AdventNetwork of Southern Africa Issues Statement After Annual Council Compliance Vote

Please dont make so much hullabaloo about nothing… The correct item was Divisions and not Unions. Small mistake but does not take away anything from the argument. Unions are under Divisions if you read your church manual.

I dont see where i shot my two feet with a simple mistake about the divisions/unions,

I asked you to quote me the actual wording of the motion, and @GeorgeTichy was kind enough to share the quoted motion with you. If you want a link to the transcript located online at the Adventist Archives:,-wednesday-pm,-july-8,-2015.pdf

Page 68 is where you will find the motion.

1 Like

I was not even pointing out to the alleged typo. I am saying that the GC tried to expand the exclusive authority of the Unions, regarding ordination management, to include the Divisions (aka GC). It was rejected by the GC Session! (I honestly believe that God intervened “a la Babel”!)

Now, if you want to insist that the Unions are not the exclusive managers of ordination issues in their territories, then there is nothing to say on it. They have been for ages, and suddenly you deny it? That would be a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the authority of the Unions.

Good luck on spreading the idea that the Unions are not the ones in charge of ordination issues in their territories. You will see who will prevail on this, even if they have to take it to the Courts!


Brother Denny, I think you missed my question to you above?

1 Like

Indeed it is, unfortunately he expresses a profound lack of respect that seems to be deeply seated. Like all perpetrators of discrimination, who feel that their authority is threatened, isn’t this how it starts? The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness to dominate others that turns good men…cruel. He has abandoned civility propriety, mutual respect, dignity of each person as equal in the eyes of God and imagines this is necessary to fight the infidels that threaten the proper order of things.

Now, left only with anger, he uses this forum to petulantly oppose any who challenge his cherished belief.

1 Like

LOL… When I read your request I already knew that you obviously had it in your pocket. Sorry for stealing the pleasure of catching another guy who did not understand what was actually voted in SA and was spreading false, fake, inaccurate information.

What is it with those people who keep insisting on spreading error? Even Ted Wilson acknowledged right away that the status quo remained in place? Why don’t those people accept TW’s word for it? Here is the official word about it:

1 Like

People like this have a deep seated desire to dominate those they think are inferior (even though they say that is not how they think). More than anything they fear losing the legitimacy in others eyes and power over those that are the target of their discrimination. As you said using false, fake, and misleading information are all justified in their world view.

My parents made extreme decisions in their life all based on the concept that “freedom is untouchable.” They fled from the Nazi invasion of their country (Czechoslovakia), then later on they left everything behind a second time after the Communists grabbed the Czech government. Then they emigrated to Brazil, afraid of having to deal with a WW III. Going through two WWs was enough for them!

The idea we, their children, were well indoctrinated with was certainly, “freedom is untouchable.” I think you can feel the results in my posts…

It’s hard to watch some Christians now trying to hijack others’ freedom by means discrimination. Under our watch? No way!


10/24/18 - #4

Entering the 1990 GC vote into the record here (from ADvindicate):

1990 GC Session on Women’s Ordination to the Gospel Ministry

In order to clarify this, the entire voted 1990 statement is outlined first, together with an added emphasis in bold, so as to highlight that this was not evidently seen as a permanent decision (and hence included the words “at this time”).

Apparently, this was because it was recognized that the decision was based on pragmatic grounds (i.e., due to “widespread lack of support,” and to avoid the “risk of disunity, dissension, and diversion from the mission of the church”), and not from a consensus as to what Scripture teaches.

In fact, the now retired Biblical Research Institute Director, Dr. Ángel Manuel Rodríguez accurately captured this when he stated: “The church has not taken an official position on the biblical support (or lack of it) for the ordination of women to the ministry.” (“Can We Talk?” Adventist Review, October 2010). Here is the 1990 vote:

Voted, To accept the following report and recommendations of the Role of Women Commission as recommended by the 1989 Annual Council:

The presidents of the world divisions of the General Conference reported to the commission on the situation in their fields with respect to the ordaining of women to the gospel ministry.

