We’ll see Kevin. I wouldn’t be surprised if he ended up supporting a compromise, but even if he doesn’t, his vision can’t change the reality that regions are deciding ordination. He can’t make that go away. He doesn’t have the power. He might be able to slow the numbers of regions doing it, but he can’t change what has already happened and will continue to happen.
No, I would not leave. But there is no realistic chance for women’s ordination to be approved by the General Conference, especially in view of the rebellious actions in certain territories. The issue today at the Annual Council was clearly perceived by women’s ordination advocates as a vote up or down on women’s ordination. The down vote won, by a suffocating margin.
I am quite sure a similar margin will deliver the coup de grace to women’s ordination next year.
Beth, it really amazes me to hear you commenting on this issue, as you have stated quite openly on other threads that you no longer even profess Christianity or believe there is a God. I can’t imagine what the question of ordination could possibly mean to one of your worldview.
And as far as regional ordination being a given, it is not. The church can hold these people accountable, according to policy. And our president did speak of “grave consequences.” He means what he said. Read the General Conference Working Policy and see the options available to the leaders once this issue is settled on a global level.
But then, if you don’t believe in God, why do you care?
Why, Kevin Paulson, so optimistic about WO being voted down next year? Do you have some stats to show you are on the right track? I sincerely hope you are correct.
In The Grip of Truth
It puzzles me no end why persons who have left the SDA church seem so interested in its practices. As I have previously said - if I left the SDA church I would say goodbye to this and any other SDA related blog, conservative or liberal, and find more constructive pursuits.
In The Grip of Truth
Really, Kevin, this isn’t WWII or the Bay of Pigs. Enough talk of “the battle” and your dear leader who will reveal himself at the last moment, leading his followers to final victory. Why don’t you just hook up the game console and play through “Call of Duty?” You might find it cathartic.
Interesting thanks. Will be watching!
Spoken like a real evangelist, Kevin. Actually, those who no longer believe in God DO care about how others are treated, especially by religious leaders who go about threatening “grave consequences.” It’s you who needs to check your worldview and your assumptions.
See precedence and the profound implications in the familiar Question. Spectrum smartly caught the irony and tweeted:
“To reiterate, we have received unconfirmed intel that what GCDO will bring to delegates today will be question similar to 1995.”
Given how accurate your predictions about the TOSC outcome were, one would expect a little less certainty in your prognostication skills.
I think I can 'unpuzzle’you a little here.Being brought up in the strict environs of an SDA family,community,school and church it feels natural to look back years later and wonder ‘what happened…’ A bit like still keeping tabs on your old college football team!
It’s nice to look in, without being ‘in’. I think it’s natural to feel interest and curiosity in an institution that had so much of an impact on your life.
Even with a no vote the 3 divisions that already ordain women are grandfathered in. What would be prohibited is establishing the provisions to ordain women. The 3 divisions have already done so.
Exactly rocco… EXACTLY. The game plan for 1995 was laid out clearly by Folkenburg and Willson the First at a meeting that I attended just prior to the 1995 Utrecht fiasco. The rallying cry was “UNITY in the church”… and it was made so strong that many of those who were actually FOR ordaining women went along with the call to deny it ONE THE GROUNDS that to do so would break up the UNITY of the church. Ted was present at the 1995 meeting, and was one who led out in this rallying cry. I was not at Utrecht, but various ones who were have described to me how it happened… and Ted’s part in it. There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that he will play the same script all over again in San Antonio.
Proponents of women’s ordination have good reason to be encouraged by what occurred today for the following reasons:
The question to be voted in San Antonio comes with the implicit recommendation that the vote be YES. If the delegates were opposed to women’s ordination, they would not have voted overwhelmingly (243 to 44 with 3 abstentions) in favor of submitting the question for a vote in San Antonio.
We can infer from the vote that there are only 44 delegates at Annual Council opposed to women’s ordination, whereas 243 of the delegates support some policy that allows for women’s ordination. We can extrapolate that the question will be answered in the affirmative by a large margin in San Antonio.
The language of the question is much softer and more favorable toward women’s ordination than the language of similar measures voted at GC sessions in the past, which reflects upon the growing trend in the Seventh-day Adventist Church in favor of women’s ordination. As extra-biblical attitudes that opponents of women’s ordination superimpose upon Scripture recede throughout the world, that trend should continue.
The language of the question does not invite the GC Session delegates to rescind any ordinations of women as elders or pastors. No ordinations of women will be rescinded in San Antonio.
The language of the question does not invite the GC Session delegates to cast a vote that might prevent women from doing what ordained pastors do. No matter what happens in San Antonio, women will continue to organize churches, teach, preach, give Bible studies, baptize, pastor churches, and hold various administrative offices including the office of president.
Proponents of women’s ordination will now have additional time to impress upon Seventh-day Adventists throughout the world what male headship theory teaches. Many Church members do not realize that male headship theory is the worst heresy to ever confront the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Whereas the Church believes in the doctrine of the Trinity, male headship theorists teach that Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father. Whereas the Church believes that women are created in the image of God, male headship theorists argue that Eve was assigned a sphere by God that exists between the sphere of men and the sphere of animals. Whereas the Church believes that Christ is the typological fulfillment of the OT priesthood, male headship theorists believe that the OT priesthood points to an exclusively-male church pastorate. As Seventh-day Adventists come to fully realize the carnage male headship theory does to Church doctrines, they will be more favorable to the question.
The question was recommended by Ted Wilson and the GCDO. I continue to believe that Elder Wilson talks like a traditional folk Adventist but thinks and governs like a conservative. There are several practical reasons why he would be a quiet supporter of the question. First, answering the question in the affirmative settles the issue. And people warm up to the idea that the Church under Elder Wilson’s leadership can govern itself in an intelligent and statesmanlike manner. In contrast, if the question is not answered in the affirmative, especially if the vote is close, then the struggle in favor of women in ministry continues and nothing is solved. (Notice that if there is a close vote in the affirmative, the outcome will probably be deemed legitimate, because divisions not in agreement will not be compelled to ordain women). Second, if the question is not answered in the affirmative, women will continue to be ordained in various unions throughout the world, and there is nothing that can be done to stop that. (Notice the loophole inherent in the question). Third, as awareness grows that male headship theory stands in opposition to many doctrines of the Church, he will understandably want to see the Church distance itself from that theory. Finally, an affirmative vote functions as significant fruit of Revival and Reformation that he called for when he became president.
True, Wilson may not but a spectrum of GCDO leaders do. Wright’s realtime tweet caught this distinction:
“We’re getting unconfirmed intel that what will come from GCDO to delegates will not be recommendation but a question to send to GC.”
Good points. I have stated this before the only power the GC has over a union is at a GC Session vote them out of the sisterhood of unions. They would then have to create a new union with new assets since all assets would still remain with the original union. In structure we are congregationally organized
I’m interested for all sorts of reasons. My training is partly in social groups and I am endlessly curious about people and how they behave. Because so much of my life involved the SDA church, that is a group I know something about, so I suppose I might be more curious about it than other groups.
Even though my worldview differs now in important ways from most who post here, I still share other values with some, namely the values of human equality and dignity. Whenever we humans inch closer to treating each other better than we did before, it’s a good day and WO is a part of that.
Your reasoning is sound and as well organized as I would expect it to be, coming from you. And I hope you are right. HOWEVER… I think you are overlooking some very crucial factors… starting with the Utrecht history which I briefly stated above. And add to that the fact that Ted claimed that he did NOT tell what his preference was for the vote today… though he certainly acted in ways that were obviously for the purpose of controlling it… but he also claimed that he WOULD tell the delegates to SA what he preferred. Now think for a moment… after the Wilson Dynasty has spent over 50 years in encouraging countries around the world to not only accept but desire “top down” leadership which tells them what do so… do you REALLY think than any of those will vote to allow women to be ordained if they understand that their TOP LEADER is saying he does not want that to happen?
Are you by chance a practicing litigator?
I think we are in a completely different game here. What you say about Utrecht is true, but in this case that scarecrow will not be agitated. The live twit clearly showed how the chair called all VPs and Division leaders to come to the mic and support the motion. One by one, all of them - ever seen that? - openly declared themselves in favour of allowing diversification at Division level to avoid a split. The game is just the opposite now - differentiation is proposed as a way out to a problem that could compromise unity at even more fundamental levels. Whether or not this will be a successful strategy among delegates, we’ll see.