“Elder Statesmen,” Women's Ordination, Church Fracture

By the Council of Adventist Pastors
In San Antonio, Texas, July 2015, the Seventh-day Adventist Church in General Conference (GC) session will make a global decision on the question of women’s ordination. Six retired leaders (Charles Bradford, Alejandro Bullón, William G. Johnsson, Jan Paulsen, Calvin B. Rock, Angel Rodriguez) have prepared a website and video they have distributed via the Internet. They favor the proposal to let each division executive committee decide whether or not to ordain women.
Through the lips of a retired GC president, they state that “those parts of our global family, for whom time and culture have come” should be permitted to ordain women. They are calling for the church to let those units which choose follow the lead of culture. Contrast this with the message of Elijah, “How long will you falter between two opinions?” (1 Kings 18:21). The church is being urged to take disunity a step further. If women’s ordination is not permitted, they warn the church of judgment and fracture. The time has come, they say.
This is not a Bible solution. It is compromise.
Ordination solved or a divided church?
They also state that the question of women’s ordination has been solved. How? By determining that it is “a matter of personal opinion”! “What is now being requested by those who support the ordination of women to the ministry is that the church’s acceptance of different opinions on the topic be taken a step further by allowing women’s ordination in those segments of the world where ordaining women to the ministry would not negatively impact the church.” But is ordination, by which the church appoints to global authority, merely a matter of personal opinion?
Why do they make ordination a matter of personal opinion only? Because supposedly the Bible is not clear about the topic. But if this is so, then there is no clear biblical basis supporting women’s ordination. And if even their “the Bible doesn’t clearly oppose women’s ordination” position relies upon methods of biblical interpretation alien to the longstanding approach of God’s people, then permitting the new practice imperils the church globally. Then it weakens its loyalty to Scripture globally.
We have to ask, Where is there a segment of the world field where ordaining women to ministry would not negatively impact the church? One place where women’s ordination is hotly debated is the North American Division (NAD). The unilateral adoption of women’s ordination within the NAD by certain units, in defiance of the world church, has shattered unity in this Division. The current president of the Division, rather than preventing this behavior, provoked it.
There is absolutely no consensus by workers or members in this Division favoring the ordination of women. The majority of members certainly oppose it, while possibly the majority of administrators approve of it. Unity? There is not a decision at this time that could be more destructive to mission in the NAD than for the General Conference in session to be bullied into approving the ordination of women.
The practice of the world church must transcend personal opinion for the very reason that the work is global. Personal opinions don’t count. This practice involves the church globally. This is a Bible question.
Not Doctrinal?
These six men no longer serving at the global leadership level surprisingly claim that “This is not about rejecting or modifying any of our biblical doctrines. This is not a doctrinal topic but a matter of tradition.” In one and the same breath they appeal for the church to adopt what is in effect limited pluralism. Limited pluralism is a mirage.
Pluralism means the embrace of conflicting doctrines and practices. The practice of pluralism in a church is an admission that either the Bible was unable to guide the church, or, that the church was unwilling to be guided by the Bible. There is coded language mixed in this pot. “Not doctrinal” = “plural.” And in such discussion often the word “mission” stands in for “cultural.” But the Word of God clearly advocates certain practices and prohibits others. Scripture stands in man’s way.
And so, advocates of practices for which they cannot provide clear Bible guidance turn on the smoke machine. Destructive ideas are delivered under the noble rubric of unity. Motivated by good intentions, corners are rounded-off for purportedly evangelistic purposes. Soon a pluralistic church is born. Such a body is always a dying one. It has passed its time of impact for Christ. Decay sets in. Once the surrender begins, the downward march continues unrelieved. When the Bible is no longer determinative, everything else becomes determinative. Everything else is culture. Has the Adventist Church reached that time?
Strongest arguments of the elder statesmen
Consider briefly the actual arguments offered by these elder statesmen:

  • “We didn’t come to this moment hastily . . . we had commissions over forty years.”
  • “The church needs women at all levels, and in all phases of its ministry.”
  • “Unity is not unison.”
  • “In this day and time when that gift is accepted, in places where it is accepted, should be recognized.”
  • “The secret of unity is the equality of all the believers.”
  • “I believe the Spirit is leading us there.”
  • “There is enough in the Bible to support the position that it is fine to ordain women to the ministry.”
  • “The whole ordination question boils down to . . . does this person have the gift? And . . . if so, who are we not to recognize it?”
  • “This is my vision for the church: a church of true equality, all working together.”
  • “I want the church to be bold, to be open, to be free, and to receive the future as it comes to us.”
  • “I want my granddaughters to grow up and see in the pulpit a female pastor feeding them, nurturing them. I want their children, if the Lord doesn’t come before, to sit there and to listen to the word of a male or a female pastor. I want them to be baptized by a male or female pastor, because the Lord is the One who elects those He wants to use in the ministry.”
  • “We need everybody, everybody.”

