PUC/SECC Defy Church, Ordain Woman

Post author By webmaster
Post date December 20, 2015
155 Comments on PUC/SECC Defy Church, Ordain Woman

On December 19, 2015, the Southeastern California Conference (SECC), Pacific Union (PUC), and Loma Linda University Church (LLUC) ordained a woman pastor, an action opposite the vote of the world church this summer in San Antonio, Texas.
After years of study the world church had considered a motion to permit division committees to act unilaterally in approving the ordination of women to pastoral ministry. Delegates assembled from around the world. The July 8, 2015 vote was 1381 No and 977 Yes.(1) And yet incredibly, the illegitimately appointed leader of the SECC told the person upon whom hands of ordination were laid that “Today, I’m not welcoming you to ministry but I am welcoming you on behalf of your colleagues in ministry, on behalf of the conference, on behalf of the worldwide church, as an ordained minister of the gospel.”
How has God’s church traveleld to this surreal moment? With San Antonio immediately in the rear view mirror, the SECC executive committee proceeded to seek the ordination of Shirley Ponder. Those presently leading the Conference forwarded their request to the Pacific Union. On November 22, the Union approved the requested action.(2)
The “ordination” held at Loma Linda University Church on December 19 contradicts the Bible-based practice of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Church considers pastoral ministry leading a congregation as a task specially assigned to elders. The office of elder is in the Bible limited to spiritually qualified males (1 Timothy 2:12, 13; 3:2; Titus 1:6; 1 Corinthians 11:2, 3). The Seventh-day Adventist Church from its beginnings has placed called elders as leaders of congregations and conferences and unions, the administrative bodies of the church.(3)(4)
Instability was introduced in Adventist practice in North America by actions taken in the 1970s and 1980s which (contrary to Scripture) permitted women to serve as elders. That decision, however, has never been brought before the church to be directly addressed in a General Conference session; it was taken at an Annual Council.(5)
That innovation stands near the root of the disunity that has plagued the church since that time. It has even led the North American Division to introduce a new way of interpreting Scripture in an attempt to support the new practice!(6) The persistent pressure for women’s ordination, which has continued after the General Conference session, shows that turmoil will continue until the issue of woman elders is resolved.
These units have exceeded the authority delegated to them by the world body and violated the trust of the world church. Since the Loma Linda “ordination” occurred on December 19, a time of year when many are visiting their families, no immediate action is anticipated from the General Conference (GC). However, the GC which is tasked with carrying forward the decisions of the world church sought to preempt such a mistake. Note the following excerpt from an August 2015 statement set forth by the GC Secretariat following the San Antonio world church decision:

“The authority given to the unions is not only delegated, but also limited. Unions have the power to select those to be ordained from among candidates proposed by conferences who meet the criteria set by the World Church. Authority to determine the criteria has never been delegated from the General Conference to any other organization—it does not belong to the work of the union but rather the criteria were voted by the World Church and are part of the GC Working Policy in the ‘L’ section entitled ‘The Ministry and Ministerial Training.’ In particular, the L 35 section outlines specifically the ‘Qualifications for Ordination to the Ministry’ which have been voted by the World Church during Annual Council.

“The church’s policies and practice do not permit women to be ordained, since section L, which governs ordination, is the only section in GC WP with language that is masculine gender-specific. All other sections of GC WP use gender-neutral or inclusive language, but Section L consistently refers only to men being ordained or on track for ordination. In addition, the section in GC WP BA 60 10 (pages 118-119), which refers to the church’s official position regarding discrimination, specifically states that ‘Neither shall these positions be limited by gender (except those requiring ordination to the gospel ministry’).

Therefore, no union or any other entity can ordain women to the gospel ministry”(7).

In this light, the actions of the Southeastern California Conference, the Pacific Union Conference, and of the pastor of the Loma Linda University Church along with all others who laid hands of ordination on Shirley Ponder, including the illegitimate leader of the SECC(8), are invalid. The world church, of which these all are part, has not approved the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.
The current president of the NAD has not acted faithfully to inhibit the series of events which have led to the Dec. 19 act of opposition toward the world church.(9) Notwithstanding its claims to the contrary, the Pacific Union has challenged the authority of the world church(10) and has now acted out its challenge.
The trust of the world church has been betrayed.

155 replies on “PUC/SECC Defy Church, Ordain Woman”

Oh, well..it sorrowful, but it was expected.
So, what our respectful (I’m serious) pastors have planed to do in a case when this thing begins to happen?
Continue to discuss hermeneutic?
But it seem like the time of theoretical discussions went to past and its time to make some practical steps now.
Once again – I’m no one for the system and my acting power is limited, I only can think and pray of what I see.
But the pastors who are touched by this, what should they do in respond?
I know that If some deadly epidemic happen in the world, every ill person must be isolated until his full recovery. If it’s too late to isolate all those who are sick, then they isolate all including healthy people and keep them under control in order to prevent spreading the pestilence.
But definitely they don’t sit and watch what’s gonna happen next, because everyone knows that the next thing will be “abomination of desolation”, i.e no life will be presented in that place..
It seem like we have some spiritual epidemic in the Church which twisted the minds of the members. And this situation requires that some decisive actions have to be made immediately. That’s how I see it.
Does the CAP have a plan? Is there any way to call disturbers to answer?

“Does the CAP have a plan?”
Andrian, you at times seem to want to hold CAP pastors accountable (responsible?) for this ordination mayhem, when you perhaps should be writing comments against those either doing nothing or those actively rebelling. While it is clear you are frustrated with how our world leaders have worked to resolve this rebellion (I personally am not), I would nevertheless encourage you to continue to trust in our Lord’s ability to safely guide His beloved ship to eternal shores. Remember, Seventh-day Adventism is the seventh church of Bible prophecy, a body of believers Christ sees as both lukewarm and conquerors (Rev. 3:14-22). So be a little more patient, friend, as Jesus actually knows how to lead us forward.

Jesus also knew how to lead the Pharisees forward. But they did not accept His leading. Likewise, many today are not accepting His leading, and as a result, the church speeds on towards destruction. This trend will not be corrected by human instrumentalities today any more than it was in Christ’s day. Christ Himself will purge His floor! May He have mercy on His people!

So long as the “many. . . not accepting His leading” are the wicked who have in the end accepted the mark of the beast and its final “destruction,” and not the final church of Bible prophecy (Laodicea), we can certainly agree. With the exception being that “the church” I earlier referenced is the church of overcomers sitting on God’s “throne” (Rev. 3:21)—those who will one day “hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (v. 22)—not those, of course, having being spewed out of God’s “mouth” (v. 16). Two groups. Two distinct destinies. Yet only one victorious church: Seventh-day Adventism. So may He indeed have mercy on His people!

There are many in positions of leadership (and many who are not in positions of leadership) in God’s true present day church, the church of Laodicea, that are not accepting His leading and will be spit out of His mouth. The final church is depicted in the Word and in the SoP as continuing down the road of apostasy (not just WO, other issues also) until God Himself makes the corrections. It is God who spits out the lukewarm. It is He who will thresh and winnow His church. There is no depiction in prophetic writings of church leaders making a great correction of course. The prophecies of Ezekiel 8 and 9 are not about a church that has been reformed, nor about leaders in whom trust can be placed. They are about a church within which are committed all manner of abomination and leaders who participate in those abominations. Those sighing and crying in Jerusalem have good cause for their sorrow. They are not in a church in which all has been set right by men in positions of influence. Yet they must hold fast to the faith that was delivered to them! Trusting in Christ to make His Bride ready. Humbling themselves before Him, afflicting their souls and confessing their sins to Him, as they continue to sigh and cry for the abominations done in Jerusalem. Making themselves nothing and Christ Everything. In this attitude/position they will receive His mark on their foreheads while the sinners in Zion are sifted out. A terrible ordeal is about to come upon His people. Lord, have mercy! Let us divest ourselves of our self-righteousness and array ourselves in the righteousness of Christ, that we might be able to stand when He fans His floor!

“Instability was introduced in Adventist practice in North America by actions taken in the 1970s and 1980s which (contrary to Scripture) permitted women to serve as elders. That decision, however, has never been brought before the church to be directly addressed in a General conference session; it was taken at an Annual Council.(5)
That innovation stands near the root of the disunity that has plagued the church since that time. It has even led the North American Division to introduce a new way of interpreting Scripture in an attempt to support the new practice!(6) The persistent pressure for women’s ordination which has continued after the General Conference session, shows that turmoil will continue until the issue of woman elders is resolved.”
Forty years of “instability”, nay – oppressive rebellion. That number holds significance in the Bible. Are their forty years finally up and a resolution within sight? I naively held my breath after the vote in San Antonio hoping against hope that further action would be taken in addition to the No vote. It wasn’t. Still holding my breath, the Annual Council came and went with yet another statement. Is this December 19, 2015 “ordination” what the GC has been waiting on before they finally move to put down the rebellion? It was only recently that I began to breathe again, but through bitterest disappointment. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of us in the field waiting for a correction.
Where are the men God placed in positions of trust? What of them?

Continued inaction by the GC leaders will lead only to further fracturing of the unity of the SDA church.

You all make The Lord cry with your hatred for his female children and mysoginistic attitudes.Shame shame shame!your mother should have raised you with more respect!you all disgust me to no end.And you call yourself Christians!Jesus will send you to the left with the goats for your hatred and oppression of his daughters!

Does God appointed you to express His feelings or you’re talking of your personal imagination?
And if we go to the left and you go to the right, how come that you’re still here with us?
Just curious.

Please Amy, do be quiet. We really want serious discussion here.

What vitriolic rubbish woman. we want to follow scripture you obviously do not. This demonic female headship doctrine is a product of feminism and spiritualism.

I’ve tried my best to ignore church politics, so I’m not current on all these various actions and votes being referred to, but I saw a post from a wise friend in another forum. I think it’s relevant here.
PICKING & CHOOSING WHICH ANNUAL COUNCIL VOTES ARE VALID. This article certainly seems to reveal that there is picking & choosing going on. Because, on the one hand the article claims that the vote for women Elders was invalid because it was voted at Annual Council in 1984 (and not at a GC Session).
But on the other hand, the article is supporting (and wielding) the The Methods of Interpretation document (aka the Rio Document) which the world church uses; yet these methods of interpretation were ALSO voted at Annual Council in 1985 in Rio (and also not at a GC Session).
Moreover, the article claims that “instability was introduced in Adventist practice in North America.” This is inaccurate, because Annual Councils (which are held in-between GC Sessions) also have representative leaders from all 13 Divisions; so the votes are not North American votes (even though Annual Council may be held in North America). So, this seems like just another weak attempt by OrdinationTruth et al to implicate and disparage and discredit the North American Division.
False and inaccurate information serves to discredit those who make these kind of claims.