In several divisions there is little or no acceptance of women in the role of pastors, ordained or otherwise. In other divisions some unions would accept women as pastors, but indications are that the majority of unions do not find this acceptable.


However, in the North American Division there seems to be wider support for the ordination of women.

The division presidents also reported that based upon extensive discussions, committees, commissions, surveys, etc., there exists the probability that approving the ordination of women would result in disunity, dissension, and perhaps even SCHISM . Hence the presidents came to these two conclusions:

  1. A decision to ordain women as pastors would not be welcomed or meet with approval in most of the world church.
  2. The provisions of the Church Manual and the General Conference Working Policy, which allow only for ordination to the gospel ministry on a worldwide basis, have strong support by the divisions.

The General Conference and division officers present at the commission concur with the conclusions of the presidents. The commission having listened to the arguments and presentations for and against the ordination of women; having sensed the needs and concerns of the world field; having carefully considered what is probably best and the least disruptive for the world church at this time ; and recognizing the importance of our eschatological mission, the witness and image of our spiritual family, and the need for oneness of and unity in the church, reports to the 1990 General Conference session upon the recommendation of the 1989 Annual Council the following results of its deliberation:

  1. While the commission does not have a consensus as to whether or not the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen G. White explicitly advocate or deny the ordination of women to pastoral ministry , it concludes unanimously that these sources affirm a significant, wide-ranging, and continued ministry for women which is being expressed and will be evidenced in the varied and expanding gifts according to the infilling of the Holy Spirit.
  2. Further, in view of the widespread lack of support for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry in the world Church and in view of the possible risk of disunity, dissension, and diversion from the mission of the Church , we do not approve ordination of women to the gospel ministry.

[The vote was – In favor to not ordain women: 1,173. Opposed: 377].

I suggest that the risk of schism exists today because Adventists have fallen prey to agitators who stand to gain by forcing Headship Ideology on the Adventist people, thus consolidating power.

(Google the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the resulting abuse of women.)

I appreciate your acknowledgment that you stated a mistake. You characterized it as a small mistake… a simple mistake.

Now you recognize that the motion was directed to the Divisions. Great. It is important distinction and not a “hullabaloo about nothing”.

By this statement, you acknowledge that you are aware of the (SDA) church manual. Excellent. Do you have one in hand? Not a problem if you do not. Here is a link to your SID “Working Policy” that the Southern Zambia Union Conference has posted online in a PDF format.

If you would re-evaluate the information concerning the organizational structure for the SDA church, then we will be able to converse on the issue of the authority of the WO vote. It is a lengthy document. But here is a short-cut, if you wish to take it, to find “Section B- Organization and Administration”… page 87 of the PDF or page 40 in the current manual.

In that “B” section, it clarifies the definition of Union Conference/Mission (B 10 15 Union Conference/Mission …page 91 of the PDF or page 44 in the manual). The scope of the responsibilities is found in the same section. At the beginning of the “B” section, the manual defines the principles of the organizational life and procedures of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. (B 05 Organizational and Operational Principles of Seventh-day Adventist Church Structure… page 87 of the PDF or page 40 in the manual).

It is in this segment of “Organizational and Operational Principles” it specifies where the organizational authority and responsibility is distributed among the various levels of the denomination. (page 88 of the PDF or page 41 in the manual):

"6. Different elements of organizational authority and responsibility are
distributed among the various levels of denominational organization. For
example, the decision as to who may/may not be a member of a local Seventh-day
Adventist Church is entrusted to the members of the local church
concerned; decisions as to the employment of local church pastors is entrusted
to the local conference/mission; decisions regarding the ordination of ministers
is entrusted to the union conference/mission; and the definition of

denominational beliefs is entrusted to the General Conference in Session. Thus
each level of organization exercises a realm of final authority and
responsibility that may have implications for other levels of organization. In a

similar manner, each organization is dependent to some extent on the realm of
authority exercised by other levels of organization.
No church organization or entity assumes responsibility for the liabilities,
debts, acts, or omissions of any other church organization simply because of its
church affiliation."

The word “entrusted” is a significant, it implies committing with trust and confidence.