Arguments very similar to these have been used to support gay and lesbian ordination in mainline Christian churches.
Second Wave Feminism took Western culture by storm in the 1960s and 70s. Then, it is true, the church began to have study commissions. And today those denominations then first in embracing radical secular egalitarianism are the most “advanced” in promoting a homosexual agenda. And what do those denominations trumpet? The placement of practicing homosexuals at the highest levels of church leadership.(1)
Disunity is redefined as unity (“unity not unison” or “unity not uniformity”) . The movement of the Holy Spirit is claimed. The same is seen in other churches which have surrendered to culture.(2)
In many denominations which have embraced current cultural practice, their elder statesmen led in gaining denominational approval. Three thousand years ago at the incident of the golden calf, Aaron called for unity. The solution was to blend the worship of the holy God with the worship of the golden calf. God could be worshiped many ways. Culture had come. Leadership proposed compromise and followed Egyptian culture.
Even Time magazine sees the theological question
The same theology that seems to neutralize the blockading texts so that women’s ordination can proceed against the grain of Scripture, also neutralizes the texts opposing other unbiblical behaviors. To approve women’s ordination is to pre-approve homosexual practice. Even Time magazine has pointed out that

“So far no Christian tradition has been able to embrace the LGBT community without first changing its view about women. The same reasoning that concludes that homosexuality is sin is also behind the traditional evangelical view that husbands are the spiritual leaders of marriages and men are the leaders in church.”(3)

The women’s ordination question is pivotal because decisions made about interpretation here impact every issue awaiting the church downstream. When the witness of Scripture is silenced through hermeneutical operations, the Detector of error is effectively removed. Error is no longer deflected.
In the absence of God’s revealed will in Scripture, the church wanders separated from Christ. It makes is own determinations about truth. Her conflict with culture is neutralized. Changes are made for the purpose of mission. Noble motivations lead to ignoble compromise. God tells His church His design. A faithful church seeks a thus saith the Lord for its practices and obeys; an unfaithful church claims that Heaven has not forbidden a practice and forges ahead in apostasy.
A threat
A retired GC president makes a carefully worded statement on the website:

My plea to our church in areas of the world with the most rapid growth is: Have understanding in this matter and for what must happen elsewhere so that we can move forward in global unity! If that understanding is not obtained in San Antonio, I fear fracture. The ripple effect is likely to do damage to other areas of the life of our church.

My prayer is that we will say Yes. If we do not, both history and the Lord will, I fear, judge us severely.