W. Schmidt:
It sounds a little like you may be arguing a strawman here. Let me explain. And you can respectfully disagree with my observations if you’d like, my friend. No problem.
First, did OrdinationTruth.com really claim “that the vote for women Elders was invalid”? If so, where exactly does the article claim this? On the contrary, the article indirectly validates the Annual Council’s decision by acknowledging that North America “permitted women to serve as elders” by official “actions.”
Second, did OrdinationTruth.com at all discuss “supporting (and wielding) the The [sic] Methods of Interpretation document (aka the Rio Document).” I don’t believe so. In fact, the Rio document is never once mentioned. So to suggest OrdinationTruth.com is actively “wielding” the MBSD is to misrepresent the actual facts expressed in this article.
Third, was “inaccurate” when OrdinationTruth.com wrote that “instability was introduced in Adventist practice in North America.” I really don’t think so. But only because the “instability” mentioned in the article is clearly in reference to the church utilizing two conflicting methods of biblical interpretation on Creation-based, transcultural texts like 1 Timothy 2:12-13, which is rendered “culturally conditioned” when one employs the NAD’s PBHC method. In other words, if two diametrically opposed hermeneutics haven’t introduced “instability” across this globalized denomination, then you obviously didn’t attend the GC’s TOSC meetings, where doubt-driven questions about Scripture’s authoritative foundation ruled the day.
Fourth, was this article truly “just another weak attempt by OrdinationTruth et al to implicate and disparage and discredit the North American Division”? Or in some way did NAD leaders themselves, perhaps by their winking noninterference, “disarparage [sic] and discredit” the July 9 decision made by the world church at the General Conference Session in San Antonio, where voters voted 1381 to 977 against divisional autonomy?
Lastly, while I get that you are “not current on all these various actions and votes,” perhaps the lesson here is that we can’t always trust everything we read. Even if we happen respect or admire the person whose arguments, in the end, may be the only “false and inaccurate information” you or I have read today.

The AC action that approved the “Methods of Bible Study” document was simply affirming the longstanding interpretative practice of the church. It was not adding anything new nor contradicting Scripture but affirming the Bible.
The Council action that approved women elders was countermanding Scripture and almost 2000 years of Christian practice. Even if you accept that that council has that kind of authority (wow!), what was permitted in terms of women elders was very carefully limited. It could only be done if the conference gave special approval. It could only be done if the congregation had studied the issue closely. It could only be done if the ccongregation had a consensus that it was willing to try the new practice and if the experiment would not break the unity of the congregation.
Of course, in practice, all these qualifications and a few others, were disregarded.

“The Council action that approved women elders was countermanding Scripture and almost 2000 years of Christian practice.”
So, why has that action not been rescinded in any of the seven GC sessions that have been held since?

So, why has that action not been rescinded in any of the seven GC sessions that have been held since?
That’s easy to answer.
And similar question is – why they never brought the issue of women ordination to vote on GC?
I think they didn’t include this question into the voting schedule just because it predictably wouldn’t go the way they’d like to, that’s why.
Do you have any other explanation?

Why didn’t Jan Paulsen bring up WO when he was GC President? He certainly could have had it placed in the agenda.

This is precisely the point. Why is that the leadership of this church and it matters not who we elect does not make any moves to change things that are wrong but instead will allow questionable motions like this and NOT address unscriptural actions like the ordination of female elders which remain as an official position? And when unions blatantly rebel as has happened now, they get a gentle “there there” on their fingers. There is something here that I do not get. Help me out. Is it that the GC is in sympathy with the WO agenda and somehow have no will to terminate it and somehow hope that it will pass into an official position with time and then they do not have to discipline anyone for these blatant infractions.

Larry, the whole exercise was never done with noble intent. All these mellifluous conditions were never intended to do more than dress the delivery of toxin with the cloak of reasonable consideration. It was simply a camouflage for the assault on the integrity of our respect for scripture. It was testing the waters to see how sleepy and stupid we were and we did not disappoint. There is always a fatality to trusting our own judgment in the presence of plain scripture and the taking of these AC meetings as gratuitous holidays for the delegates. When we operate God’s things with the strange fire of our own judgment we precipitate catastrophes like these. What is the answer? Sobriety and Integrity. None are beyond Satanic deception. Deliver us from evil.

Please explain why a wrong decision, indefensible from scripture, becomes right because political chicanery sees to it that it is passed at Annual Councils instead of the General Conference session. It matters not where a decision is taken. If it cannot pass scripture master it should be rescinded. Apparently we have a leadership crisis and it is time to decide whether leaders who support error should represent the cause of truth in the world. What is going on is clearly mutinous and treasonous. Those who feel they are not bound by scripture should simply leave the SDA church but since they clearly have no intention of leaving, we should not as members respect their actions or continue to respect their employment in a cause they are clearly working against. Members in the PUC who do not support such action should be vocal and dissociate themselves by boycotting meetings conducted by any of the leaders who are working to undermine both church authority and order. The sin of this action lies squarely at the door of the church members.Their silence is licence. Leaders who do not recognize Divine authority do not deserve to have their authority respected either. We owe Satan nothing. What has happened in the PUC is that the condition of the church members is such that they themselves are no longer able to discern right from wrong and this gives these saboteurs carte blanche. What should the GC do? Fire the lot and make it a matter of public record. Oh but we will be sued. Yes we will be. It is time to pay the piper for our laziness and foolishness. Fire and pay and call an urgent meeting to rescind all the decisions we have made that have led to this confusion. It is expensive!? It is. All sin is expensive but that is no reason to keep it. The confusion we are creating, which is the purpose behind these actions, is far more expensive. Doing right is never cheap.

“What should the GC do? Fire the lot and make it a matter of public record. ”
They can’t, just like they can’t disfellowship an individual church member. They don’t have jurisdiction.
The GC can’t just do whatever they want. Unlike in the Roman Catholic Church, in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, authority flows from the bottom up, not from the top down.

As far as I know, this is not quiet so. Conference can dismiss any community if they would find what for. Accordingly the union can discharge whole staff of any conference in their area for a proper reason. And so on.
Any individual can loose his membership by request of the pastoral counsel of any level in the area of its competence.
Maybe this is not so easy to do at the conference level, but everywhere else above that it is possible to resolve any issue of that kind among pastors.
Yes it sounds troublesome. But if the pastors begin to pervert the teaching or Gospel they must be dismissed from the Church no matter what level of authority they have. That’s what the Bible says (up to the Angel from heaven).
I remember that like 15 years ago a local union disfellowshiped entire conference for their rebellion somewhere in Siberia and established two missions instead.
Because otherwise there would be no point to support all this gigantic structure that cannot keep the Church in administrative order.

Andrian, the GC could possibly dissolve the entire Pacific Union Conference (I’m not entirely sure if policy would allow that, but I suspect it could do something along those lines). That is the nuclear option. But I highly doubt the GC would do that. That seems to me to be such a drastic measure to take, when they could have rather actually resolved the issue by putting up for a vote either a requirement to the Working Policy that ordained pastor be male, or an official doctrinal statement that asserted that WO was clearly prohibited by Scripture.
Had the GC truly wanted to resolve the issue, there are much clearer and more effective actions they could have taken in San Antonio.

I am so glad you put is so well. They cannot. That means it falls to the constituency to fire them. How can the constituency fire what they approve. The question we really want to address is, is that the will of the PUC constituency? If so, the General conference must respect their will and give them their desire: EXIT from the world church and form another conference of those who respect the will of the world church. The Kingdom of God is not numbers but loyalty. Point is whilst we are not to be run by an arbitrary leadership: we must ensure they implement church actions judiciously. They must be empowered to protect the directives of the world church in session. Has to be a way to do that.

Let us assume no action is taken by the GC and that this cancer spreads. What does it mean for the rest of us? Nothing. We simply make an individual decision to ask God for guidance as to our personal duty and stay true to the message and give it to the world with greater haste and more vigor. We ensure our own vision is not clouded: that we KNOW what God says to do and do it. What these people are seeking to do is political, not theological. It is about Power. After the Power shift from God controlling the church to another master will come the changing of the soul of this church and intended splintering. A house divided cannot stand. Satan knows it and intends to achieve it. This is no child’s play. The determination and tenacity, the intractable will behind this is not human.

Why do you continue to mis-represent the actual General Conference vote? It disallowed decision-making at the Division level and we were immediately reassured by GC leadership that it left things as they were, which was that ordination decisions are made at the Union level. It was NOT a referendum on the ordination of women, as you continue to claim.

Bravo to PUC and the SECC!!

Yes! Thank you, W. Schmidt!
I also must say, all these comments about asserting “power” over the “rebels” is scaring me- ordination is NOT power. Ordination is not biblical, it is man made. It is merely acknowledging that God has called a person to ministry as we dedicate their life and ministry to the Lord. EGW spoke AGAINST power. GC does not rule over conferences. We are set up democratically from the indicidual up, not dictatorially from the top down.

“Ordination is not biblical, it is man made.”
Wrong!
Why then do you perform this show “women ordination” if it’s not biblical? Ah, maybe you just try to demonstrate that it’s not biblical in your paradigm.
Well, you can do whatever you want, but ordination certainly is biblical. Of course if people neglect and profane its meaning then yes, that would be from man. But God, when choose someone for ministry used to sent His prophet and ordained this person through the prophet. Examples of it can be found in the Old testament.
Exactly the same thing can be found in the New testament among Apostles.
So please don’t tell fairytale to the people, don’t make people feel sorry for you.

Oh really. Then why did we spend all this money and go to all this trouble to say NOTHING! If one thing is clear to me and others like me who function in a world of plain dealing and talk, we are being led by men who cannot deal straight and talk straight. Why did we allow the GC to word this action as deceptively as they did?

