Czech-Slovak Union Votes to Ordain Women to Pastoral Ministry, Rejects GC Document

(George Tichy) #61

You see? You should be more careful with your observations about us, the ones that may know way more than you do about these issues. Just defending the man without having enough info of him, can have (as he said once), “grave consequences.” (In this case, embarrassment… :open_mouth: :innocent: )

The case in Australia was a huge FIASCO. After behaving that way he should have either apologized or even resigned! How can a GC President behave that way and not repent from it? If you really want to be informed, here is the report on the whole thing, read it by yourself:
Do you condone such a behavior by a GC President? (This is really a question!)

By the way, somewhere above you mentioned the vote in 2015. Did you ever read what the question being voted was? Please, find out what it was, then copy and paste it here so that we can discuss it. Would you?

(Steve Mga) #62

Are you aware that the persons in charge of creating the World Church
Directory REFUSED to include the name of the woman elected as
a PRESIDENT of her area in California?
YES!! They just left the space for her name “BLANK” as if it is
ALSO, at GC2015, she was NOT given a seat with other Presidents. She
had to attend with a LOWLY delegate tag and NOT be recognized for
her position in her area.
Talk about CRUEL!! and OUTRAGIOUS!! behavior. And that was Ordered
to be done at the Highest Levels of the GC! And still No Apology for either
of those things toward her person as a WOMAN.

(George Tichy) #63

@kalfoof (whoever you are!)

Just what @niteguy2 (Steve) described in his post #62 would be enough for anyone to refuse support a GC President who behaved that way ,don’t you think? Do you condone TW’s behavior in that case?


Regarding the actions taken by the Czech-Slovak Union in October 2018 regarding the unity of the Church and the proposal of a Unity Statement, I agree that it is a matter open for discussion. The Union makes many valid points. This General Conference policy, as are all interim voted policies, is only temporary until either eliminated, modified, or reviewed and accepted with or without changes or corrections, amendments, and etcetera. I am sure that it was intended only as a stop-gap action needed to address a specific situation or trend, one which would be better resolved by one given the input of the wisdom, intellect, and inspiration of the Church in General Session. Until then however, we should present a unified front and as best as we can, submit to its guidelines.

Unity in the Church is BIBLICAL and one of our fundamental beliefs which unites us. It should not also cause division among us.

However, on the topic of whether to ordain women to the full pastoral ministry, I must disagree, not necessarily with your sympathies, but with your willingness to abandon both unity and procedures which have been, by unified agreements long established by our Church in full GC Session.

Yes, working by this Heaven approved consensus or democratic system is slower, but it also keeps us from rushing into making some unwise decisions as well.

The question of women’s ordination is simply not directly addressed in the Bible. Some say its silence is cultural, others point out that in the light of the cultures surrounding Israel and the Church, its silence instead spoke volumes due to their countercultural nature in comparison with the priestesses of the surrounding nations.

Regardless of our personal feelings or convictions we must stand down until all can clearly see the matter with new light and insights made clear and understood by all, or at least the majority, if need be.

Personally, on the question of women’s ordination, I cannot, with a clear conscience, take a stand on either side at this time. This issue should not, and morally cannot, be determined based on current modern customs, civil rights as they are assumed based on modern or ancient times, or national or international human laws that today can be seen to take the side of injustice and immorality just as soon, or more quickly, than they are to support biblical views of what is right or wrong. The tribunals of the end times will come back and may well nail Adventists to the wall on the matter of the Sabbath, based on such tangents as this very question. Walk circumspectly and with caution my brethren.


Correct me if I am wrong.

  1. GC working policy has precedent over Division working policy.
  2. Division working policy has precendent over Union policy.
  3. Union working policy has precendent over conference policy.

If the GC working policy says only men are to be ordained, then the Division can’t go against that.
If the Division policy says only men are to be ordained, then the Union can’t go against that.
If the Union policy says only men are to be ordained, then Conferences can’t go against that.

If that is correct, then under section L 34 ( qualification for Ordination to the Ministry ) in the NAD working policies, men are the only ones that can be ordained to be ministers.

The GC working policy under section L 35 states basically the same thing.