“Must” the church adopt the practice of women’s ordination? He says yes. “If that understanding [letting division executive committees decide for themselves on women’s ordination] is not obtained in San Antonio, I fear fracture.” His public words on the website are an echo of similar statements being made by prominent women’s ordination advocates today in private.
What he has not mentioned is the inevitable ensuing ripple-effect should the church actually approve women’s ordination. (Make no mistake: letting each division decide for itself is de facto approval of women’s ordination.) If the leadership of the NAD and of a few other divisions where the authority of Scripture has been deeply eroded now have their way, NAD membership will surely adjust its financial giving patterns in line with its convictions. Convictions will not be changed by a Yes vote in San Antonio that is not clearly supported by Scripture. Those favoring women’s ordination openly admit they have no Bible warrant for the proposed change.
Bullying the world church with the claimed necessity of granting women’s ordination by warning of the potential for “fracture” ignores the fact that approving women’s ordination would almost certainly mean substantial reduction in ability to fund the church in other divisions. Should present NAD leadership be reappointed, it will certainly plow forward with women’s ordination in a Division sharply divided on the question. The result is predictable. There will be a significant change in funding levels. North American dollars will decrease. Financial outflow from NAD to other Divisions will also decrease.
No denomination that has approved women’s ordination or gay/lesbian practice has grown in its Western territories, let alone seen an influx of dollars to spend overseas. There are no exceptions. This will be the ripple effect should the church set its supposed intellectual riches above Scripture.
The six elder statesmen speak of how vitally important it is to vote Yes now or else the church will split. That’s why, as their video repeatedly proclaims, “it’s time.” They foresee imminent fracture if those clamoring for women’s ordination are not given their way. The question is, Why would there be fracture? Who would cause it?
The only answer can be, it would be initiated by those calling for women’s ordination! The six men are telling us that certain fields will say that they’ve had enough with global church policies and protocol. Those units will adopt women’s ordination even if it means that the new practice will split the church. So, where exactly is the disunity coming from? The only possible cause of fracture would be if the outcome of the GC vote would be No and then the pro-women’s ordination party itself would create the crisis of which they now warn the church.
In actuality it is the Yes vote which would be the dis-unifying step. After it, no longer would there be one global policy on ecclesiastical or hermeneutical questions. No more would each worker and each field humbly submit to God’s leading of the entire body. From then onward, the precedent would be set. Each unit would consider the possibility of doing as it pleases. Such a result is fracture already.
The only way out of this crisis is for each person to humbly surrender his own opinions and subject his views to the entire body of Christ.
A Yes vote would mean that the world church now believes it is time to introduce this new practice. That is, that the Holy Spirit is moving His church to embrace new light and engage in new practices without any clear guidance in support of said practice from the Bible or the writings of Ellen G. White. This seems irreconcilable with God’s consistent operations throughout history: “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).
A decision
What will the Seventh-day Adventist Church now do?
The dividing line is before us: submission to the God who designed men and women, or, submission to the forces of culture. The Seventh-day Adventist Church standing on the creation institutions of Sabbath and the divine design for humanity, can continue to stand on those truths. Or, it can join the flight from creation and embrace the new order now under construction. The new ideological tower is rising. The hour of divine response hastens.
The time is come to decide. May God strengthen hearts. May He find us loyal citizens, not to statesmen, but to King Jesus Himself.
(1) Some examples are the election of Gene Robinson to bishop in the Episcopal Church USA in 2003, the election of R. Guy Erwin to bishop in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America in 2013, and the election of Gary Paterson as moderator (essentially GC president) of the United Church of Canada in 2012. All three men “married” other men.
(2) Not many months ago when the Presbyterian Church USA approved same-sex marriage, Alex McNeil, executive director of “More Light Presbyterians” said “Today is a historic day in the PC(USA). After study, discernment, conversation and the movement of the Holy Spirit we have affirmed that all loving and committed couples are capable of being married in our church, and ministers can officiate at those wedding ceremonies without fear” (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/06/19/3451183/nations-largest-presbyterian-denomination-now-allows-same-sex-marriage/, accessed 2015-05-05).
(3) Time magazine, January 26, 2015, p. 47.

NOTE: The Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP) is a group of Seventh-day Adventist Pastors serving in the North American Division. Additional detail concerning the pastors, including a list of participants, is available on the http://www.ordinationTruth.com website. The October 25, 2013 News Release at the following link also describes CAP’s origin and goals:

52 replies on ““Elder Statesmen,” Women's Ordination, Church Fracture”

I may have more to say later but for now, i will only pose a question and a short comment. What part of NO do people not understand? Remember 1990 & 1995! The Scripture is clear enough not to be misunderstood. “The husband of one wife”.

Clearer still is the apostle’s declaration:
“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man . . . For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (I Tim. 2:12-13).

Or clearer still is the Adventist prophet’s declaration that, “It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.” 6T, pg. 322. So it seems that “proof texting will not resolve the disagreement.

My Bro Blake please take the time and read carefully and slowly and see what the issues that are being talked about in 6T322. Remember who is represented by the ministry of Jesus Chris in the Sanctuary Service and keep these texts in mind Hebrews 13:8 and Malachi 3:6. Beloved from Genesis to Revelation God’s plan for redemption is the same. A storm is coming and it is relentless in its fury. May God help us!!!

Bro Chin, I have read the whole testimony. Not sure what you mean about “what the issues” are. Feel free to explain what you think she means when she seems be saying – that the Holy Spirit calls men and women to be pastors to the flock. Also, you seem to be saying that Adventist ministers are the modern equivalent of OT priests. (Not trying to put words in your mouth, but that’s what it seemed like). If so, that’s a Catholic view of ministry, not SDA. We believe, as the Bible teaches, in the priesthood of all believers. That would mean both men and women.

“Proof-texting” is usually an epithet flung by persons who find inspired proofs stacked against them. Without question, Ellen White envisioned pastoral duties as including both men and women, as evidenced by 6T 322. But as the following statements by the same author make clear, she did not envision these pastoral duties as identical or interchangeable:
“The primary object of our college was to afford young men an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause” (5T 60).
“Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation” (5T 598)>

I looked up every single usage of “pastor(s)” in EGW’s writings and didn’t find a single case where she seems to be referring to lay people. She uses the terms pastor and minister interchangeably. So to say that her reference in 6T is speaking of “pastoral duties” by lay people (such as visiting the sick, etc.) doesn’t work as a viable explanation for me. If you can find a usage of “pastor(s)” in her writings where she is obviously referring to lay members caring for one another let me see it – cause I didn’t find it. Thus, if the standard anti-WO explanation for that statement is true it would be her only usage in that context in her writings. (At least from what I have found. If you have something more please provide it). Also, to point out that EGW states that God calls “men” to the ministry isn’t proof that God doesn’t call women too (after all, she seems to say pretty plainly that the Holy Spirit calls both men and women). “So mightily can God work when men give themselves up to the control of His Spirit.” AA, pg. 49. Does that mean God can’t give his Spirit to women? Following the logic of your interpretations of the EGW statements it would appear, to be consistent, you would need to say yes. Also, I’m not wanting to debate or argue. Just thinking through the issues myself and testing the logic of all sides. And whomever has the best explanation of ALL the data will, obviously, persuade me more.