Ordination decisions are to be made at the Union level, but let’s be clear that the criteria for the ordination candidates that the Union’s have to choose from is set at the General Conference level.

That is right. The criteria for ordination is set by the GC. And nowhere in the GC policy is being male a criteria for ordination.

Page 113 General Conference Working policy 2013-14
appointment to positions as chaplain, departmental directors, or pastors shall not be limited by race or color neither shall these be limited by gender except those requiring ordination to the gospel ministry.

George Orwell 1984 double speak. So the GC president rises to tell us that the vote changes nothing after overseeing it. What do these men take is for? There is no virtue in duplicity. Can the GC president tell us clearly what the vote at the GC accomplished in plain English and what it did not? Can he tell us what he and those entrusted with leadership intend to do about the actions of the PUC and the SECC? What does his office intend to do about the ordination of female Elders? Can we have ANY answers at all from the GC? It is not legit to be quiet when the church needs clarity and decision. It is equally not legitimate to make official by subtlety and craft that which the members in general reject. I think our leaders need to bite this bullet. If not, they are party to the design of this confusion machine.

“It disallowed decision-making at the Division level”
Instead of Division “level,” don’t you mean that the GC vote disallowed female ordination within the Division “territories,” which according to church policy and practice includes unions and conferences? Hence, leaving things “as they were” simply means what the GC Secretariat stated above. Hopefully, you can now see the need for, and logic behind, this well-argued article.

The GC vote was not a “yes” or “no” vote regarding WO. It was merely about whether Divisions could make provision for it within their territories.
However, there are unions and conferences where provision for WO has already been made. The GC votes does not affect that. Bottom line: the ordinations described in the article do not contradict the GC vote.

Yes, you have the facts about the voting question correct. For the record, do you see the PUC-SECC decision as a violation of the San Antonio vote? And out of curiosity, as an SDA minister receiving a salary from the denomination, are you in agreement with LLUC’s “ordination” service?

It cannot be a violation, because like I said (and you affirmed that I was correct), the vote was about whether Divisions could make provision for WO. The vote was not about WO directly, and thus it did not prohibit WO. Nor did it speak to those areas of the church where provision for it had already been made.
I am neither an employee nor a constituent of the LLUC, its conference, nor its union. Christ, our head, is leading those parts of the Body of Christ, and I choose to trust in his leadership and direction. If those who know this woman and who have witnessed up close the fruit of her ministry, have recognized the call of God on her life to the pastoral ministry, it is not for me to agree nor disagree. It is for me, only to focus on discerning the work of God in the place where he has put me. There is plenty there to keep me busy!

Interesting. You are the first male pastor I’ve engaged in a conversation who actually believes the GC vote on divisional autonomy doesn’t “prohibit WO” like Ponder’s at LLUC.

“The vote was not about WO directly, and thus it did not prohibit WO.”
Where did this great wisdom come from. The question:
“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?”
The answer was no. Not you as an individual or such pooled within territories can make those provisions. This would include any supporting, promoting, teaching or youth institution within solicitation of funds in name.
Just some thoughts. Why would we want anyone around our children that wished to promote their own opinions; against the wishes and votes of the Church? Is it not abuse and against Love, to allow such?
You state “it is not for me to agree nor disagree”; but then void that statement in opinion?

I like how you use argument to try to manipulate and disarm truth and those who support it. One has to give you credit for a well trained mind. Fortunately, what you are attempting cannot be done. Argument lost in heaven and it will lose here. The point is simple. It matters not how the GC motion was worded or how it is interpreted, God still reigns and He will ensure the truth triumphs. The Bible is clear, we cannot as a people have female church leadership at any level. Women can win souls and do Bible studies and good works but it is NOT their role to wield any authority over men. Psychologically emasculated men think it is progressive to abdicate their roles and give women a turn at the will but it is not progressive, it is dereliction of duty. This sleep walking psychosis may become cultural and well nigh universal but it does not take away male responsibility and accountability to God for leadership and protection at home and away. While this Satanically inspired circus is going on in the church, and the campaign for the carnalization of the church picks up momentum and its enemies both within and without celebrate our stupidity and impotence in failing to stop their attack, we must know this, the circular agenda will never save a soul. It is not the gospel nor is it present truth. Scripture is clear on all accounts and this is a call to the five wise virgins to wake up. The abomination that makes desolate is here and attempting to stand where it ought not. The attempt to make the Advent Movement the social movement is as sleek as it is aggressive. We may not be able to stop it without much pain, but it is important to know it for what it is. It is the abomination that makes desolate and it has already started both in the world and in the church. The power of the Bible is being placed on the back foot. We need to see the larger picture. The attempt to replace Divine Authority with human authority is comprehensive. Scripture is being replaced by the social agenda and political correctness in the world and in the church. The Adventist Church is just another frontier. Those acting this charade are aware of what they are doing. What we cannot do is credit them with any innocence. They know this will upset the church and they are not stupid. This is calculated. It is a plain daredevil attack or a Kamikaze attack on the remnant church. What life has taught me is those who act a part against the truth separate themselves from the spirit of truth and if we ignore them as a people and unite in giving the message we should be giving to the world, they will naturally whither and vanish. This is all about diverting us from giving the world a clear warning. Let us forget everything else and GIVE that warning. The point to watch is not give them any attention and support nor participate in their sin. The world church leadership must ensure a plain and clear statement is made about this and then disfellowship and ignore such satanic shenanigans. It takes no such political militancy to serve God acceptably.

“You are the first male pastor I’ve engaged in a conversation who actually believes the GC vote on divisional autonomy doesn’t ‘prohibit WO'”
Really?
I know a lot of male pastors who understand the wording of the GC vote.
The question asked was, is it appropriate for Divisions to make provision for WO. The question was not, is it appropriate for women to be ordained. Unfortunately, the article above is based completely on the false premise that the question asked was the latter.

Charity, the divisions are seperate organizational units than unions and conferences. The delegates of the GC session only have jurisdiction over the divisions, not over unions or conferences. These have their own constituencies. Just because the delegates did not consider it appropriate for divisions to make provision for WO, that does not speak to those areas where provision have already been made.
Let me give you an example. Imagine that, for whatever reason, a conference constituency session decides it does not want to make provision for an established Prison Ministries. This does not speak for individual local churches within the territory of the conference that have already established, or may choose to establish in the future, a prison ministry. Establishing a prison ministry at a local church is not a defiance of the conference vote not to establish prison ministries at the conference level.
However much you may wish otherwise, the GC vote in San Antonio did not prohibit WO.

“God still reigns and He will ensure the truth triumphs. ”
Amen. Noel, I agree with you on that point whole-heartedly!

Why do people make the same mistake over and over again: placing their own judgement above plain scripture and scriptural precedent. There are no female leaders of the church ANYWHERE in the Bible.

The fact that there are no female priests or apostles does not mean God never used women. He did, as prophets and ONCE as a prophetess/judge but not ONE PRIEST or APOSTLE in the organized system of ministry extant. We see from this that God has used women as mouthpieces of the Divine will but never as ministers of the tabernacle both in the Temple and in the church. So the Divine position is clear: God values the soul of a woman as much as He does that of a man; He, however, has seen feet to work with them differently. The women were never vested with Administrative authority be it as priests or as kings. Jdg 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. Jdg 4:5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. Jdg 4:8 And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.
Jdg 4:9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh. With men such as these one can understand why God would appoint women to judge and why He would give women the victory. God has used donkeys to say things that needed to be said when prophets lose it as in Balaam’s case. However, these are exceptions and the context reveals why. When men refused to be prophets as in Ellen White’s case: 3 men, God uses women but it is ever an indictment to men. When men become dishonorable, God has honored women instead and in every case the women concerned demonstrate clear deference to men. So, let me conclude: We object to WO because it has no Divine authority. The scripture says clearly men should serve in ministry: not women. Exceptions do not negate the norm. Making provision in defiance of the Bible does not mean they are right.

“However, there are unions and conferences where provision for WO has already been made.”
If your claim is accurate regarding the “already made” “provision for WO” such as Shirley Ponder’s ordination—the topic of this article—in whose Working Policy or Bylaw is there a constitutional “provision” allowing the ordination of women to pastoral ministry (WO)?

One weird thing at this last voting on GC happened when Mr.Willson stood up in 2 days after and began to explain to delegates what they were voting for.
And by doing that he actually put the validity of this voting under big question – did the delegates really know what they were voting for?
Or at least did that voting correspond to their expectation?
I guess it didn’t.

I am afraid it may not have been intended that they shall understand what it is they were voting on or how it would be understood and implemented. It could well have been so worded as to make it possible to interpret as some are doing. That is why the delegates should have insisted that the wording be changed to ensure that the will of the people is not abused. As in the world now, we do not need duplicitous leaders who play politics with truth and serve other agendas other than the truth. Whoever worded that motion intended to deceive the church and we should never allow it to be repeated. This whole enterprise is about truth not politics. “Not by might nor by power but by my Spirit saith the Lord” and the spirit directing this motion is not the Spirit of Truth and therein lies our problem. Maybe that is the point: what spirit is directing us and our leaders? It was Ellen White who clearly referred to the connection between spiritualism and feminism or the movement for women and clearly stated that the SPIRIT leading this movement was not in harmony with the SPIRIT leading the Advent movement. It was not the same spirit. It still is not the same.

I rather agree with you on that.
The voting question even by world standards should be expressed in plain simple way so the matter could be easily accessible to every single voter.
But if we examine the voting question we could notice that the first part of it has little in common with the second part. In fact, the second part was the core and could be voted alone with the same result.
But for some reason there was the first part added which didn’t add anything meaningful to the core and actually mis-leaded the delegates.
Just check it out.
Now we can see it clearly but back then, as I think, there was to much of celebration there and that didn’t help people to concentrate on what they’re doing.

Whoever worded that motion intended to deceive the church and we should never allow it to be repeated.
It is impossible possible to judge motive or intent. Yet I see that behavior a lot in church. That behavior can clearly be seen in the fall of Adam & Eve, which was the fall of human governance of earth. Lucifer used the same thought process to try to bring down God’s government in heaven. In fact, that deceitful thought process originated in his mind.
The result of sin is more blindness, which in this case would add blindness to words and actions that might be duplicitous. Presumption regarding motive, intent, or sentiment only serves to incite emotions of those one the other side. It makes rational discussion difficult. It leads to surmising. People may try wording things in such a way as to suggest improper motive behind a behavior, but their innuendo is really no different.
So we need to stick with pointing to visible actions and words of people. Nothing more needs to be said.