The General Conference did not always have “Union Conference/Missions” in the organizational structure. This was added in 1901 for just cause. The church was growing and expanding, and the GC not in a position to micromanage from Battle Creek. No internet with emails for quick response to issues. (30-plus years ago when I was in service in Africa, a TELEX took two weeks to arrive at our location.) So the GC in session decided to entrust the authority of ordination to the Union Conference/Missions.

1 Like

Thank you so much for providing this info, especially the text from the Church Manual. Very educational post.
I hope it will help to clarify @BroDenny’s “hullabaloo about nothing”:wink:

@GeorgeTichy, you are welcome. I actually checked with my church manual to make sure that the SID version was not different :wink:

1 Like

** … God disciplines us when we rebel… We will not make it heaven if we dont “comply” with heavens will…**

Are you suggesting, Bro Denny, that it is God’s (Heaven’s) will that women cannot be pastors, and that there be a system of ‘church police’?

1 Like

…we therefore believe being against WO is equivalent to discrimination…says who? Show us the biblical and SOP evidence thats in favour…

Bro Denny, can you kindly give a text from the Bible that clearly and explicitly state that women cannot/should not be ordained as pastors? Or a similar text from EGW?


Unfortunatley once again, your raving and ranting will not get to me… Lay oyur facts and points bare and stop with this attacking my persona. The readers will see that you have no poitns and keep resorting to calling me names and saying i my authority is theatened etc. P.S. you dont even knowwhat position i have/or dont have in the church and so you speak from conjecture and presumption becasue in fact its you who is emotional because i come with an independent mindset and poit of view from the Word which you cannot stomach. sad.

Give me your text first… The burden of proof is on you since you say “me” and my “camp” are discriminators…

Thank you for your on-going contribution of providing examples of trolling/baiting in on-line forums.


Thank you for this excerpt. It is quite useful. I did not have access to it… I love the points even about local churches, conferences and unions…At all it uses the term “entrusted”… However i would like to ask a rhetorical question… Is that freedom/trust to act limitless or should i say; is it that those levels can do ANYTHING they want to do regarding e.g. who becomes a member (LC), employed as a pastor (Conf.) or ordained as a minister (Unions)?.. Those people or persons must fulfil certain criteria for them to be recognized at whatever level correct? For example, can a conference just come out and decide to employ a Catholic Pirest as a pastor in our church because he had theologial training? NO! They have see that this person meets certain criteria… Can a local chuch decide to baptise an infant just because the baptismal font has water and the church business meeting decided so? NO! Whatever deceision any level makes must still remain and be in harmony with our beliefs…I would give more examples e.g. on the LGBT++ side but i know some will not miss the opportunity to say i am twinning the WO issue with LGBT+…

Please assist me with my rhetorical question…Lets get down to the basics or wording and English…i am all ears.

You know nothing about me and you call me a troll because i dont tow your line of thought? Spectrum admin, is this conduct by @David1 permissible??? Can he not stick to the discussion in a civilised manner. I will however not be drawn into losing my cool and mud slinging back…Never! :wink:

Again based on analysis the behavior fits the definition of a classic internet troll with the deviation being a fixation on a narrow set of topics in religious matters and or a subset of cherished beliefs that they alone feel they are defending.

a) often phrases comments in condescending manner to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument

b) exhibits significant compulsive obsessive writing pattern i.e. checking every single comment that does not match their point of view often commenting on multiple quoted sources in a single thread

c) the pattern of writing after he/she receives an initial response demonstrate a pleasure response to having themselves recognized and will repeatedly demand proofs be provided after the respondent has already done so in an effort to bait them

d) after the initial response to his/her initial comment there is a clear pattern of using inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic message content to start quarrels or upsets people to distract and sow discord with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion

e) the overall pathology indicates that he/she starts by spewing negative words across a variety of comments sections for various articles. Members (like myself) will often respond and before you know it, the thread gets thrown completely off topic and becomes nothing but one big pointless argument

f) based on writing patterns appears to have a significant social identity crisis in which he/she feels that Spectrum and or its commentators is a direct threat to this identity and its members are the root cause to all the ills in the SDA church (a previous post you stated as much)

1 Like