I didn’t say anything about lay people. Pastors’ wives, and women involved in various aspects of formal ministry (e.g. Bible work), are still performing pastoral duties. The Ellen White statements I have cited make clear the distinction drawn in her writings between the pastoral work God has assigned to men and that which He has made available to women.

So what you seem to be saying is she is referring to Bible workers and/or pastors’ wives in that statement, not actually pastors as the plain reading of the statement would lead one to think. Do you have any statement by her where she uses the term “pastor(s)” to refer to Bible workers and/or the wives of ministers? I was a Bible worker and no one called me Pastor Jones then. I’m a pastor now and no one calls my wife Pastor Jones, just me. So if that is your intrepretation of her statement, it would be the only time she uses the term pastor in that context, would it not? We tell people that when biblical authors use the term forever it doesn’t always mean endlessly and we give them examples. If we didn’t have examples where forever obviously doesn’t mean endlessly that would be a weak argument. That seems to me to be the hand your holding and playing. Looks a little weak to me, but I’m willing to see it differently. I just need better explanations.

Pastor Blake, EGW does indeed differentiate between pastors and ministers.
See Test5_p60_1 “The primary object of our college was to afford young men an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause.”
Materials_1888_p753_3 “The weight of every individual church member is required. The influence of ministers, of pastors, of workers in all our institutions, is required to prepare the way for the welcome reception of the light and glory of God.”

I am glad the Bible, the authoritative word of GOD, is so plain and clearly written for all people who are willing to follow God’s word to understand. I salute these “Elder Statesmen” for their service to God’s Church, but I am sorry, I will not put their word above the Bible. If they fear of fracture in the church, then they should talk to their friends in the NAD who are pushing this agenda on the World Church. The fracture will start here in North America.

Maybe Dr. Ben Carson can surgically remove these treasonous leaders from the Body Of Christ altogether so they can go their own way and form their own denomination. I have a question for you Ingo can man force the Holy Spirit to ordain someone who does not meet the Biblical standards which has been quoted about Male headship? It’s no difference to changing the times and Law of God. What shall we do if WO passes and we are seated in church and she stands to preach to us? After all I think the voting will also be culturally skewed by treason. Legality is the issue which seems to be humbly ignored. Lawlessness is in the ranks. Great article indeed.

And please, let’s not indulge dark speculation about the voting in San Antonio being likely to be “skewed.” Let us have confidence that the Lord is guiding the denominational ship of state, and let us labor as intensely as we pray for the outcome to be faithful to God’s Word.
In the most unlikely event that women’s ordination passes, under no circumstances would I walk away from God’s church. In my belief, if such an action were to be taken this summer, it would be reversed no later than the subsequent GC session due to the chaos and mayhem a Division-by-Division verdict would bring.

Jesus tells us what to do in Matthew 13:25-30. The parable of the wheat and the tares. In verse thirty Jesus said, “Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers,Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into the barn.” Isaiah 58:13 calls us, to be “The repairs of the breach, The restorers of the paths to dwell in.” If everybody leaves who will do this? Yes, there will be times when you need to get away and spiritually recharged, and make sure that is where God wants you. They may also kick you out also.

Let’s be careful here. The parable of the wheat and the tares is one of the most misunderstood parables Jesus ever told—not because Jesus Himself was unclear as to its meaning, but because this parable has been distorted into teaching that church discipline for open doctrinal or moral wrong on the part of church members is disallowed by our Lord’s command to “let the wheat and tares grow together.”
Overwhelming evidence from both Scripture and Ellen White instructs the church that, as Ellen White says in her own commentary on this parable, that “Christ has plainly taught that those who persist in open sin must be separated from the church” (COL 71).
The parable of the wheat and the tares is about judging character and motive, which God alone can do (I Kings 8:39). It is not about the discipline of church members who either live in open sin or who openly teach doctrines contrary to the written counsel of God.

Yes Kevin, sure, let’s pray, and a lot. The same way it was prayed during the TOSC, only for the results to be tossed because they didn’t match what the GC expected and wanted in the first place.
It’s almost certain that the vote will be NO. But, hypothetically, if it ends up being a YES, will you accept it as the will of God?
(I bet you are going to dodge this question, but that’s OK).