I am sorry but no GC wording is unintentional and we have a duty to read through it and the onus is on those who craft this motion to demonstrate their intent. Wording is intent. The intended outcome is exactly what it is. No gains lost, try for another round at making sure we win. I have been in this church long enough to know that intelligent men craft these motions, especially GC motions. We should not be made to feel we are being unfair to infer motive. It is all over the wording and procedures followed to achieve certain goals and we word things and bring them to the floor to achieve intentions. Facts talk and words talk. 3 times anything is sincere. This is the third time this matter has been brought to the floor and there is no intent? People who sit in meetings to come up with such divisive and upsetting motions must know what they are doing. They are nowhere near stupid. They are surrounded by church lawyers for crying out loud. No, there will be no apology for seeking out and pointing out what the facts reveal about the intentions of those who craft and commence them. The onus is on them to demonstrate that they are misunderstood.

God is leading. The threat or prediction of serious and dire consequences promised by President Wilson prior to the votes by the Columbia and Pacific Unions have turned out to be hollow or just plain wrong. Seeing this we should only anticipate more ordination of women to the gospel ministry. Practically, what can President Wilson do, given the strong support of WO at all levels between the GC and California with Presidents Jackson, Graham, and Roberts?

How can anyone be absolutely sure what Elder Wilson and GC officers have preplanned regarding “consequences” when the first ordination just took place yesterday?
My guess is that the public won’t see a response from the GC until early January, if that.
But even then no one can be sure of anything, other than the fact that the GC will react in some way to this blatant defiance against San Antonio’s no-vote decision. But I agree.
God is leading.
And so praise the Lord that there’s one thing the SDA Church can absolutely be sure of: God isn’t simultaneously “leading” the braintrust of the GC Session and PUC Secession.

Well said. God leads but if you can avoid falling foul of Him, please do. Never take a chance with that and never offer the strange of the social agenda on His altar and never show up at the temple drunk as some are doing. Certainly never show up with a Moabite woman. It has all been done before. Weaken them before you slay them. Remove his hare and tie his hands and ensure he does not know that God has left him.

I meant “remove his hair…” as with Samson. Whatever it is that makes us strong will be attacked.

How did we treat Kellogg when faced with his apostasy? The same needs to be done but not to destroy our brothers and sisters but to win them back! But pride, is the hardest of all sins.. You don’t know it!

He can make a statement clearly stating his own position on WO as God has impressed his conscience and initiate a leadership conference to address this administrative emergency. What he is doing is playing politics, wasting precious time and disarming the forces of truth by threatening to do something and doing nothing, all the while making those that would do something to wait for action that never comes. Time is everything in such matters. What he and his administration are doing may well turn out to be the worst kind of treason. It is the same as issuing a stand down order when the enemy is advancing. If there is another perspective on this please tell us and we will gladly apologize for misreading the situation. The question to be answered is: when leaders rebel against God, scripture and the highest authority of the church, should not the chief executive officer of the church execute the standing penalties for such behavior? Are there no mechanisms for effecting penalties for such blatant disregard for world church authority? Should not the GC call a constituency meeting in the Unions and Conferences concerned at clearly delineate the implications of such a decision and have a vote taken to ensure the voice of the people is the voice of their leaders? If the voice of the people is not the voice of the world the people should be given the option to vote to either remain Seventh Day Adventists or to leave and form another organization. What is not right is for people to be allowed to retain the name without the character of Seventh Day Adventism. It is a far better situation to have a few who rightly represent the name than to retain those who blatantly intend to change what the name represents.

It may well turn out that the GC leadership have a good reason for the inaction. I would be blessed to know it. It is obviously important that we retain cohesion and respect for the leadership of the church even if we disagree with their actions for the simple reason that we need to retain decency and order. It is a scriptural injunction. We can resolve nothing in chaos. We are going to have more of these if Satan has anything to do with this. The work and will to change our church is an ongoing project. We must make it clear to ourselves that we would rather retain our peace after we have spoken our piece and if the forces of change push until they have their way, we should pray for wisdom to not aid and abate them by disrespecting institutions and instruments of governance God has put in place just because they are abused by sitting officers. We must still seek change using the channels and tools that make for order and decency.

I meant to say that if the voice of the constituency is not in harmony with the voice of the world church in session, they should be given the option to form another church and relinquish the name. That is the right thing to do.

God is not always leading, but most certainly always serving.
If someone wants to be lost, he will be lost.
That’s why Satan had such a success in the Catholic congregation.
He managed to twist brothers minds so badly that they forgot what God were.
Doesn’t same picture we can observe with the woman ordination?
So it ‘s not worthy to calm yourself and people down with this “God leads”. The consequences of this mistake will be horrible.

Agree.

Proud of you SECC and PUC! Revival and reformation are marching forward! I am so glad that others can see Jesus in some of our churches. Treating ALL as equal in God’s eyes is a huge step.

Equal? Egalitarian? This is liberation theology and its mutant feminism. The attempt to change the spirit of this church into a social movement will fail. God does not lead cowards and wimps. There will be a revival of primitive godliness. There will be men and women of courage who can face the enemy in the name of God. This is crass feminism and there is a spirit in this that only God can successfully address. Satan himself is behind this activism and we need to be much in fasting and prayer.

This article is everything that is wrong in Adventism today.

I’m at a loss to understand why the very vocal opponents to women who inhabit this site don’t see the marked discrepancy between their position and Christ’s very egalitarian approach to women. I think if they could understand Paul’s writings in the context of his first century Greek culture, instead of having been filtered through 20 centuries of patriarchal church culture, they would recognize that he was trying to bring women from a status only slightly above the animals, into a full and equitable standing within the church.
God has called women. God continues to call women. Ordination, as Adventists typically understand the word, is simply a corporate recognition of that calling. If we choose to ignore God’s call on the basis of gender, I believe we do so at our peril.

Because we have failing Churches in the areas that promote such individual and separate ideologies? Because we have BIBLES and can read? Because we have not lost “First” Love? How many reasons do you need?
In alternate; why do we not have those raising fields of pastors and teaching others to do the same? The multitudes of devout have conviction and understand the importance; do you not represent those outside such bounds? Look around you; why is the world failing?
Why are you addicted to the endorphin of cause; any cause? Maybe instead we should be addicted to HIS Cause and Love others enough to bring them to HIM? Maybe HIS PLAN is better than our plan; do the failures not prove such?

Thanks Charity, well said.

No Sir, our salvation and that of the world has never been nor will it ever be predicated on the doctrine of SOCIAL JUSTICE. Jesus died unfairly treated; the whole thing was unjust but we are saved none the less. The idea that there will be no salvation or success in the work assigned to us until there is gender justice in the world and in the church is just the same satanic nonsense that is turning the world into a chaotic mess. To define social justice as the gospel is false and an attempt to supplant the gospel. We are saved by sacrifice. We are not saved by justice but by injustice. Jesus was not fairly treated. He sought neither recognition nor authority over people. He made Himself of no reputation. He gave Himself. He died for the sins He had NOT committed. He did not seek a higher place for Himself. If nothing else, the spirit of this thing is so foreign to that of the Savior. God is NOT leading this faminist attack on the order in the church because the SPIRIT of this movement is essentially contrary to the doctrine of the cross which sought not JUSTICE but mercy. This gender self seeking is patently anti and ante Christ.

God has a right to do as He pleases with what is His but He has never altered things that have gone out of His mouth nor has He changed praxis as it relates to sacred office. The highest women ever went in terms of appointment was as a PROPHET, that is, as God’s voice. It is not necessary for a woman to be ordained to be a prophet. No prophet ever sought institutional recognition, title or office. We have no female priests, apostles or kings. There is no Divine precedent. Please give me one example of a woman called to Pastoral or priestly office in the Bible, just one.If God never did it in the past, what makes you think He will do it today? “Full and equitable standing….” Liberation theology and faminism again. Where in the Bible is gender equity ever a basis for Divine calling? Where in the whole new testament is a woman’s “ordination” ever done? Did Christ ever lay hands on any woman and appoint her to any office? Did the apostles ever lay hands on a woman anywhere in scripture? If there is no scriptural imperative, what spirit is suddenly pushing this agenda for “equality” in the Remnant church, pray tell? God? or is it the world? I am saying it is the world and I am saying friendship with the world is enmity with God and we have no nexus with the world. Those who love the world can join it and do as they please there but they have no place in Adventism. Wrong place for a secular agenda. Adventism is sacred space.

God has called women in the past. Correct. To what positions? And why?

Instead of the apostasy of Kellogg, who Ellen White and others tried to win back on several occasions, the better example might have been the apostasy of Korah, when “the glory of the Lord appeared to all the congregation” (Num. 16:19).
If you recall, God never charged Moses, the man of His appointment, with the sin of pride during the showdown between God’s true and false ministers. The prophet of the Lord says the charge of pride was solely reserved for Korah and his ready helpers:
“Do not the same evils still exist that lay at the foundation of Korah’s ruin? Pride and ambition are widespread; and when these are cherished, they open the door to envy, and a striving for supremacy; the soul is alienated from God, and unconsciously drawn into the ranks of Satan. Like Korah and his companions, many, even of the professed followers of Christ, are thinking, planning, and working so eagerly for self-exaltation that in order to gain the sympathy and support of the people they are ready to pervert the truth, falsifying and misrepresenting the Lord’s servants, and even charging them with the base and selfish motives that inspire their own hearts. By persistently reiterating falsehood, and that against all evidence, they at last come to believe it to be truth. While endeavoring to destroy the confidence of the people in the men of God’s appointment, they really believe that they are engaged in a good work, verily doing God service.” Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 403-404.
Sound familiar?

This resply was to Timothy’s statement: “How did we treat Kellogg when faced with his apostasy? The same needs to be done but not to destroy our brothers and sisters but to win them back! But pride, is the hardest of all sins.”

I wonder why God created me and the other 1/2 of the world’s population without worth in the eyes of my church. What about me renders me useless in leadership and ministry? What have I done that is so offensive. Indeed this fight is all about pride and position and power and guess who is wielding that power in a way that deprives women of the joy of having a significant role within the church. I guess there is all the fun of having babies and serving potluck!

