In case anyone was wondering why the church is dying off… this is one of many reasons. Sexist patriarchal BS.
I’m out. Do I contact the general conference to revoke my membership or is that with my (former) home church? #OnlyGoodAsAPokestopNow #SDAexit
“A year of grace” sounds like those in power giving the rebels a chance to reprent. What the church need is consultation.
I thought I read comments calling for the GC to slow down and consider other options. Now that the discussion is that the GC is giving a year to discuss this before any action is taken people still are not happy with the outcome. Is that not what was asked for? I thought that would allow for both “sides” to consider some solution that might be amicable to both sides. Seems there is no such solution. I don’t think this will end with a decision either way or a compromise. No one seems to be talking about the very basic issue. What if WO is approved or at least on a Union by Union opt in or out scenario? Will we now just move down a level to the local Church level to hash this out. Will congregations resist WO in their church? Will congregations now battle about a male/female ordained pastor? I live where I have a few options for church to attend. What of that small church that is the only one around for miles. Will the congregation split over that? Just because the question is resolved at the GC or Union level does not mean every church member is happy about it either way it goes. I don’t read here often but the comments I am reading are rather harsh toward Ted Wilson and the entire GC staff. I seem to remember a vote of the entire World Body that voted on this. I don’t remember it being forced on the Church by Ted Wilson. I suppose I could be wrong. At least that is what I think I will hear after I post this. Maybe that is why I don’t read here much. A little to harsh for my tastes.
Lots of women already are serving as pastors. Conferences don’t place pastors in congregations opposed to him/her. Pastors don’t agree to be placed in a church that’s set against them. It would be foolish whether the pastor is a woman or a man. This is Pastoral Placement 101.
Would someone who has given serious study to the relevant legal documents, which would include the bylaws of the Unions in question, let us know why the following could not be a compromise course of action; the Unions agree to call new constituency meetings to consider their pre-GC votes in light of the action at the GC. If those constituencies change their prior vote, existing ordained pastors retain their credentials, but no further ordinations of women would occur. On the other hand, if the constituencies again vote to ordain women, it just is not clear what the GC could do, is it? The creation of Unions in 1901 and the accompanying democratization of the church has created an interesting situation, to say the least. Can it seriously be disputed that if a Union took a theological position that a very high percentage of Adventists considered rank apostasy (for example, that Sabbath had been changed to Sunday or that confessed atheists should be ordained), some action by the larger church to distance itself from that Union should be in order? Yet what would or could that action be under the current legal structure of our church organization? I certainly understand that the vast majority of commenters on this site does not view WO as an issue that should trigger discipline, and I do not disagree, but is there not some line that most would agree is too far? In that case, is the view of this conversation that the GC should be powerless or would be powerless?
Many of you know that Ted Wilson postpones action on something when he learns he can’t win. I believe that is what has happened - people warned him that this was a losing battle this time around.
What I have to say next may be considered gossip because I will not identify the source lest their employment be jeopardized. However, last Sabbath I was told by a prominent pastor in the Pacific Union that a strong force behind TW on this issue is wealthy ASI members. How sad that money can buy influence like this and is then interpreted as “God’s will”.
One can only wonder now what will happen a year from now. The Pacific Union is not going to “repent”.
You’ve stated perfectly what I have felt as I’ve read through these postings.
I’m disappointed in how Spectrum has handled this “unity” issue. I don’t see it as responsible journalism but as loosely-woven sensationalism designed to appeal to fear, anger, and suspicion. I’m not saying that there aren’t reasons for concern regarding the unity issue. But I suspect that people’s words and motives have been twisted for effect and that if we could see and hear what has actually transpired and been said, we might see a different picture than what’s been painted here.
I find it interesting that many of these responses sound as if the writers believe that the vote to deny individual divisions the right to handle women’s ordination in accordance with their best interest was mandated by the General Conference leaders in Maryland and not from GC Session delegates comprised mostly of church members. It’s true I that the term “General Conference” has been used to refer to GC Session, but they are not the same thing and the difference between them is vital to this discussion.
I very much appreciate the well-reasoned, thought-provoking, and solution-oriented comments some of you have made.Your comment in particular uplifted the value and beauty of respect–a quality that keeps us from dehumanizing ourselves and others. How refreshing. Thank you!
It seems to me that the time for authoritarianism within the church, at any level of the church, is long past. It also seems that reasonable people should be able to sit down, break bread together, wash one another’s feet, and solve this thing as followers of Christ should. Barring that, It would seem the church is no longer fulfilling its mission, and in fact has abandoned it’s mission and should either seek repentance or disband entirely.
I whole heartedly agree with your comments. Thank you. A Year of Grace? A year of coercion? There is nothing more dangerous in the world than someone (or several ones) on a mission for God who don’t know him (or have lost their perspective on the church’s real mission. Recently, Elder Wilson wrote that the mission of the church was to share the Sabbath truth. Ellen White wrote that the last message to be taken to the world was the truth about God’s character (COL 415). Here’s another quote: “We shall in the future as we have in the past, see all kinds of characters developed. We shall witness the apostasy of men in whom we have had confidence, in whom we trusted, who, we supposed, were as true as steel to principle. Something comes to test them, and they are overthrown. If such men fall, some say, whom can we trust? This is the temptation Satan brings to destroy the confidence of those who are striving to walk in the narrow way. Those who fall have evidently corrupted their way before the Lord, and they are beacons of warning, teaching those who profess to believe the truth that the Word of God alone can keep men steadfast in the way of holiness, or reclaim them from guilt.” – {7MR 180.3}
We may not need a year of repentance to study and apply how the union conferences act to recall, remove or replace a GC President and administration that has taken a hard turn toward harmful and devisive policies. I am impressed by the response of men and women with characters, spines and a better vision for our church. Hopefully they are blessed with more tact and patience than I am. Prayers ascend…
Membership is always local. Neither the GC, Union, or Conference can change that. While I encourage all to stick with it and be part of change/restoration so desparately needed, I’d also prefer that people find places where their walk with Jesus is genuine and unfettered.