It would seem to me, George Tichy, that maybe you are ignoring the fact that this issue was dealt with in two prior GC sessions. The decision was clear. But you apparently, at that time did not have the same willingness that you are asking of Bro. Paulson, to accept the decision of the GC in session. Rather, the fact is, the NA Devision leaders have indepentantly either ignored or rejected the decision of the broader, worldwide wisdom of ‘many counselors. The history and record is clear on this. I have dear friends who made it very clear to me that they had no intention of following the GC counsel on this and instead barreled ahead with their own agenda in seeming defiance of the very principal you seem to suggest above. My hope is that God will bring conviction to all of us and that we will witness His grace in our humbly following His will.

I’m so sad this evening. My heart has been filled with grief since I saw and heard the position of Angel Manuel Rodriguez and other long-serving servants of God on that video.
But no matter; my faith in the Word will not waiver. I was never meant to depend on the word of a great man or many great men. God will hold me accountable for how I understand the bible to read and not someone else’s opinion, no matter how old and experienced the person is.
I say NO to women’s ordination because the example in the Bible clearly points that out. May God help His church. Amen.

It seems imminent that a shaking is coming. It does not matter what position is approved. If those in favor don’t get it their way, many will leave. They claim that are being guided by the Holy Spirit. If those that oppose it, see their position defeated, will claim that the Church has abandoned its ways and is not making decisions based on a “thus says the Lord”, and some will also leave. The Church is following the identical path of Israel. And the results will be identical. One thing seems certain: both sides cannot be guided by the Holy Spirit to take opposite sides, causing division in our church. The only one laughing is Satan.

“The identical path of Israel” with one exception—the Seventh-day Adventist Church, unlike ancient Israel, will experience final purification from its apostate majority. That is how Ellen White defines the end-time shaking.
No faithful Seventh-day Adventist could for any moment consider leaving the church, even in the unlikely event women’s ordination were to be approved. Women’s ordination is not the mark of the beast, nor does Ellen White ever identify this issue as one of the earmarks of Babylon. It is contrary to God’s Word, yes. But it doesn’t rise to the level of necessitating a break with the denomination.
Thankfully, I believe the evidence is overwhelming that the Biblical position will prevail, despite the incessant drumbeat of propaganda from a noisy few.

You have no right to play favorites with the Word of
God. Jesse says “for man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” That includes also “a pastor must be the husband of one wife” not vice versa and also where Paul states “a woman is to not have authority over a man and is not to teach (or preach) to men.” Actually this whole Ordination topic is a red herring to the crux of this serious issue facing the SDA church. Women should not be allowed to Pastor as some 400 women in SDA already are doing ordained or not. According to God’s Word females should not even be preaching or teaching in church. Sadly, SDA like it or not has already made its bed hard so they will have to sleep in it due to their rebellion against the scriptures in the name of political correctness but judgment is soon coming to SDA for their arrogance and apostasy! Repent now or else GC. Steve

Does voting by delegates determine the meaning of Scripture?
How many CAP pastors plan to change their interpretation of key passages if the vote is “yes?”
If not, perhaps it will not be surprising if those you support women’s ordination will also be loathe to suddenly reverse their understanding of the key passages if the vote is “no.”

It is not necessary to reverse your understanding, only to submit to whatever decision is taken, but this is exactly what certain pro-WO factions have shown unwilling to do by taking matters into their own hands.

“Scripture interprets itself.”
“The delegates will determine the meaning of the key passages by their vote.”
Can the above two statements fit together? Or are they opposed to each other?

With all due respect to our elders, why do they have to wait until now to produce this video?
This is an issue that has been affecting our church for long time. Did they make statements like these when they were leading our church? Have they been upfront about this issue in the past? I just want to believe they have. What is bothersome to me is the timing of this.
Sadly, when we use elders to make statements that could advance our agenda so closely to the meeting, gives the impression of being a political statement. Our world has enough division, caused by politics. We need to see the truth from our leaders when they are leading. It seems that the same tactics used in the world to promote an agenda are being used to influence others. I am expecting a large demonstration in Texas, with all the media staring at the church, to condemn and stone those who remain faithful to their beliefs. Are we going to call this:” the work of the Holy Spirit?”

If you had asked me about WO 15 years ago I would have been for it. I have long since changed my stance due to the study of scripture. Sola E Scriptura. Whether the vote is for or against WO. the split will be as its intended to be, as its designed to be by Satan. These 2 issues, WO preceding LGBT will cause a split. It will cause members to have to seriously re-evaluate whether they send their tithes & offerings to a church that has made an immoral decision going against God’s will. All this has to do with the will. Is our will rooted & grounded on the solid rock ? I agree, it’s time. These things are temporary & we need to be about our Father’s business. It’s time, for the lay people to step up & finish the work. It’s Time ! for our $ to possibly go to other entities that are following the inspired word of God. It’s time. This is the same moral decision that the Constitution of the U.S. affords us. When the church or state takes away the FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE from us then it time for the Lord to come. CAN”T WAIT ! These things are just a sign of how close we are to Jesus soon return. KEEP THE FAITH !

