NAD Reminds Adventist Satirists That There Is Nothing Funny About Women's Ordination


(system) #1

At the 2014 NAD Year-End Meetings, President Dan Jackson made a special announcement banning the use of humor or satire in the discussion of female ordination. Jackson reminded everyone that given tense times in the run-up to next year's GC Session vote on female ordination, "no one should so much as smile" while discussing the divisive issue.

Jackson said that he encouraged "expressions of disagreement that are honest and open based upon a sincere desire to arrive at the truth" but urged meeting attendees to bear in mind that speaking truth "can never, ever be funny."

The church leaders were asked to stand and repeat a four-part pledge to, among other lofty goals, "Promise to crack zero ordination jokes." In addition, conference treasurers vowed to immediately cancel the lucrative sponsorship deals that they had previously offered to Adventists humorists promoting "online or offline dialogue" about Adventist hot potatoes.

Jackson reminded NAD leaders that just because Jesus and the prophets used parables, satire and humor to address sensitive issues "that doesn't mean we should follow their example when there are perfectly good unfunny ways to talk about women's ordination."

While he admitted that a ban on "sarcasm, cartoons, anecdotes, parody or any other form of insinuation" was a lot to ask of a modern audience fond of freedom of speech, Jackson said that "true religion and freedom of speech have never mixed well anyway."

For more on this subject, read this exceptionally funny article. (Not ironic)

Sevvy and The Adventist Caricaturist are Adventism's two humoristas-non-gratas. Sevvy is a writer at the anonymously-authored humor and satire blog BarelyAdventist.com. The Adventist Caricaturist makes unfunny images at SDACaricatures.blogspot.com.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at http://spectrummagazine.org/node/6395

(Thomas J Zwemer) #2

How cannot “Dire Consequences” evoke gallow humor? Tom Z


(Robert Sonter) #3

Obviously a satirical response to the recent NAD action :smile:.

I particularly liked the bit about “the lucrative sponsorship deals”. Not sure why the real NAD action actually included any reference to sponsoring satire - I seriously doubt the treasurers will need to cancel any payments in order to comply…


(@mackenzian) #4

The “No more funny business” graphic is my favorite. T-shirt, please!
And thank you.


(Tom Loop) #5

OMG, satire and humor is the warp and woof of my literary existence. But yes indeed this is a dead serious issue,
that transcends normal boundaries. I respect dan Jackson enough that i have to give pa


(Tom Loop) #6

Okay, I hit a wrong key and well… you see what happened. I respect Dan Jackson, and believe and support his leadership enough that I must pause to reflect on what he is calling for here. What I think he is saying is that the issue of women’s ordination is no joking matter. It is a defining moment in the SDA Church, whatever happens in Alamo town in 2015. There is a tendency to poke humor back and forth on this issue. I love humor and satire and use it frequently on Spectrum. However, I believe Jackson is calling us to quit the jabs and talk serious on WO. Okay, I’ll oblige and state seriously and frankly. The messenger to this church at it’s founding- Ellen White- was a woman. I don’t think anyone will argue that point. Many of the same folks who hold dear her role in the SDA church are the most ardent foes of WO. EGW talked about the need for women pastors- yes that’s pastors- because of their softening influence.
Just google- ELLEN WHITE STATEMENTS ON SOFTENING INFLUENCE OF WOMEN- and see them for yourself.
She was a pioneer of women in ministry decades before women even had the right to vote in the USA! What more convincing is needed from her pen? Look in the Bible and you will find a who’s who in a hall of faith which includes both men and women. Just because there isn’t a book of Deborah in the Bible doesn’t mean her role as a prophet was subordiante to the male prophets. EGW is not part of the cannon either, even though some SDA would like to think it is. That insistance rings loudest from those who promote male headship and oppose WO. So they better scrap EGW if they cling to their discrimnatory position.

Now, consider that Jesus was pegged as a radical revolutionary of his time by the religious leaders who stopped at nothing to preserve the staus quo. Hmmm! WWJD or say about the current GC policy that won’t even recognize Sandra Roberts as the Prez of SECC. I seriously doubt he would agree with what the current GC adminsitration has done.

So the question that begs to be asked, is our church going to finally move forward with WO or do we sit another 5 years and continue to jawbone this issue and dance around it with various tortured compromises that really pleases no
one. I think the best solution is for the GC session to either do it or barring the votes necessary to pass, vote to authorize each world division to decide for itself. The relavency of the GC shrinks with each passing conference that refuses to consider that while we are a worldwide church, if we refuse to recognize the cultural differences in the 13 individual divisions, we do so at the peril of losing the very unity of the worldwide church we love and hold dear.