I’m male and I’m not ordained, so by your logic I am also without worth. 99% of member would be without worth.
Ordination doesn’t give someone worth. Ordination isn’t required for ministry. Ordination isn’t required for leadership. Ordination isn’t required for a significant role in the church. The authority of those who who are ordained elders is actually far less than the vast majority of members realize. It’s just that many that are ordained have been usurping power at many levels. They are ignoring their real responsibilities and playing politics. And the example they are setting is causing members to do the same.
You ask what it is about you that render you useless in leadership and ministry? Not your sex, as neither of those responsibilities require ordination. However you are useless as long as you make yourself equal to God. You do that when you claim to know other peoples motive. I can say that because you claim the “fight” is all about pride and position of power and wielding that power to deprive women of joy. My motive is not about pride and power. What will be offensive is if you keep misrepresenting me and trying to attribute motive to everyone.

Sometimes it is not necessary to attribute motive. It is blatant. What people intend is in their words and actions and while we many not know ALL there is to know, understanding others is a daily thing. We say, “I get it” everyday. It is not a sin. We decode what others intend, their motives everyday in order to function with them. What becomes bad is not reading their motives from their words and actions but condemning THEM. We have a duty to read intentions and ask whether what we read is correct. We have a duty to be honest when dealing with people. When we are not, for their own safety people have a duty to analyze our actions and words together to catch the drift and hold us up to the light and ask, “Do I smell smoke?” The bottom line if we are not honest and plain simple with people, they would be fools to not read into our actions and ask us to explain ourselves plainly. Another thing, Lorraine, I suppose a folk can ask a knife what it is about the folk that renders it useless and worthless in handling food since the knife is handled and used differently. God has elected to use women differently in His business. What about that renders them worthless and useless? It all has a lot to do with lies: lies like different is unequal and unfair.

“The office of elder is in the Bible limited to spiritually qualified males”
There is not a single official doctrinal statement from the Seventh-day Adventist Church that makes that assertion.
It is the conviction of many within our church, of course. But it is not our official position, and in fact such an assertion goes against official church policy.

Church Manual (2010) page 68:
“A bishop [elder] then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.”
The whats and whys are pretty explicit.

It is not about clarity but militancy and this Hitler putsch against the church will not stop of itself. There is nothing in the PUC that cares about the world church or leadership. They will FORCE the church to bow the knee to this foreign spirit which is so abysmally recalcitrant and obstinate. We are not dealing with people but a spirit in people.

Truly so, amen!
And the gloomiest sign of it – the people persistently avoid to accept direct meaning of the Biblical text in its context. There is no way to reach the people’s common sense because they simply pervert the Bible teaching in sake of their ideas and goals.
In such situation only full and urgent aseptic could save the remnant from the total spiritual devastating (at least in this part of the world).
Because I’m afraid that this decease is already rooted way to deep into all structures of this division and the time for conservative treatment is lost.
I wish I was wrong on this..

The Pacific Union is not forcing anyone to do anything. They did not force the SECC to ordain anyone. Nor are they forcing anyone to be ordained in any territory outside of their own.
In what reasonable way can they be described as “forcing.” They are simply acknowledging the calling that has already been given by God to this woman.

What a delusive language you use – “calling that has already been given by God to this woman.”
Is that really God’s will for women to be dressed in men’s suit? or be ordained as men?
Do you have any proof to put on the top of your words?
Because next time someone could ordain an animal and call it God’s will, and how would you buy that?

It is God’s will to call to the pastoral ministry whomever he pleases. And Scripture bears witness that time and time again, God pleases to call those whom most people would not expect!
“Because next time someone could ordain an animal and call it God’s will, and how would you buy that?”
If you are unable to recognize the fundamental difference between a woman, created in the image of God, and an animal…that’s just sad.

Fernando, even if there were no single statement on this matter, the Bible is clear on this: husbands only for leadership positions. How does it happen that in the whole of the SECC we have no men worth the pants they wear who can lead? The PUC is forcing their will on the WORLD CHURCH by doing something the church in session has repeatedly said no to however it has been repeatedly worded.

Since when does God requires us to acknowledge a violation of scripture by laying on of hands?

It is God’s will to call to the pastoral ministry whomever he pleases.
🙂
I don’t think you’re right. Just think it again more thoroughly. Have you ever meet people in ministry whose career choice was apparently wrong?
God just bless’s or not someone personal choice, but decision is up to a person. And some times mistakes happen.
And Scripture bears witness that time and time again, God pleases to call those whom most people would not expect!
Do you mean, to be a pastor? I humbly disagree again.
“Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.”
That’s how it started back then and how it still goes now.
By the way, according to the text, who had to be chosen there? 🙂
If you are unable to recognize the fundamental difference between a woman, created in the image of God, and an animal…that’s just sad.
I can see the difference as well as you can, but that’s beside the point.
It doesn’t make difference how much you have to steal in order to be called a thief, $10 or $1M .
And equally true that it doesn’t matter of whom to choose to be ordained – women, homosexual or an animal. Because this is trespassing of God’s will in any case, even if they think that this is a God’s call.
And I haven’t see any proof of calling this women by God in your answer.
And that’s sad because the order of ordaining men only was firstly established in Mosses’ low by direct command of God.
And then it was confirmed by Paul when he commanded to ordain men only for the elders positions.
And violation of this rule can be accepted only if we have a REAL proof from God that this is surely His holy will.
And the level of this proof should be as high as the giving the God’s low at mount Sinai. Well, maybe nor that high, but is should be impressive for sure.
Simple calling this violation “God’s call” without proof wouldn’t be sufficient and it rather looks like a blasphemy.
Just think of it, this is the serious issue.

What makes you think God will disregard the vote of the church whose clear intention was that no such actions as these be taken and ACKNOWLEDGE a calling against the vote of the world church? “Force” is an appropriate word because this actions is unilateral and the church has to accept it or lump it.

Ummm…that quote does not originate from the Church Manual. It is actually a quote from 2 Tim 3. And the quote does not limit the elder ministry to males. That is why official church policy is that women can be ordained as elders.

When the Bible says Elders must be husbands and able to order their own house, how is that not definitive and conclusive? And unless my Bible is different from yours. 2 Timothy 3, the whole chapter, says nothing of the kind.

You are saying something there Villegas. You have a point. May be we need to make that a doctrine at the next General conference if the Lord is not here yet. There is enough scripture to support it and votes to boot. “All sacred ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE shall be retained as the responsibility of males as there is NO BIBLICAL support for that role to be gender inclusive”! And then we put it in the church manual. No more room for confusion. Those who do not like the doctrine can form another church. They are welcome.

Seems like a good idea to me. If anyone is interested in doing that, page 19 of the Church Manual (2010 version) states:
If a local church, conference, or union conference/mission wishes to propose a Church Manual revision, it should submit its proposal to the next constituent level for counsel and study. If that level approves the proposal, it submits the suggested revision to the next level for additional evaluation. If the various levels approve the proposal, it eventually comes before the General Conference Church Manual Committee, which considers all recommendations.
I sometimes wonder why this hasn’t happened.

The next step would be lawsuits about assets. Wouldn’t that be a pretty sight?

Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (4th Cir. 1985)
“The right to choose ministers without government restriction underlies the well-being of religious community, for perpetuation of a church’s existence may depend upon those whom it selects to preach its values, teach its message, and interpret its doctrines both to its own membership and to the world at large.” 1167-68
Words of Wisdom. It is discriminatory to assume influence or self interpretation, both to the denomination and the multitudes of individuals within that Body; HIS Body.

This thread hurts my heart. The utter vitriol. The prideful judgment. Jesus said they would know us by our love. How is it that some of you are elevating this topic to a Fundamental Belief? Higher than a Fundamental Belief! Your thesis is–“Agree with me or you are demonic and going to hell!” Really? How is that the fruit of the Spirit? So sad.

The utter vitriol. The prideful judgment.
Sorry to tell you this, but your accusation is unfair.
The discussed issue in this topic and the site at large is extremely important. If man is not the head of woman, then Jesus is not the Head of the Church, according to the Bible. Do you see how important it is?
And love in this discussion is undeniably presented, this is the love to Truth.
So if reading of this hurts your heart, then you have two option – either don’t read it, or be patient, listen carefully and learn what the people say here. Eventually it helps you to find the Truth in this discussion – well, if the love to Truth is more important to you than your feelings. Or let’s to rephrase it this way – if Jesus is more important to you than your feelings.
May God bless you in this!

“And love in this discussion is undeniably presented, this is the love to Truth.”
Love to Truth, which is love to Jesus (I agree with you completely on that) is demonstrated by our love to people. That is all over the NT, in passages such as Mat 25 and 1 Jn 4.
You have here people such as Noel, who has compared supporters of WO to Hitler. That is not love to his brothers and sister in Christ, whom he can see; much less is it love to Jesus, whom he cannot see. “Utter vitriol” is an entirely fair, as well as accurate, accusation of such a statement.
To be fair, such statements are not characteristic of everyone here who opposes WO. But even a few of such statements poison the conversation, and have no place whatsoever in a discussion between brothers and sisters in Christ.

The comparison to Hitler and his spirit and methods that brought him to power is very accurate. Please read the history of the rise of Hitler and the forces and methods behind and them research the history of the WO movement. God below the surface. Same spirit. Truth is not vitriol. Hitler lost elections and marches but that did not stop him in his desire to take over Germany and the rest is history. He would not take no for an answer and pushed his way to victory. Sorry but truth has to be told. The supporters and movers may be deceived but the architects are not. Not everybody but those who love the truth are our brothers and sisters. Those that would breed chaos in the church and confusion in the minds of the people and insist on their way no matter what place no burden on my heart for their fellowship. Enemies of the truth are not brothers and sisters. The Bible uses far more serious comparisons for such behavior. But, that is not the point and so do not appeal to our emotions and sentimentalism. What we are saying is the Spirit and methods of WO have historical parallels and the comparison is apt.

It is not a fundamental belief. It is an attempt to torpedo the whole of our global institutional unity. It is the most determined and overt attack on our integrity to date. What you are saying is deceptively simplistic and inaccurate. You obviously do not perceive that one official public scripture violation destroys our credibility just when we need it most. The world will not let us get away with this. In courts of Law and very soon, it will scuttle us. Please do not be sentimental about this. The people creating this misdirection of the church are not sentimental people.