Thank you Melinda for your comment. I too believe that Women’s ordination is a prelude to the LGBT invasion of the Remnant church. We must therefore stand firm for the truth. Our conscience should be captive to the word of God and not to the statements of so called Elder Statesmen. The NAD will only listen to the silent majority on this issue if we start redirecting our tithes elsewhere, where the Bible in its entirety rules and not culture.

This is the time we are required more than any other time to be prayerful. I hope we all like me believe that Jesus never made a mistake by not appointing one female apostle as part of His 12 inner circle but yet having women working around him doing other chores

The consequences of Mother Eve allowing herself to be tempted/seduced by the snake to desire to be “more” than the role for which she was created; i.e., “an help meet for Adam” is the reason we are in this mess on this sinful earth.
1. Is there a lesson here for modern Eves? What have modern Eves learnt from the consequences of Mother Eve’s mistake?
2. Mother Eve’s fall into sin should serve as a warning to modern Eves to NOT allow themselves to be seduced by the snake to be “more” than/different from the role “an help meet for Adam” for which God has created them.
3. Mother Eve’s seduction by the serpent to desire to be “more” than her God created roll is being repeated by her daughters/modern Eves. This susceptibility to serpent seduction demonstrates they should definitely NOT be in leadership/headship positions! Where will this seduction by the serpent end?
4. What did Jesus do? Read ‘Desire of Ages’, chapter 30 “He Ordained Twelve” pp290-291.
5. I do NOT support women’s ordination based on God’s organisation principles outlined in the Bible from Creation through to the New Jerusalem. The Bible NOT culture is our only safety. God does not change.
6. The consequences of Mother Eve allowing herself to be seduced by the serpent to be “more” than her God created roll should be a timely and dire warning to “modern” Eves (and Adams who support them in their folly) at all levels of our Church.

Thank you for your comments – spot on. Men & women are different in all respects except their fundamental human rights & salvation. They receive gifts from the Holy Spirit just like men do – they don’t choose them. The HS provides each with the gift He determines they should have, but this does not mean the HS could ever contradict His inspired Word by allowing women in male headship positions because they are the wrong gender to represent Christ. Women can pastor or minister (verbs–not nouns; a shepherd role only) for the church’s mission, but they cannot fill the roles of Ordained Minister or Elder (used as Nouns) of the church. If WO should become sanctioned by the GC (church-wide) or simply by individual unions/conferences then this would completely obliterate God’s design of creating man/women in His image – that of mirroring the Divine relationship; whereby Christ is given all power by God, but Christ remains in submission to God. They are ONE (equal), but Christ still maintains His submission to God because God is the One that made Christ equal with Himself. I may not have expressed this adequately. If I am in error by understanding the Godhead in this manner, please do feel free to correct me. Thank you.

It seems that there is an obvious climate of intimidation by a seeming majority that favor wo. It may seem so because many of them have high ‘credentials’, degrees, and positions in our ‘higher’ institutions such as the SDA Seminary, the NAD colleges and universities. These were educated and acclaimed qualified due to degrees obtained in higher institutions that have few paradigms and philosophies that are systemic to Seventh-day Adventism. Having worked a brief time in one of our universities and having many dear friends associated in this esteemed group of ‘educated’ scholars, I witnessed an undeniable obsession on the part of many of my friends who sometimes voiced the notion that a higher degree (Phd.) from a none-Adventist University would be the most important qualification for desire professional advancement.
I shutter to think of the fact that we are strongly subject to this obsession that since so many ‘administrators and academicians in our church (especially in North America, Australia, and parts of Europe) may thus be superior and wiser and more correct in the discernment of ‘truth’ and the will of God.
To have men, so highly esteemed, now throw their weight behind the ordination of women and seeing so little (as is also true in so many of the arguments they voice. We should not be surprised to see people we have long venerated, admired, and respected take what would look like ‘expedient’ positions. These men have a long history of commitment and dedicated labor in this church; and maybe their deep love and fear of it’s fracture weighs more heavily than the importance of the seemingly simply ‘thus saith” of Scripture.
But let us not be intimidated by the overwhelming seeming power of ‘important men’ and so-called higher educated men and women. Rather pray, pray, pray for | 300 limit

(I’m sorry, I had’nt read the rules pertaining to the 300 words limit, as I should have) the rest of my statement maybe can be put here
Rather pray, pray, pray for those delegates that will represent those divisions that have remained faithful to the world church and it’s already voted policies of two prior GC sessions. The Division most determined to have it’s way in this GC session has already acted in rebellion to present World Church policy. It seems ironic that they will now participate in a process that presumes through prayerful debate to determine God’s Divine will. I am comforted by the fact that those so-called ‘backward’ Divisions that still hold to plain Scripture are the, by far, the fasted growing sector of this Remnant Church. God is evidently blessing their compliance and holding fast. Thank you Council of Adventist Pastors for your courage and willingness to present such helpful information.
(I hope this is permissable (smile).