_ 35 Qualifications for Ordination
to the Ministry
L 35 05 Vital Concern of Church—The setting apart of men for the
sacred work of the ministry should be regarded as one of the most vital
concerns of the church.

From the NAD working policy, sec. B40

B 40 20 Divisions A Part of General Conference—The larger
and more extensive the work of these great 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 dependent 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.

The vote of 2015 said the Divisions cannot “do their own thing”.
_“After your prayerful study on ordination from the Bible, the writings of Ellen G. White, and the reports of the study commissions, and; after your careful consideration of what is best for the church and the fulfillment of its mission**, 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? Yes or No.” GC July 2015 Yes 977 no 1381_**

It would appear that Unions do not have the authority to ordain women if the Division working policy says they can’t. And even the NAD says that ordination to the ministry is for men.

And the GC working policy does not allow for women to be ordained.
So Divisions can’t make that provision according to the vote of 2015.
So Unions can’t make that provision according to the vote of 2015.
So Conferences can’t make that provision according to the vote of 2015

I personally believe that those who voted knew what they were voting for. If you listen to the two minute speeches, you will see that clearly. Those who spoke in favor of the motion were for WO. Those who spoke against the motion were not for WO.

My guess is that these copied and pasted working policies will not change anyone’s mind in this forum. But those are the facts as I read them from the policy books themselves.


Do I support discrimination of women in the church for positions other than the head pastor and minister? NO
Do I support the idea that God set up men as the head of the church? Yes.
If you think that is discrimination, well, then I guess my God is discriminatory as far as roles are concerned: not as far as salvation is concerned.
I believe there is biblical support and SOP support for the male headship that God established from the beginning. Gen. 3. I have shared that support in earlier posts.


Consider putting yourself in TW’s shoes for a moment. ( mission impossible?)

  1. He is president of a world church, elected by the members.
  2. As such he is obligated to abide and enforce the working policies of that organization.
  3. The working policies of the SDA church say that only men are to ordained as ministers.
  4. For him to do anything against that working policy, regardless of his personal opinions, disqualifies him from his position as president.

You may not like his choice of what to do. He was following policy. And until that policy is changed, he probably will not ordain any woman as a minister.
He would lose his presidency because the people would expect him to follow policy.
If he can’t follow policy because it goes against his convictions, than I would expect him to resign. That would be the right thing to do.

(Steve Mga) #68

kalfoof –
AS PRESIDENT, President Wilson could work to CHANGE the policies.
But his treatment of women shows that he obviously sees them as
second class persons in the SDA church AND IN GOD’S KINGDOM.

Same with Doug Batchelor – he sees women as second class persons

Those working in the building at Silver Springs are keeping their mouth
shut [so we don’t know what they believe] so they can stay on and receive
their sustentation and retirement benefits.


It is so interesting to watch your logical progression for building your case against women’s call to spiritual leadership as ministers and pastors authorized by their denomination to preach, be chaplains, and use their spiritual gifts.

Your arguments from policy show that you believe that policy trumps other doctrines and principles.

For example: you never mention Fundamental Belief #14 as inclusive. In fact, you don’t mention it at all as a voted church doctrine. You seem in rebellion to it.

Another example, is the solidly Protestant doctrine of the Priesthood of ALL Believers. This happened with the ripping of the curtain in the temple and continued with the Holy Spirit’s tongues of fire on both men and women recipients. To dispose of the Priesthood of ALL Believers, such an important concept in the New Testament ushering in the age of the church for Holy Spirit empowered people, is to rebel against one of the most important fundamental beliefs of Christianity. This Biblically powered Scriptural base for men and women trumps any church policy to the contrary.

You have done fine research on policy, but perhaps missed the heart and soul of Fundamental Belief #14.


I completely reject your unsubstantiated assertion that TW and DB see women as second class persons in the church or kingdom of God.


Why didn’t you comment on the working policies of the GC and NAD that I pasted there?
Why have all Christian churches from AD 33 to 1800 had only men as priests and ministers?
Were they wrong for all those years?
When did men only as head of the church become “wrong, unbiblical” theology?
Was the Holy Spirit not empowering women through all that long period of time?
And finally, a question that no one will answer…Why didn’t Jesus, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, chose at least one woman as his apostle?
Seems to me that his doing that would have solved this whole dilemma.