Repentance can occur only if there has been sin.
Conviction cannot be compromised.
Headship is not a commonly held believe or position.
EGW was a woman who spoke in Church, and to the Church. She was not silent.
God chose EGW (yes a female) to instruct the GC in Session, the GC President and officers out of session and they sought her counsel.
Leadership needs to lead and offer a way that is inclusive.
Forcing a disputable matter upon which the church has never taken a vote (notice headship theology is not included in the beliefs voted in session).
To kick this down the road a year only gives more time to dig deeper trenches and get more weapons. Does the GC Leadership not understand Conflict Resolution?
I can’t imagine that anyone who has repentantly recognized their full forgiveness of God in Jesus Christ does not likewise grant unto all an eternity of grace.
I heard the delusion of promising when God would return. This blasphemy spawned all numbers of heresies, including some of the old ones, those of Pelages, Arian, and Calvin. I suppose it ought not be too surprising to see the sixth generation renewing the compromise.
Come out of her My People that ye be not partakers in her sins!
Lord, have mercy.
Well, my first response to you on this post had the chart I posted erased, and then when I came back and embedded the link to the chart in the word “here,” it got dozens of clicks, then Spectrum deleted the whole post.
It was just a chart of SDA church practice and UCC opposing policy, regarding functions of ministers.
I’m wondering what is so dangerous about that information that Spectrum has to censor it so heavily.
I also said I thought the GC would use this “year of grace” to try to walk back the ordination of women elders altogether, to lay a better foundation for rescinding women’s ministerial ordination.
This is very, very simple. The church voted in General Conference session not to have female ordination. If some administrative units can ignore that vote, and ordain women anyway, the church’s governance has broken down, and there isn’t really a worldwide church organization. If there is no mechanism by which these administrative units can be forced to follow the voted policy, the vote was meaningless, church government has been nullified, and there isn’t really a worldwide church, just Israel in the time of the judges, when every man did what was right in his own eyes.
There are two options: (1) we can discipline the rebels, even if that means the loss of a lot of people and property, or (2) do nothing and concede the end of the SDA Church as an ongoing worldwide organization.
I think Elder Wilson is hesitant to do any real discipline because he understands very well that the church will split. But the cost of refusing to discipline is that the GC sessions are henceforth a meaningless kabuki theater with no real consequences, and there really is no worldwide organization.
It’s not rocket science. We should all know by now that the church, at all levels, is run by committees. I you want any of your pet topics/ideas/beliefs/practices etc to become policy make sure you have a majority of like minded people on those committees and the deal is done! End of story.
I remember how a college US history professor was somewhat surprised at how many of his students thought America was a democracy instead of a republic. The founding fathers knew, because of the ignorance of the common people, that a republic was a better governing approach.
It is NOT rocket science to figure out that most SDA do not have a real clue on the WO issue…because…
Around 90% of SDA have never read their whole bible
Most do not spend much time in spiritual studies.
Most SDA are influenced by worldly opinion and/or secular media influence.
Most SDA do not know what the will of God is.
“He who wills to do His will, will know of the doctrine…” JN 7:17
Above statements based on attending or visiting 50 churches over 50 years.
SDA are currently studying the book of JOB. I challenge/dare any SDA SS teacher or pastor to do a survey to see what % of SS class member read the whole book of Job after 14 weeks…or have ever read the 42 chapters of that book in their lifetime.
Here is what describes many SDA----
“They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them.” …1 JN 4:5
Praise the Lord for the General Conference! It is natural that those that were opposed to the outcome of the General Conference vote would be in favor of ignoring the worldwide church’s answer. The worldwide church’s decision should be honored. The General Conference has every right to speak to the matter of individual unions that do not wish to remain in accordance with the worldwide church’s decision. If the church had voted in FAVOR of women’s ordination, and some unions voted to refuse, the same folks posting on here I believe would be calling on the General Conference to enforce unity across the denomination. They are doing what they need to do in accordance with the vote of the worldwide church.
God’s commandments, statutes, precepts and judgment expands all cultures, ages, gender, races, times, and all religions. The Bible is very clear on WOMEN MINISTERING; Deborah, Tabitha, Anna, Hannah, Priscilla, etc… However, God has left (I have not found) no example, commandment, precept, judgment or i.e. that leads me to understand that women are to hold the office of “PASTOR”; exercising authority over men. I’m eagerly awaiting someone to post an example of a woman from the Bible holding headship in the sanctuary; that would settle this argument. God left us examples on how we should conduct ourselves in every area of our lives. Did HE forget to leave us an example, precept, statue, commandment or judgment on women’s ordination?
I wish it was possible for Annual Council to rather say: “We’d like to invite these unions for a year of dialogue to find the way forward for the unity of our church.”
Wouldn’t that be a little less polarising for the church?
I think the point has been missed. The past year since San Antonio was the year of grace. I’m not sure what one more year is going to do. I do not see anyone backing down. It is now showdown at the OK corral.