It won’t be the first time, Carl, that simple people of scant material substance have come to the rescue of God’s covenant community.

“Arguments very similar to these have been used to support gay and lesbian ordination in mainline Christian churches.”
A straw man of epic proportions.

Sorry, I don’t have time to read an almost 7K word blog article. If it can’t be said in under 500 words, I doubt that 6,500 more words would make any difference.

1Ki 13:11 Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel; and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they told also to their father.
1Ki 13:12 And their father said unto them, What way went he? For his sons had seen what way the man of God went, which came from Judah.
1Ki 13:13 And he said unto his sons, Saddle me the ass. So they saddled him the ass: and he rode thereon,
1Ki 13:14 And went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak: and he said unto him, Art thou the man of God that camest from Judah? And he said, I am.
1Ki 13:15 Then he said unto him, Come home with me, and eat bread.
1Ki 13:16 And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place:
1Ki 13:17 For it was said to me by the word of the LORD, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest.
1Ki 13:18 He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him.
I will not even bother to ask God again about something that He has clearly spoken. Prayer has its place. This is a time to do the will of God. And as for “Elder Statesmen”, that I will pray about .

The idea that God will always resist a people who persist in an agenda is not scripture tenable. God has allowed people to have their determined way and even helped them with it. God does not only prosper His will. He prospers even stubbornness. Pharaoh is a case in point. What needs saying is there is a real possibility that the vote will be managed to give the desired outcome and that if that fails, “North America”, meaning the few people in high office who are pushing this agenda will have their “king” as they manipulated the church into ordination of female elders. That does not change God nor the consequences of this Babylonian wine. Confusion will result and God WILL be offended and the WO force will celebrate. The church will be shaken to its foundations and appear as if it is about to splinter into a million pieces, as many pieces as there are heads, but God will hold it together just like Noah’s ark and the remnant of the remnant will survive and prevail. It is has never been about numbers, only the will of God and God can never be the author of the confusion that is about to be unleashed here.

In response to CAP’s reply to the elder statesman, I have four concerns:
1. The first question that came to me was, “Why does CAP focus almost exclusively on ordination? Position #1 says the Bible teaches women cannot be elders or pastors. The CAP response ignores that idea, and focuses instead on ordination. Does this mean that CAP is OK with having women serve as pastors as long as they are not ordained? Does this mean that CAP is not calling for the recall of all ordained female elders? After reading this response, The focus in on the evil of the ordination ceremony itself when applied to women. It appears that for CAP ordaining a woman as pastor (elder too?) is the equivalent of worshipping a golden calf instead of worshipping God.
2. My second concern is a longstanding one. CAP states, “And if even their “the Bible doesn’t clearly oppose women’s ordination” position relies upon methods of biblical interpretation alien to the longstanding approach of God’s people, then permitting the new practice imperils the church globally.” Here is my concern: it is not necessary to use any methods not outlined in the Methods of Bible Study (1986) document in order to establish that the Bible does not oppose WO. The idea that “new” methods not found in the MBSD must be introduced is simply false.
3. Not doctrinal? We cannot force members to accept doctrines not explicitly included in the Fundamental Beliefs. If we do, we are imposing personal opinion on our Adventist brothers and sisters. We cannot say that pluralism is the result of one of two conditions: the Bible is unable to guide or the church is unwilling to be | 300 limit

Oops! looks like I came up a little bit LONG! Concluding. . .
We cannot say that pluralism is one of two conditions: the Bible is unable to guide or the church is unwilling to be guided. Rather, even though the Bible is able to guide and the church is willing to be guided, pluralism may exist where willing members honestly disagree on what the Bible is saying, for example on whether the Bible prohibits WO or not.
4. Bullying the world church? Not all of our leaders are predicting a fracture in the case of a “No” vote. In fact, it is highly unlikely. CAP has a tendency to overreact to statements made by WO proponents as if they are undeniable fact. Then CAP succumbs to the temptation to respond in kind, tit for tat. If predicting a possible fracture is bullying, then so is predicting financial doom. Neither outcome is likely, but those who withhold tithe do so to their own downfall. Why would anyone want to withhold tithe and turn their back on the blessings promised in Malachi 3:10?