Love is never a pretext for scriptural infractions.

These developments are most exciting. Surely time is at hand and the Lord’s coming is closer than we think! “The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out–the chaff separated from the precious wheat. This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place.–2SM 380 (1886). {LDE 180.5}
As the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the third angel’s message, but have not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, abandon their position and join the ranks of the opposition.–GC 608
This is happening today!
Who is chaff and who is wheat?- time will prove. But it does not take much to see the rebellious attitude of these leaders in going against the world church’s decision. Even if WO was permitted in the scriptures, this action of working against the world church shows their un-Christ like attitude. It exposes their desire to exalt their opinions above that of the world church. Can these people still serve God without being ordained? Can they still spread the good news and prepare a people ready to meet Jesus? Can the great commission be carried out by those not ordained? But by ordaining women even after the church’s decision at San Antonio these leader have proved of what spirit they are being led.
“There is a most decided work that needs to be done in our churches throughout the field. There has been in many places a lack of cooperation and harmonious action, but if the workers will now lay aside their personal ambitions and prejudices, and will all draw unitedly in Bible lines, a change will be wrought among our people. {5MR 132.1}

The church’s decision at San Antonio was not to prohibit WO. The vote was not a “yes” or “no” vote on WO. It was on whether or not divisions could make provision for it. But even before the San Antonio vote, both the SECC and the PUC had already made provision for it within their territories. The San Antonio vote did not affect that.
As was repeated quite emphatically in the immediate aftermath of the vote, nothing has changed. Sadly, it appears the question was carefully crafted to ensure that precise result, to maintain the status quo. Regardless, the ordination referred to in the article was most definitely not an act of rebellion.

Thanks Villegas for your honesty. Much appreciated. The question was intentionally crafted to produce this result. What I would ask you my brother is this: was this ordination in compliance with the criteria for ordination applicable worldwide. If not, how is it legal and not an infraction and that is putting it mildly? They could not have been unaware of the vote in San Antonio. How is that not a daring rebellious statement. These are University people and at a premier Adventist Institution. How could they not have known this was not in harmony with the spirit of the vote in San Antonio?

On the very day this tragedy was unraveling, a packed crowd of SDA met in the nearby Loma Linda Academy auditorium to hear Steve Wolberg’s presentation of Islam in the Bible that included details of the three woes; two past; third upon us. We met outside the official sanctuary but had solid SDA doctrines inside. In addition, to my sadness during my last visit to a LL doctor, I stopped by the student bookstore. Sadly, 90% of SDA books have been removed from the student bookstore and some placed, disrespectfully in so-so bookcases in a corner of the nextdoor grocery store. The student bookstore even had a book of the month suggestion — secular. I felt so sad . . . now I feel sadder about what was happening in the U church while I was being fed in a green SDA pasture nearby. Who makes these decisions? Where were the SDA watchmen? If it is like the teachers’ union at our school, the top officers’ positions/decisions and pipeline to these positions are very tightly controlled by the officers in power. Is this the situation in LL, SECC, and PUC? Situation looks very familiar to 31-year public school veteran, me. The majority of teachers (opinions and decisions) are powerless in most union controlled public schools by a minority who have a lock on power (via union/labor law/dues). I thought I left secular ways when I retired and became SDA 11 years ago; bang – I’m in the same situation. I thought I joined a world church and its doctrines.

You have it right. It is a comprehensive make over of the church and soon we will not even know nor care why we ever existed. We are in the middle of a terrible battle for the soul of Adventism and some of our leaders and members world wide are caught between sleep and inebriation. We all need to understand what this is. It is not theology or justice. It is destruction of our place and mission in the world. God ALONE is our hope and help and he does nothing with cowards. If we negate scripture in one place for monetary and social advantages and seek to dishonestly justify it we fall a prey to the carnivores of hell. They will march into Jerusalem with our help and take out Samson’s eyes and defile the temple and cast the truth to the ground and prosper. Thank God it will not happen. Instead, there is coming a revival of the Bible and the Bible only. Thank God for that fourth angel!

Fernando wrote: “I know a lot of male pastors who understand the wording of the GC vote.”
Whatever your conclusion about the question on whether or it was “appropriate for Divisions to make provision for WO,” only one official fact now matters and remains indisputable:
Because for a third time the vote was “No,” women are still not permitted to occupy headship roles in the church—on the basis that no provision was made for such ordinations.

“whether or not. . .”

Unfortunately this is not so for executives of GC. On behalf of them Mr.Willson acknowledged at the end of GC session that they’re going to follow direction of Annual Counsel documents, which allows to appoint women as elders in local communities.

Yes, point taken. I could have been more specific and clarified this nuance.

So, a GC in session decision is still hostage to an annual council decision? And as for scripture the General Conference President does not even refer to it. So we proceed with violation of scripture….trying to understand it still.

🙂
Well..were we’re trip, there we’re slip.
Speaking of the root of the issue… any decision from outside has as much authority as you willing them to grant. That’s why the WO issue is not a big deal for me personally, because I just don’t accept any woman as pastor or elder and that would be it.
But as for unity of believers it does hurt. It makes obvious devision in between them. But that slightly beside the point.
In case with the leaders of GC we have the situation when “Those who pay for the orchestra, select the music”.
And it started in SDA Church not today and not even last decades. The precedent happened in Healdsburg, California in 1885, when J.N.Waggoner and J.N. Lounghborough dismissed the meeting and called it “delusion” and “fanaticism”. And all of the delegates had to leave the place.
AT the same time G.I Butler, being GC President, restricted the work of N.Y. meeting supposedly because of the luck of funds.
By the way, both of those acts were denounced by E.G.White.
So actual power over GC decisions factually belongs to administrators.
If they don’t want you to vote something, you’re not going to vote it.
And last several decades of chewing the WO topic without bringing straight definition to vote is a vivid proof of it.
(IMHO)

No provision can be made by the divisions. That is it. That is the only official fact. But that fact does not negate the other official fact that provision has already been made for it at union and conference levels.
As I explained to someone earlier, just because a conference does not desire to establish a conference-wide Prison Ministry does not mean that individual local churches cannot do so, even though those churches are within the conference territory. In the same way, just because the delegates of the GC session chose not to allow divisions to make provision for WO (divisions do not have their own constituencies), that does not mean that individual unions and conferences cannot do so, as long as there are no official doctrinal nor policy prohibitions against it.
Words matter. The wording of the question voted on in San Antonio matters. You simply cannot spin the vote as a rejection of WO. It wasn’t.

What was it? The voted what and what was the practical implication? Please NOTE: the ordination of women in no way compares to prison ministry. WO is a violation of scripture and THAT is a sinful act. Prison ministry violates no scripture text. Do not conflate them.

The problem is that is how it was understood by the delegates who voted. I spoke to many of them. They were voting for or against WO. In their minds tat was supposed to be the end of it but it clearly wasn’t because of the WORDING of the question which in my view was intended to leave the issue alive for another visit and manifestation. The wording was definitely intended to mislead and retain all the gains until San Antonio and post San Antonio and that was achieved.

The best way to not overlook things like that is to never presume an intent that hasn’t been communicated. 🙂 When one simply looks at actions of others, in this case communication, only for what it is then they will be less likely to miss a problem such as that.
Very interesting to me that so many delegates made that mistake.
1 Corinthians 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.
Sin causes blindness, blindness causes us to no longer be able to see the details. Blindness is not necessarily a complete lack of eyesight as many presume, but a loss in the ability to see detail well enough to complete a task properly.

Mat 22:16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Mat 22:17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
Mat 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
Luk 20:23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?
The essence of deception is the concealment of intent. The benefit of having God is the revelation of intent. To think that evil intention will be clearly stated is the lexical definition of naivety. The best way to define anything is by what is actually done, the fruit, the outcome, the subsequent actions and we are right to read intent from what is being done. It is called perception. If we are wrong to see in the words of people what they intend, they have the privilege and restating and rephrasing what they intend. We are listening. We will apologize if out fears so not materialize. In this case thought, I do not think that will be necessary. This matter is not being decisively resolved because it is not be phrased decisively and it is not as though the lawyers and Phds in this church need to pass English 101.

Sorry for the typos. People always have the option and privilege of restating what they intend us to understand. And it is noble to apologize for misunderstanding which I do not think will fall necessary in this case. Persistent actions reveal characteristics which reveal direction and intent. We must state clearly what we see in those actions and in those words and if we are wrong, then the onus is on the one doing and saying things to clarify what it is they REALLY want to achieve, what they want us to understand. So far, we are seeing something that will not go away and it is not being resolved because it is NOT PHRASED in such a manner at to lend itself to a decisive resolution. We proceed and state further that it is not intended that we shall resolve this matter comprehensively and decisively. How come? Because a simple wording of the matter can resolve it. It is NOT POSSIBLE that the lawyers of this church and its administrators cannot construct simple sentences in English.

Noel Masvosvere,
You wrote: The essence of deception is the concealment of intent. The benefit of having God is the revelation of intent.
I agree with the first sentence. I disagree on the next, but I can see how one could come to that conclusion. I would have agreed with you at one time.
I’ll edit that sentence to: “The benefit of ~~having~~ being God is the revelation of intent”. Jesus could see the intent of others because he also had the gift of prophecy.
I agree that evil intention isn’t going to be stated, and that fruit is the action. However a person’s action doesn’t reveal their intent because someone with good intent can act exactly like someone with bad intent. Therefore only God can judge intent. However we can judge action, so no matter how they rephrase their intent it won’t escape you and I both calling W.O. open sin.
“Christ has plainly taught that those who persist in open sin must be separated from the church, but He has not committed to us the work of judging character and motive.” COL 71
And it is possible for lawyers to have good intentions and yet be blind to their actions. Saul of Tarsus.

So we prohibited the Divisions from doing what? And, how do we prohibit the leaders of this church from doing something and permit it at lower levels? How sound is that and I thought one of the benefits of spiritual people is they have a “sound mind”?

