WOMENS ORDINATION – “Right-Wing” Rebellion in the Ranks? Examples… [my CAPS for emphasis] I have been doing some serious reflecting, and have come to believe that there may be “rebellion” among the “right-wing” ranks. The reason being the “right-wing” has alleged that certain pro-ordination entities are in “rebellion” against the church. For example, in discussing the pro-women’s ordination actions of one union, one anti-women’s ordination “right-wing” writer calls it “A SLY METHOD OF REBELLION AGAINST THE DECISIONS OF THE WORLD CHURCH” (see “Reflections on Women’s Ordination,” p. 11). secretsunsealed.org/Downloads/newsletter2Q12web.pdf Curiously, that allegation of “rebellion” seems to fit just as well on the “right-wing” side also. Apparently, when they are in agreement, there are adamant admonitions for all to follow the “decisions of the world church”; otherwise, there are quick accusations of “rebellion.” So, while there may be other examples, I am going to share a few here, because this “right-wing rebellion” – which is against the very GC “decisions of the world church” (which they are wont to quote and promote) – has been happening among official church leadership, as well as among some popular and “conservative” independent “supportive” ministries. Here are 3 major ways in which they themselves seem to use a “sly method of rebellion.” Pot calling the kettle black? •1. REJECTION OF FEMALE ELDERS. They have publicly rejected and attacked the official 1984 General Conference Annual Council vote which authorized the ordination of woman as local elders. Yet those who are against female elders, evidently throw out what they themselves would otherwise quote and promote (i.e. The Church Manual/Minister’s Manual, and the GC-In-Session/Autumn Council votes) – which they would otherwise claim to be the highest authority in the church. 1.A. At the 1984 GC Annual Council it was officially voted that women could be elected and ordained as local elders (according to the GC Document 272-84GN). 1.B. IN 2012, THE GC LEADERSHIP PUT OUT A MAJOR DOCUMENT reminding members of official church policies and procedures. This document, “Questions & Answers Regarding Current Issues” outlined how the Church makes decisions, especially in relation to the ordination of women. These church leaders quoted an entire paragraph from the “Church Manual” (p. 31): “In the Church today the General Conference Session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions, is the highest ecclesiastical authority in the administration of the Church. The General Conference Executive Committee is authorized by its Constitution to create subordinate organizations with authority to carry out their roles. Therefore all subordinate organizations and institutions throughout the Church will recognize the General Conference Session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions, as the highest ecclesiastical authority, under God, among Seventh-day Adventists.” news.adventist.org/all-commentaries/commentary/go/0/questions-answers-regarding-current-issues-of-unity-facing-the-church/ 1.C. Then in the same document (in the link immediately above) the GC leadership noted that “the General Conference Executive Committee at Annual Councils” “is delegated to act on behalf of the General Conference Session.” In short, the vote for women to be ordained as local elders was officially voted as “the highest ecclesiastical authority, under God, among Seventh-day Adventists.” Yet because this vote disagrees with their beliefs, on this matter, those against female elders are claiming that only a vote by the “GC-In-Session” is valid. 1.D. Let me illustrate how one “right-wing” independent ministry director (who is also an ordained and practicing SDA pastor) blatantly discards this 1984 GC Annual Council vote… Not long ago, a Pastor X was investigating this matter, and wrote to the GC President’s office for clarity. Elder Ted N. C. Wilson’s personal assistant, Elder Orville Parchment, informed Pastor X as follows, thus confirming the officially-voted SDA Church policies and procedures: “The decision to ordain women elders is separate and it still stands. Women pastors is a different item. THE DECISION VOTED AT ANNUAL COUNCIL OR AT THE GENERAL CONFERENCE IS OF EQUAL WEIGHT.” So, Pastor X sent this reply/information to the Director of “Secrets