On women ordination, i looked at the advocators as educated illiterates. Why should they bring culture and tradition of their people in the church? Was it not thesame SDA accused the catholics of mixing tradition and culture in the church? Why did Jesus not select women as part of the 12 disciples? If also God is introducing new light was it not a contradiction having known what paul said? They should note that they are not and cannot be the only people who knows the bible. This is something that has to be with the Holy spirit which even an illitrate God can use to disgrace the educated. Let North America keep their money. God will provide for the faithful ones the means to spread the gospel. By the way must women be ordained before they preach or carry on church activities and programmes? We saw in our last lesson weeks ago how women participated in the ministry of Jesus but none of them was reported being ordained. I saw satan clearly in this argument instigating some prominent members of the church to do his biddings. The gates of hell shall never and never prevail against God’s church. I am highly dissappointed on such pastors including a retired president. Why didnt him do it during his time? Infact,why only NAD agitating for that? If the venture to do it division by division it will fail too because God is in control of everything. If the prophets of baal stood firm on this matter we will stand with prophet micaiah .

It is time for sincere prayer. Previous sessions have made the correct decision before, the bible has not changed since.
This is the work of the devil – God does not work in the way that this is happening.
Conferences/Divisions are already acting contrary to scripture, and are in fact in open rebellion. When this occurs you can be guaranteed that God is not behind this. This issue will cause fracture within the church regardless of which decision is made. If we are not biblical pure, lead by the Holy Spirit, we are doomed & yet we are so close to going home.

“It would seem to me, George Tichy, that maybe you are ignoring the fact that this issue was dealt with in two prior GC sessions. The decision was clear. ”
This reinforces the point that if the world church, in session, does not have the legal standing to make policy for unions and conferences on ordination candidates. If it did, the situation would have been put to bed before now and saved the church millions of dollars, time and energy.

I believe it does have that authority still. But the problem is, it seems to me, that it can only be called ‘rebellion’ when a conference or union chooses to go against that decision. To be honest, I am troubled by the fact that this is on the agenda ‘again’. It would be interesting if we were privy to the discussions that took place by those responsible for the agenda. When God has spoken, isn’t it enough, already?

I am disturbed by some references to tithing about half way up the page. The scriptures say to bring the tithes to the storehouse. The general understanding currently is that is the local conference, which is where the local pastors are paid from. I believe we can find multiple examples in scripture where the storehouse was unfaithful, but there is no mention of sending tithe elsewhere.
Sure there are concerns about sending money if the local storehouse is unfaithful, but I believe those concerns belong to God, not us. Here is why. Let’s assume for now that we can send tithe wherever we want. The local conference entity supports the local church pastors salary. Some of these pastors are the last few ministers in the area that fully support the biblical model for doctrine and church growth. If tithe rates decline, the conference will have to reduce the number of pastors it employs. Where will a theoretical wayward leadership be tempted to cut first? This is only one theoretical problem.
Can we remember that tithe is only supposed to be a small portion of what we contribute to God’s work? While I believe redirection of tithes should be off limits, we do have the responsibility to send our offerings to places where they will have the greatest impact both locally and abroad.

Zach, if you are referring to the article, realize that we did not call for that, we simply recognized that under those circumstances it was sure to happen. We believe it would be destructive for that to happen.

1Cor 11:3 but I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ..14 and no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose ends shall be according to their works…
Mat 24:13 but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. Let’s pray for our leaders and more so for one another’s salvation

I am very much upset to hear Elder Paulson defending women’s ordination. Please, elder, l strongly advise you to distant yourself from this issue because it can ruin your reputation as a man of God. How can a church like the Seventh-day Adventist allows culture to overrule scripture, our guide for belief and practices.
My faithful Adventists, the world is watching us so it is better the pro-ordination group break away than to stay and create problems.
The word of God will triumph.

This is a time of spiritual darkness in the churches of the world including our church seventh day. Ignorance of divine things has hiddenGod and the truth from the view. The forces of evil are gathering in strength. In our day as of old the vital truths of God’s word are set aside for human theories and speculations. Many professed ministers of the Gospel word. Wickedness is reaching a height never before attained, and yet many ministers of God are crying, ”Peace and safety.” But God’s faithful messengers are to go steadily forward with their work. Clothed with the panoply of heaven,they are to advance fearlessly and victoriously, never ceasing their warfare until every soul within their reach shall have received the message of truth for this time people be watchful

This issue of women’s ordination has been voted out one or two times by the world church in session. And my question is; why do we allow a handful of members to hijack the church on this particular issue for such a long time now. I think now is the time to allow these members to break away to save the church time and resources for evangelism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.