(Allen Shepherd) #7

Tom,
My prediction is that the church will vote to allow WO in the divisions that want it. In fact, I think there will be an overwhelming vote for this so that the church can put it aside to address more pressing matters. There will be some who object at the time of the vote, but they will not be able to carry the day. I sense a weariness with the issue, and with the Western divisions dogged persistence at pressing it over and over.

BTW, I like the moniker, bigwomwoodcutter: I need something like that. Maybe, Allendragonslayer, or Shepstermonstereater, (sigh), but I don’t think I have what it takes to carry such prestige…


(Tom Loop) #8

Allen
I hope you are right on 2015 GC vote on WO. I was rather ho-hum on WO, until i read what EGW had to say on the need for women pastors because of the “softening influence of women”. Think about the impact of her making a statement like that back in the 1800’s. Suddenly the entire issue came into clearer focus for me and how women played a more signifcant role in the Bible narrative than I had ever thought of before. Hence my sudden switch from ho-hum to enthusiasm for WO. At the 1995 CG session, a motion to allow each divison to decide the matter itself was voted down.
Yes 20 years is too long, however I see the weariness is from putting up with obstructionists, not with those favoring WO. Consider the length the current GC administration has gone in not even recognizing Sandra Roberts as a conference PREZ. Such discrimination reflects badly on the SDA church.

As for my handle, bigtomwoodcutter, I use that because I am very tall and weigh 300 lbs, and I was a lumberjack before I retired. If you met me face-to-face you would understand how it fits. :slight_smile:


(Adventist Caricaturist) #9

We’re now accepting pre-orders. If we get 100, will print them up! :smiley:


(Sevvy) #10

Adventist satirists will now have to fully rely on the Aussies for any sponsorship love…


#11

You will never be able to ban it. Trying to do so will probably make it worse. How can you ban something that the Church has no control over…the Internet. People will continue to do it, and if need be, use a pseudonym. And if anything they’ll probably become more daring with their caricatures.


(Armindo Genero) #12

One can do everything but never ban hummor or funny over a controversial issue such as this WO. Remember that texts of the EGW writings can be the sole baseline for WO. The Bible is the Great Light while her writings (as she has said) is the little or small light to guide us to the Great light. Controvesial issues bring seriousness as well as funny moments. Any struggle to ban “inoffensive” behaviour is ridiculous to my humble view.


(George Tichy) #13

Allen, I doubt it will pass. Those people at the GC level know the world church much better than we do. They are playing a game in which they are sure of victory because they know the culture of the world church. They know they can count on the hundred of “Ratsaras” that will be appointed as delegates.

Don’t fool yourself. They know since day one (about four years ago) what they are doing and how to reach their goals. The first step was creating the fake TOSC. The last step was sending to the GC Session just a question that will not pass.

Why are you passing on to us the impression that you actually don’t know the system and how it works???


(George Tichy) #14

Even the suggestion that humor should be banned is funny and laughable in itself. How can one not laugh at such suggestion???


(Allen Shepherd) #15

When I saw the title of this thread I thought it was a joke. Is it? I agree that just saying such things is funny in itself.


(Allen Shepherd) #16

We will see, George. You are so cynical about this. I don’t see it that way at all. It might even be that TW will support it! You will think I have been smoking something. But, remember, there is a bit of, mulla, a meal at least. If it passes by more than 65% I think I should get a travel bag or something, with some kind of monogram, you know, “Shepherd the Master-Prognosticator.” And it has to be signed by you. Ah, you and Elmer. It would be a collectable if Elaine would sign it…


(George Tichy) #17

Can’t be a joke.
My impression is that it’s just a reminder to good, exceptional Christians that calling people who have diverse views “agents of Satan” is most certainly “nothing funny.”


(Ron Corson) #18

I think the reason the truth can never be funny is probably his delivery. He might want to consider how Emo Phillips does it:

"I pray a simple prayer every morning. It’s an ecumenical prayer. Whether you’re Catholic or Jewish or Muslim or Hindu, I think it speaks to the heart of every faith. It goes “Lord please break the laws of the universe for my convenience. Amen.”


(Jonathan Cook) #19

Totally ready for that T-shirt!


#20

Hi Tom, I forgot to tell you (when I first read your post) that at the bottom of your comment you will see a few options. One looks like a chain link, another a flag, etc. The one that looks like a pencil gives you the option to edit your post. So if something like that happens to you again, or you just want to fix something you wrote, just click on it and it will allow you to do so.