Unsealed” (who is also a member of the global TOSC [Theology of Ordination Study Committee] of the General Conference). But, here is the “Secrets Unsealed” Director’s response (on August 3, 2012): “I DO RESPECT THE DECISIONS OF THE ANNUAL COUNCILS BUT WHEN ELLEN WHITE STATES THAT WE SHOULD RESPECT THE DECISIONS OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE SHE IS NOT REFERRING TO THE ANNUAL COUNCIL.” So, while the Director of “Secrets Unsealed” CLAIMS to “respect the decisions of the General Conference,” he rather seems to be in “rebellion” against it, since the GC-In-Session delegated the Annual Council to act on its behalf. But notice what else the Director of “Secrets Unsealed”/TOSC member/SDA Pastor stated: “I DO BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD RESPECT THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CHURCH AUTHORITY WHEN THEY ARE IN HARMONY WITH THE BIBLE.” Hmmm! So, according to this TOSC member/SDA Pastor/Independent Ministry Director’s subjective interpretation of the Bible, is he himself to be trusted more than all those elected church leaders and delegates who made decisions at a General Conference Annual Council? Hopefully, it is now becoming evident why I’ve titled this as “Right-Wing Rebellion in the Ranks?” (While this is just one example, anyone seriously acquainted with current discussions on women’s ordination, could easily point out more such right-wing “rebellion”). •2. FALSELY COMBINE TWO CATEGORIES OF ORDAINED CHURCH OFFICES. Some of these official SDA Pastors and independent Directors have repeatedly denied and undermined the official position of the Adventist Church (as confirmed by Ellen White), that there are “three categories of ordained offices” – and NOT just two categories, as several anti-women’s ordinationists claim. Again, these antagonists of WO throw out what they otherwise would have quoted and promoted. 2.A. “MINISTER’S MANUAL” = SEPARATE CATEGORIES. Since at least 1942, that is decades before the rise of “feminism” which has been repeatedly falsely (as well as vehemently and publicly stated by at least one antagonist on the TOSC) intertwined with dedicated Adventist biblical scholars supportive of women’s ordination), the official “Ministers Manual” (pp. 11-22) of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has stated that there are THREE DISTINCT OFFICES requiring ordination in the Adventist Church: the gospel (a) MINISTER[/PASTOR], the (b) local ELDER, and the (c) DEACON [Note: the office of Deacon is not being conflated/combined]. The 1992 edition reiterated this; then the 2009 edition (now called “Seventh-day Adventist Minister’s Handbook” [Silver Spring, MD; General Conference Ministerial Association], 85) states it this way: “The Scriptures distinguish three categories of ordained officers: (a) The gospel MINISTER[/PASTOR], whose role may be seen as preaching/teaching, administering the ordinances, and pastoral care of the church (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 4:1-5); (b) The ELDER, who exercises oversight of a local congregation, performing some pastoral functions as well (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Titus 1:5, 9; 1 Tim 3:2, 5); (c) The DEACON, to whose care the poor and the benevolent work of the congregation are entrusted (Phil 1:1; Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim 3:8-13).” 2.B. ELLEN WHITE AFFIRMS SEPARATE CATEGORIES OF CHURCH OFFICES, as follows: “The responsibility of representing Christ to the world does not rest alone upon those who are ordained as MINISTERS/(PASTOR) of the gospel. Each member of the church should be a living epistle, known and read of all men. A working church will be a living church. Those who are elected as ELDERS and DEACONS should ever be on the alert that plans may be made and executed which will give every member of the church a share in active work for the salvation of souls. This is the only way in which the church can be preserved in a healthy, thriving condition” (RH March 24, 1891, par. 2; emphases added). 