You certainly have a point about motives not being always revealed by words and actions but when you have repeated actions and words and the outcome is confusion and a prolonging of the same, then you ask yourself whether the result of their actions and words is lost to the perpetrators and movers of certain actions. In this case I do not see that the effect of these actions are lost to the people pushing for WO. It is gracious to leave people in a space where their motives are noble but I have lived long enough to know people can have intentions that are NOT noble and I have found it safe to not evade that possibility and to treat repeated actions in their most obvious mischievous nature. Satan is a sleek and smooth, bold and brazen bully all at once depending on the stakes. So, the sooner we can let people know what we see in their actions the better for them too. Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. The reality is the people who are pushing this agenda among others are tenacious and a timid church will not resolve this mischief whether intended or not.

Fernando wrote: “Charity, the divisions are seperate [sic] organizational units than unions and conferences.”
Looks like you may need to reread your General Conference Working Policy, since all unions, unions of churches, and entities directly attached to the General Conference in all the world are not at all organizationally “separate” but are in fact “united in the General Conference organization.” So it appears you’re not quite up to date on how the General Conference, and each Union and Conference unitedly—never separately—operate, interrelate, cooperate and delegate a “grouped together” administrative entity.
Here’s just a tiny sample and some food for thought:
B 40 15 Unions United in General Conference—As the churches unite in the local, mission, conference or union of churches for mutual help and cooperation in service, so the conferences/missions/fields grouped together unite in the union conference or union mission. In like manner the unions, unions of churches, and entities directly attached to the General Conference in all the world are united in the General Conference organization. For the more efficient administration of the worldwide work, the organized unions, unions of churches, and any mission fields not included in the unions in great continental or geographical sections are set apart by constitutional provision as divisions of the General Conference.
B 40 20 Divisions a Part of General Conference—The larger and more extensive the work of these divisions, and the less dependent any may become upon help from other divisions in the way of personnel or material support, the greater the necessity of holding closely together in mutual counsel and fellowship. It is ever to be held in mind that each division is a part of the General Conference. In the church of Christ, which is His body, there can be no such thing as one part or member independent of the whole. No division, therefore, is free to pursue a course of action contrary to the will of the whole, or to appropriate to itself the authority of the General Conference in defense of such action. Between sessions of the General Conference, the General Conference Executive Committee is constitutionally the final authority throughout the world field.
B 40 25 Unity Within Divisions—As the divisions seek to cooperate with one another by keeping in close contact with the General Conference, carrying out the General Conference policies agreed upon in council, so within the division all the organizations, union or local, should seek to maintain unity of action by keeping in close contact and counsel with the division office, carrying out policies agreed upon in division councils and executive committees.
B 40 30 Division President—Duties and Relationships—The president of the division is the first officer placed in general administrative oversight of all activities in the division. As a vice president of the General Conference he is an officer of the General Conference, responsible to that body for administration of the work according to plans and programs voted by the General Conference Session and/or the General Conference Executive Committee and according to plans and policies agreed upon by the executive committee of the division, of which he is chair. It is his duty to stand as counselor to the officers of unions or attached missions/local fields, as well as to those in charge of division departments and institutions.
I’ll have to stop here or get cutoff for too many characters.

Imagine with me the following scenario:
At a conference constituency session, the question is brought before the delegates:
Should the XYZ Conference make provision for establishing a conference-wide Prison Ministry (appoint a departmental director, establish a budget, etc).
For whatever reason, the delegates vote “No.”
A few local churches within the territory of that conference, however, see a need for a prison ministry in their communities. They sense a burden that God is leading them in that direction, and thus they establish these ministries locally.
My question to you is: are these churches rebelling against the decision by the conference constituency not to make provision for a Conference-wide prison ministry?

Fernando wrote: “My question to you is: are these churches rebelling against the decision by the conference constituency. . .”
Perhaps the most effective method to assess the LLUC situation (and all subsequent unofficial “ordination” services) is to reintroduce a recent statement from our GC Executive Committee, when the inflammatory term “rebellion” was left out—”rebellion” is in fact the GC Working Policy term when an apostate “organization refuses to operate in harmony with denominational policies and constitutional requirements (B 95 05)—even though it’s possible that this same sentiment was intended when more subtle terms like dissent and self-determination were employed:
General Conference Annual Council 2012 Statement
“This subject [the ordination of women to pastoral ministry] has been on the global agenda of the Church at General Conference Sessions for several decades. Thus far the General Conference Session (by actions in 19903 and 19954) has chosen the pathway of uniform practice worldwide–ministerial ordination for males only. A recurring question is whether or not the authority to grant ministerial ordination without regard to gender could be granted to divisions without making the provision mandatory everywhere. Several unions in various parts of the world have voiced support for this kind of change in ministerial ordination practices. Three union constituency sessions have authorized their executive committees to approve ministerial ordination without regard to gender. Of these, two have recently chosen to proceed according to the constituency decision.
“Decisions to pursue a course of action not in harmony with the 1990 and 1995 General Conference Session decisions (with respect to ministerial ordination) represent not only an expression of dissent but also a demonstration of self-determination in a matter previously decided by the collective Church. The General Conference Executive Committee regards these actions as serious mistakes. They directly challenge two world Church decisions on the matter of ordination. They create doubts about the importance of collective decision-making as a basic feature of denominational life. They weaken the fabric of Church life and operations by giving opportunity for other entities to follow this example in order to justify independence and autonomy in other matters rather than maintaining a mutual commitment to collective decision-making.
“The world Church cannot legitimize practices that clearly contradict the intent of General Conference Session actions. This applies to ordination decisions as well as to other matters in which a local organization may feel constrained not just to voice its disagreement with the world Church but to proceed along a pathway that directly conflicts with the expressed will of the worldwide Church.
“Accordingly, the world Church does not recognize actions authorizing or implementing ministerial ordination without regard to gender. . .
“The General Conference Executive Committee appeals to all organizations–local churches, local conferences/missions, unions, institutions and divisions–to consider thoughtfully the impact and implications of decisions beyond the boundaries of each entity’s territory of operations. General Conference Working Policy, the Church Manual, and General Conference Session decisions are designed to assist the Church in demonstrating the unity for which Jesus prayed and at the same time to provide a structure that advances the gospel commission in every part of the world.”

On a separate matter, I would like to ask you respectfully that you speak to me as an adult, not as a child who needs “remedial” help. I am a third-generation Adventist, an ordained pastor with over sixteen years of service, and a departmental director. I am very familiar with our organizational structure and how the denomination works together.
You don’t have to agree with me. But please, let’s have this discussion as adults. Please address the substance of my arguments directly, instead of quoting random passages from the Working Policy that I agree with and that do not contradict a single point I have made, because you think I don’t know how the denomination is structured.

You create a straw man model in the question above. Does it not assume individual or pooled interpretation? In alternate; can the individuals not pool outside the Church and visit prisons?
Does this not remove the providership and protection of the Body (and maybe sort of remove GOD) in the decision? Maybe no fruits would come from the effort or maybe many might be hurt in a riot? Does this not assume that we might know better than HE (and maybe assume some control over the Spirit)?
We appreciate all efforts for HIM; but does this create some “privilege”? Should the conviction of individuals or pooled ever override the sum conviction of the Body? Should sound justification not be required within such exceptions? Should the Body not be easily convicted to and within such exceptions? Has any of this happened?
Just some questions to think about.

Just help me out here, never mind as adults, my brother because after all your credentials, you still think that Conferences and Unions that belong to a world organization built to function as one whole speaking one thing and of one mind to one world as Paul says we should in your own Bible that you have used for three generations, sixteen years of experience and a position as a departmental director: after all that, you think there is no contradiction in unions and conferences acting unilaterally. What really is your point? How does this action foster global unity?

(Fernando, just so you don’t think I’m ignoring your thoughtful responses, I’ve attempted at least four times now to reply to your question on “churches rebelling against the decision,” but for some reason they’ve not posted. So I gave up, just in case my comments were in some way inappropriate for OT moderators, which I can of course respect without quibble.)

“The trust of the world church has been betrayed.” Really? The issue of the ordination of women in the SDA church may represent an advance in our church as part of the preparation to carry the final message to be taken to the world – the truth about God’s character. The enemy has been using this as a way to divert attention from the real mission for this church, called at a particular time and place, a part of God’s Remenant people, to bring new light to the world. The GC has been presented with a tough situation, due more to multicultural issues than theological. To try to exert ecclesiastical authority over any union conference on this issue will go badly. As I read this article and subsequent comments, I was reminded that throughout history, some of the greatest resistance against God’s true work has been from the clergy, probably chosen by Satan to be especially targeted to harm the church. This does not have to be that way once again. It is up to the GC, working with the union conferences to find a path to move forward that recognizes the needs and cultural context of the people (the real church) that will not trample and alienate many church members. As is probably obvious, I take the position that women’s ordination is acceptable in those parts of the world where it is not culturally offensive. The theological arguments against WO seem anemic. No time to become Pharisees. There have been too many of these. It is time to move forward and fill the Gospel Commission.

The problem we have with most of North America and Europe is they long ago lost sight of the conflict over truth and the issues involved in the great controversy. Therefore to begin….where does one begin to explain that the issues are critical and that we CANNOT move on to anywhere without making serious adjustments to how we do God’s business. How do we explain that the church is being seduced and violated. To obey is better than sacrifice…..How does one even begin to clarify what it means to people who believe in culture and needs? The Bible is not about our needs. It is about the will of God. The trouble is how does one even begin to shift focus towards God when it is now all about us and our needs and our culture,,,,,,?

God can only have a people that are one people if they have one spirit and one mind. If we all insisted that our culture determines our interpretation of truth we would not have a world church.

Dr. Utt: You seem to define cultural context as it is in your head. Note that about half of the GC speakers from North America spoke against WO. So, cultural context in selected pews of selected SDA churches? Your blanket “cultural context” cannot be laid over North America or any other continent. The greatest resistance to God’s work is this pastors/leaders attempt to break the world church into independent congregational ministries, each going their own cultural context way: WO, Creation, LBGTQ as decons, and other “cultural context” issues to follow. I joined a world church 11 years ago; I studied and support all doctrines. I do not appreciate Loma Linda U Church pastor/leaders deciding to march to the tune in their heads rather than the world church vote. I did not join the church of Randy Roberts, Joel Osteen, or Rick Warren. I joined the SDA world church.

Amen.