(Steve Mga) #72

kalfoof –
Those who take time to peer into Church History will discover that MEN ONLY
as able to minister to the laity is a CATHOLIC CHURCH Tradition. And the
SDA church following that pattern are continuing this Catholic Church Tradition
in the Policies that you reported.
We preach against Catholics, but continue a Catholic Tradition. Strange and Odd
that President Wilson would want to continue this Tradition.

Doug Batchelor and his 28 reasons why women are inferior to males was on
YouTube several years ago. And presented to a mixed audience in his
SanFrancisco church.
It was very demeaning and insulting!
One awful statement was that women wanted to go to “semen-aries” which are
for men. I thought that was quite crude.

(George Tichy) #73

I am not even reading all those long lectures that you’re writing.
Though I noticed that you lack knowledge about who is in charge of making decisions about ordination in our church. Check the church history to learn that the Unions are in charge of that. If the GC wants to interfere, yes, this is mere interference and it is illegal, nothing but abuse of power.

(George Tichy) #74

Steve, there is indeed a class of man that have absolutely no respect for women. They have a psychological need to be in control of women. This is basically a personality distortion. The good thing is that there is treatment for that condition, but it will work only if they get professional clinical treatment.

(Shining) #75

no, kalfoof, not Ted alone. Many who voted what he asked for will have to answer to God for not accepting those He has sent us. I suggest that you DO post all three motions. Be sure to post all parts as written.

(George Tichy) #76

I already asked @kalfoof to post at least the motion presented in 2015. Nothing so far…
Maybe he read it now for the first time and realized that the motion was far from what he imagined it was.

(Steve Mga) #77

George –
Re: kalfoof. I believe this person [who has a teaching career] is not in the
Conversation Mode. Trying to TEACH us the error of our ways instead.
Perhaps has drunk too much of the Michigan Kool-Aid to be interested
in just conversation.

(George Tichy) #78

Probably another one of those “rebuker teachers” that land here for a few days and then disappear for another year? Nothing new, uh?

(Steve Mga) #79

Attempting to “Save Us” from false doctrines of women being equal before God.
the “God is no respecter of persons” and “there is no male or female” heresies.


Because you missed the point. You think working policies trump Fundamental Belief #14. Why didn’t you comment on Fundamental Belief #14?

They haven’t. Women have served as pastors. My female ancestors in the Quaker Church of Friends preached and served as pastors in their faith.

Yes. Women have always through the centuries been put down by men. Especially capable women who threaten some males.

Probably with the Headship Heresy, attempting to push out women blessed by the Holy Spirit and gifted with spiritual leadership.

Yes. Many women were affiliated with Paul and his ministry, including the one he entrusted to take the book of Romans to Rome. That involved speaking to the various groups in Rome to introduce and teach the book to those Christians.

I’m sorry you have not studied the culture at that time in which women were “property” and didn’t even count as one person. Far from your view, the Bible reveals that Jesus uplifted women, empowered them, and authorized them to speak the Gospel. Jesus sent out the first evangelist, the woman at the well, and authorized her to evangelize her entire town with the Gospel. Jesus gave the Gospel to Mary and told her and the other women at the rolled away stone to give the Gospel story to the men who were too afraid to even show up and check on the grave. Jesus uplifted Mary Magdalene who ordained and anointed Him for the tomb, not a man.

I hope you are able to focus on these women whom Jesus touched against cultural and religious laws to heal them, encourage them, uplift them, and affirm them.

Take a look at Romans 16 and notice that Phoebe’s role in her church and Paul’s mentioning her first in the chapter. Prisca and Aquila are called “fellow workers in Christ,” which could include apostleship.

Also check Romans 16:17 - 19 and think about the anti-Trinitarian movement and the Headship Heresy to deny women the authorization needed to be Gospel, spiritual leaders and pastors. Why would a mere human speak against the Holy Spirit’s gifts to another human and forbid them to use their God-given spiritual gifts?

That would put Phoebe and Prisca in the kitchen when Jesus said that Mary had chosen the best part, theology.