2.C. DESPITE THE GC VOTE AND ELLEN WHITE, THE MICHIGAN CONFERENCE PRESIDENT FALSELY (but subtly) CONFLATES/combines THESE TWO SEPARATE OFFICES OF (a) “MINISTER/PASTOR” and (b) “ELDER” by alleging the following in his February 2014 editorial in their conference newsletter: →MICHIGAN CONFERENCE PRESIDENT’S QUOTE: “The World Church, in its General Conference (GC), has voted twice not to allow the ordination of women to the office of ELDER/MINISTER.” Notice how he falsely conflates/combines (a) Minister/Pastor, with (b) Elder. See the link for this February, 2014 edition of the “Michigan Memo” – now on an online Bonders.org article [a website run by the Michigan Conference]). bonders.org/biblical-hermeneutics-is-scripture-culturally-conditioned/ 2.D. THE SOUTHERN AFRICA-INDIAN OCEAN DIVISION LEADERSHIP – in similar “rebellion” against the official position of (1) The “Ministers Manual,” and (2) The decision of the GC in Annual Council to ordain women as local elders – subtly confuse these matters relating to women in spiritual leadership. Here is what the SID stated in their GC TOSC January 2014 Presentation, which is an example of their false conflation of the offices as outlined in the “Minister’s Manual”: → SID QUOTE: “Since there is no biblical support for the ordination of WOMAN PASTORS, then the ordination of WOMEN ELDERS should also not be considered. That implies that as from the action date, woman shall no longer serve as elders.” adventistarchives.org/brc-southern-africa-indian-ocean-division-presentation.pdf 2.E. WHY DO THEY CONFLATE/COMBINE THESE TWO CHURCH OFFICES? i. In brief: Because the SDA church already locally ordains female Local Elders, the right-wing claims that the 1984 GC Autumn Council was wrong to allow the ordination of female Local Elders (much less female Ministers/Pastors!). ii. So they want to reverse this GC vote regarding female local Elders (which is what the Southern Africa-Indian Ocean Division Executive Committee voted recently, with immediate effect, and with little to no input from their conferences/unions). iii. They claim that it has been the “liberal agenda” to ordain female local Elders – as a stepping stone to ordain female Ministers/Pastors. So, here too, it appears to be some subtle “right-wing rebellion” against what the GC has officially voted – even though, under other circumstances (that is, regarding GC votes/decisions with which they agree), the right-wing would be quoting and promoting the GC official votes – but in fact they are promoting a contrary view. •3. CLAIM OF ILLEGITIMATE GC VOTE. Some of these in the anti-WO camp have frequently but falsely claimed that the official 1990 GC vote was illegitimate (regarding women pastors performing weddings). 3.A. It was on Thursday, July 12, that the 1990 GC Session voted that any unordained male or female pastor (if ordained as a local elder) could perform weddings. Those revealing their “right-wing rebellion” claim that this Friday vote was when many delegates were allegedly absent. Then they assert that if every delegate, who had been present during the vote against women’s ordination the previous day, had also shown up for the subsequent vote it would NOT have passed; hence, they claim such a vote was illegitimate. 3.B. However, instead of relying upon the emotionally-distracted memories of those against women in spiritual leadership, the written record is clear: An actual tally of all the votes taken (776 in favor, 494 opposed) reveals that, even if ALL the absent delegates had voted against women pastors being allowed to perform weddings, it would still have survived/passed with a majority vote. •4. RESPONSE 4.A. EXPECT GC LEADERSHIP TO SHOW CONCERN FOR ALL REBELLION. Just as the GC leaders showed serious concern when certain unions moved “forward” to ordain women to the ministry, should we not expect a similar level of active concern from our elected GC leaders when so many are now revealing “right-wing rebellion” and wanting the church to move “backwards”? Let’s pray, and trust that our leaders will step forward. 4.B. PATIENCE OF THE SAINTS WEARING THIN? Some have wondered: Why not patiently cooperate, as the Church studies the matter? Well, for more than 40 years the Church has had multiple studies done on this matter. And, never has any conclusive evidence been found (using sound biblical principles of interpretation) that Scripture is against women’s ordination. Perhaps, the “patience of the saints” is wearing thin. . . . “Lord, ‘Increase our faith!’” (Luke 17:5).
Posted on: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 01:38:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015