This is all really quite a moot argument as conferences have been allowed freedom to ordain women prior to the GC vote, which didn’t say conferenced couldn’t make the decision, but rather Divisions, which are much larger entities that could possibly force the conferences under their jurisdiction to ordain women against their faithful beliefs. Again, this in no way has limited individual conferences from ordaining women but rather sets a precedence that prevents those in much higher levels with larger areas from dictating what smaller conferences can do in this very passionate and truly distracting subject.
In all honesty God would rather us have women ordained and this argument over with than let Satan continue to distract our Church from its true mission – to spread the Gospel message by reaching out to the broken hearted and spreading the LOVE of Christ to every man, woman, and child instead of bickering HATE between ourselves. Every one here should be ashamed for giving Satan the fodder he needs to keep us from God’s true calling for us.

We are trying to spread the Word. We are trying to be the strong beacon to the world. But the rebellious few keep interfering; as we watch the areas of rebellion fail.
Is it toooo much to ask, especially for those professing conviction, to submit to will and vote of the Body of the Church; to save the Church (and multitudes out there that need the Word). We should have those that understand the importance of raising fields of pastors and teaching others to raise fields of pastors, not this; whatever “this” is. The multitudes of others (creating your own little separate class by your own actions) have more than sufficient conviction to know better.

Well said.

Since this is probably news to many of us in this conversation, do you by chance have any documented evidence that “conferences have been allowed freed to ordain women prior to the GC vote” without consideration the policies and procedures the Division and General Conference? Something doesn’t ring correct with this assertion.
What the GC Working Policy states with reference to the Model Constitution and Bylaws of Conferences seems to be clear enough. Hopefully the following statement can illuminate this discussion concerning the scope and limitations of a Conference’s autonomy in disregarding actions adopted and approved by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in its quinquennial sessions:
CONSTITUTION OF THE __________ CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS
Article III—Relationships
The __________ Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is a part of the __________ Union Conference/Union Mission of Seventh-day Adventists, which in turn is a part of the __________ Division of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, a world church organization; and all purposes, policies and procedures of this conference shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the __________ Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
BYLAWS OF THE __________ CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS
Article VI—Officers
Sec. 1. Executive Officers: The executive officers of this conference shall be a president, a secretary, and a treasurer. The secretary and treasurer may be one individual known as the secretary-treasurer. It is the duty of these officers, in consultation with one another, to carry forward the work according to plans, policies, and programs voted by the constituency and/or the conference executive committee. These plans, policies, and programs shall be in harmony with the doctrines and actions adopted and approved by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in its quinquennial sessions.
a. President: The president, who shall be an ordained minister of experience, is the first officer and shall report to the executive committee of the conference in consultation with the secretary and the treasurer. He shall act as chair of the constituency meetings and the executive committee, and serve in the general interests of the __________ Conference as the constituency and the executive committee shall determine. In his leadership he shall adhere to the policies of the __________ Union Mission/Union Conference, the __________ Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, work in harmony with the __________ Union Mission/Union Conference Committee, and in close counsel with the union officers (GCWP 171-178).

My apologies but the first paragraph should read: “Since this is probably news to many of us in this conversation, do you by chance have any documented evidence that “conferences have been allowed freedom to ordain women prior to the GC vote” without consideration of the policies and procedures of the Division and General Conference?”

You miss something in all this. A discredited church that no longer can say the scriptures ALONE are their rule of faith has NOTHING to tell the world. A rebellious church has no message, no savour and is thenceforth “good for nothing”. Our calling is to demonstrate loyalty to God’s word.

I agree, to a point. Unfortunately the scriptures are not as black and white as many in the Adventist Church believe they are. The fact that the Adventist church has “Fundamental beliefs” and not a creed is based in the idea of progressive truth, or understanding, in which new evidence of understanding should be looked at openly in order to truly understand such a diffucult subject. To the disservice of Adventism, traditional views are often held in too high a regard simply because they are the same traditions held at a time 2000 years ago. This is the same pitfall the Pharisees fell into time and again and were regularly rebutted as putting traditions above Love of others. Just look to Christ’s example in regard to women and the less fortunate and you will find him breaking through the “traditional Biblically (Old Testament) truths (traditions)” in order to highlight people as being more important than any tradition. So long as traditional understandings keep us from truly loving the multitudes then we won’t ever complete our mission.
In other words keeping to God’s example is the living word, not to the cultural traditions held by some of the Biblical writers (of which even this can be debated when it comes to New Testament writers).

Progressive truth means that new truths will not contradict old truths.
The traditional views Jesus negated were those created by the Pharisees as human exactions. They were extra-biblical rules designed to setup barriers to sin that beset themselves. So behaviors that weren’t sin according to God’s Word became sin. He never broke Old Testament truths, just the Jews extra biblical rules (tradition) that got in the way of fulfilling the 10 commandments (aka Two Great Commandments).

Correct.

So long as traditional understandings keep us from truly loving the multitudes then we won’t ever complete our mission.
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
We will not going to complete the mission anyway just because this is not our mission and it impossible to accomplish in the way we usually look at it..
Our commission is to bear whiteness and teach those who accept the Word and the Spirit of God.
But the times and terms are not up to us.
When Jesus will say “It’s over” then it will be over no matter were we’re going to be in our work.
The Bible never predict that whole Earth will be converted – this is the Catholic concept, they’re striving to build a heavenly kingdom on the Earth.
But adventists have a message to the world to bear, they are not responsible for any other thing.
Our motto is “The Bible and the Bible alone” and if it’s not so then we have no reason to exist as a Church..

You have a point Brian. It is possible for people to not fully understand what they do. What is concerning is the persistence of this agenda and actions. It is difficult to ascribe innocence to something as persistence and duplicitous as the wording and working of this agenda. But I take your point and I further say I understand why the general conference would word their reaction as they have but sometimes it i important to state things plainly and strongly in proportion to their nature. What I am concerned about my brother is if the PUC conference LEADERSHIP and the constituency which they may or may not represent, redefine Adventism by this single act and make us a people who take actions that are indefensible from scripture and still call themselves Seventh Day Adventist, we can never defend our positions in a court of Law and claim the scripture as our only authority and foundation. So, whether they understand and intend an attack on our foundation, that is the net effect of what they are doing.

I agree whole heartedly with your concerns, however we mustn’t ascribe innocence either. That is attributing motive just as much as calling it duplicitous. You are correct that it should be difficult to ascribe innocence, because it is reasonable that what was voted on at the GC session was worded that way on purpose by those who are pro WO. God has given us enough work as it is in simply judging actions. In this case disobedience to scripture and the church authority above them that was mandated by God.
Avoiding attribution makes for a lot less to think about in our minds, which allows us to retain more facts about why WO is wrong. It is also important that we don’t make attributions when we discuss this topic with those who are on the fence, or who are pro WO but still open minded. For a number of reasons, attributions can push people in the opposite direction.

It may well lead to other parts of thus church taking unilateral actions on polygamy, church, spiritualism, order of service etc. This is not good at all. We have survived and been respected because of our uniformity of belief and praxis. You take that away and we are nothing and totally ineffective. If the GC sleeps on this one they can expect a shake down of the worst kind for this world church.

Absolutely it will and I know it has. on many occasions I have seen or heard of power being usurped at church by an individual or group who took unilateral actions that contradicted the Church Manual. Furthermore it leads to individualism within congregations, because the congregation no longer has moral authority to stop anyone from usurping authority and contradicting the written rules. I see this through the actions of certain open sins that are deemed culturally acceptable (unwritten rules) by those with the majority of usurped political power. They even punish people for breaking unwritten rules. And there are many teachings and practices that contradict church doctrines that were established at the GC Session. I can barely walk into a new church without coming across that. It was especially pronounced when I was a new member! Those people were all over me like white on rice. It was very confusing and caused me to stumble on a number of occasions. Truly Ellen White was correct that our church would crumble to pieces without rules and order. In many ways we are already only nominally a church.
But we shouldn’t worry too much. God is in control. Maybe this will lead to the shaking. Maybe he has opened our eyes early because we need to study more, or learn more patience. Or maybe far fewer of us will withstand the shaking than we can imagine. What was it, like 1 in 50 that made it through the Great Dissapointment of 1844? I think it may have been like 50 out of 50,000.

Maybe this will lead to the shaking.

Oh my..it IS the shaking! what we see now is the shaking.
I’s spreading like a tsunami over the land.
The last part of it will be a call for sanctification of the Sunday.
By the way, it is being started already in some places (just occasional cases, but nevertheless)..

Gradualism is a terrible virus. We lose one battle, then another…and another and pretty soon you have anew church and a new spirit and a new people not very different from the people that they were supposed to call out of Babylon. Confusion is the arsenic of Adventism. Order is the nutrition. We are in a state of flux between the two. “Deliver us from evil”.

The shaking, from what I’ve read in that chapter in Early Writings with that title, will come from the giving of the straight testimony. I believe that male headship will only be part of that testimony. It seems to me that the straight testimony will begin with a unified message from members who finally stand up and firmly uphold doctrine. There will be no more worry about the feelings of those who insist on rebelling.

The shaking, from what I’ve read in that chapter in Early Writings with that title, will come from the giving of the straight testimony.
So if the straight testimony never starts to sound, does it mean we would never have a shaking? No sealing of God’s people, no last plagues, no second coming, nothing?
I think God’s plan of salvation precisely follows its timing no matter if we ready or not.

On the other hand, isn’t testimony of this cite and COP at large straight enough?
Or who, do you think, suppose to proclaim the straight testimony, GC executives maybe?
I think the minority will do the job.

I mean CAP, not COP, sorry

Correct Andrian. It is.

It is very difficult to believe that these actions are not intentional. What is it that these people intend to achieve: an egalitarian church? How is that different from the world? I have noted over the years a lot of changes and programs that parallel the world calendar down to time and month. It is not difficult. Just take the United Nations Calendar of Events and compare it with our church’s calendar of events for Youth Days and Father’s Days and Women’s etc. How is all of this not intentional? AND What does it intend to do? How can we be some merged with the world’s agenda and systems? What is going on? WO is in my view just one of many changes we are undergoing. God will obviously address the matter but my concern is that I think we need as church members to ensure our leaders do not “gradually”change us into something else.

By the way, why did we change our logo to look like the logo of so many other churches? What happened to the three angels? Who shot them down?

155 replies on “PUC/SECC Defy Church, Ordain Woman”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply