomination that maketh desolate must stand where it ought not. It is a time to stand and resist.

The concept of ordination is scriptural as it implies two things: respect for a call to serve God and authority to carry out commensurate functions. The questions of recognition of office and authority to function in that office are essential for order organizational accountability. There is of course abuse of the system as has happened in some places where not only are Church Leaders condescending to church members as a result of the ordination but they use ordination for personal aggrandizement and turn it into an initiation ceremony into some sort of Adventist “brotherhood” complete with elitist tendencies that demean other branches of the work. The result is that the work changes in spirit from sacrifice to self-serving. That cannot be blamed on ordination itself. It is the spirit of Satan abusing a noble process. People need to be assigned roles and ordained for them for them to function with requisite confidence and authority and the level at which someone is ordained is not the point. We should as a people respect all holy office and the work of God in general and we should not be respecters of persons. If where the church has not ordained an individual but it is clearly evident that God is using them, we should fear to lay our hand or mouth on them and cause them in anyway to under-perform. The bottom line brethren is not whether we should ordain or not; we are simply better served if we fear God and respect all who serve him without turning the worship that is due to him and vesting it in mortal man.

74 replies on “Annual Council sends WO question to 2015 General Conference session”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply