Who knows if it is God’s plan to split the church
This is so indicative of total denial of church business. Roberts’ constituency VOTED her into office. The Union Office, according to Union policy, VOTED approval of her ordination. Just who would be “sacking” a capable, legally voted into position church employee?
In the “real world” she would already be running the church at a higher level with her management and people skills and devotion to God, the Church, and the Gospel.
This statement is so out of touch. The persistent accusation of “ego” being motivation for a human of the female gender being elected to office is simply way off base, out of bounds, and indicative of the accuser’s own personal bias.
May God be glorified through Sandra Roberts’ ministry and leadership.
Beside the 500 year celebration of the gospel that Luther proclaimed I feell we should celebrate the way he answered the question: Who has the right to decide what the believer practices in his relationship to God’ word and his consciencous understandingof the Word? This is what really got Luther in trouble: his disagreement with church policy(indulgences ) as well as the churche’s insistence on heroical authority to determine what is truth.
“This is the attitude one might expect among elementary school students on the playground: “since we can’t play the game our way, we won’t play at all.” Unbecoming of church leaders.”
No I don’t think so…and this shouldn’t be a surprise. When a vote is of the narrowest of margins one would hope the GC would help mediate and find common ground, but the opposite happened, the GC tried a strong arm tactic making it very clear that they weren’t going to listen.
So I think a more accurate depiction using the playground analogy is that the “winners” are taunting the “losers”, insisting they say “uncle”.
In this year, celebrating 500 years of the Protestant Reformation, it seems to me that the Reformation MUST continue. The early reformers stood against the Church when they believed the Church was not acting in accordance with the Word of God. Luther refused to yield his conscience to the “official church,” Today he is applauded as a Godly and honest man. What will those, in the future, say about us IF WE DO yield our consciences to a General Conference organization, rather than the Word of God?
I have been a Seventh-day Adventist church member for 54 years. Of that time about 30 years were spent in pastoral ministry. I have been loyal to the Adventist Church because I believed that they were trying to follow God’s Word and Prophetic leadership.to the best of their understanding. However, since the last GC Session, I believe the GC is acting contrary to God’s leadership. Our Lord ordained Ellen Harmon to the prophetic ministry in 1844. A prophet is a higher order of servant than ANY other church calling. God chose to ordain a young woman to this highest position in the church. If the Church refuses to allow women to serve God, and His children, as an ordained ministers, the Church is rejecting God’s sovereign choice. The Church is thus in rebellion. God is allowing the Church a time to repent, but if she is unwilling to do so she will be in apostasy.
I love my Church, but I love God more. I must follow my conscience, rather than Church pronouncements. I sincerely hope that the GC President will not destroy the Church I love, but if he does, I will not follow him in rebellion against God.
You talk about the World Church as if it is one unified body against WO . This is a fatal mistake. In western Europe where I live our church struggles to be loyal to the church but also be legal in their respective countries. It is illegal to discriminate due to gender in all the Scandinavian countries e. g. Now, to defend our beliefs as expressed in the 28 fundamentals is one thing, there we have to stand up for what we believe regardless of state laws. To defend a policy concerning church order that is so out of order as this issue is quite another thing. Ordination is a leftover from Roman Catholicism that Luther never handled, he shan’t be blamed-but we might! So please do not talk about the world church as if it was one entity. It is not.
Yvonne (adventist church historian)
Thank you Frank…I’d like to recall the struggle of the early 1970’s in the church that pitted female employees against the church in the struggle for equal pay. Again, the leadership lagged seriously behind the movement of society to change the balance of recognition of gender equality and pay for men and women. As I recall, the courts settled the question. And my question is: why did the courts have to settle this question? Because the church was lead and still is lead by men who are securely anchored in values of gender inequality. Those ides of inequality were societally repudiated 50 or more years ago. Maybe the GC leaders aren’t ideological dinosaurs as yet, but they certainly don’t offer Present Truth. Gary
It is interesting to note how people who claim to believe the Bible as God’s word respond to the individual and corporate decision taken by the PUC’s leadership. I firmly believe the Bible supports the decision/s made to support Elder Sandra Roberts. God is not interested in church policy and General Conference leadership. God is interested in the saving of souls from the grasps of sin. His command in Matthew 28: 18-20; Mark 16: 15,16; was not gender specific. Since both men and women are called to be disciples of Jesus, we are all responsible for the proclamation of the gospel. Therefore, Ted Wilson and the General Conference leadership should start living the word of God, by ensuring they are not hindering the preaching of the gospel by enforcing policies that, in the first place, do not support the mission of God’s command - that of preaching and teaching the love of Jesus to all humanity. To deprive someone who is engaged in the mission of saving souls, from doing so, is in direct disobedience to God’s command which is the ultimate authority. The time has come for us to look beyond human controlling instruments, such as “Church or Denominational policies”, and do the work of God- which I firmly believe Sandra Roberts has devoted her life to accomplish.
You nailed the real issue— Mission, and why Sandy should be allowed carry that out as a qualified leader.
“Our Lord ordained Ellen Harmon to the prophetic ministry in 1844. A prophet is a higher order of servant than ANY other church calling. God chose to ordain a young woman to this highest position in the church. If the Church refuses to allow women to serve God, and His children, as an ordained ministers, the Church is rejecting God’s sovereign choice. The Church is thus in rebellion. God is allowing the Church a time to repent, but if she is unwilling to do so she will be in apostasy.”
I respect the fact that you expressed your belief regarding Ellen Harmon (White). I must say that I am not sure God ordained Ellen Harmon. In my opinion, while I firmly believe that God used Ellen White and some of the writings to which her name is ascribed, Ellen White’s so-called prophetic ministry is just as much a product of the SDA Church administration, as the issue of the non ordination of women to the gospel ministry, is a part of the SDA Church administration.
In my view, Ellen White was no different than Sandra Roberts. She was just like any of the other church leaders , except that she failed to rebuke the SDA Church leadership of her time, for elevating her to the prophetic ministry and for using her and her work as a commercial tool. To this day, books are written and rewritten as works of Ellen White, and yet no one within the leadership of the church has the courage to stop the lie.
What am I saying? I am saying that we are not perfect, but we must bring ourselves to admit our faults when we are wrong and be willing to say so irrespective of the consequences. Ted Wilson and the SDA Church leadership could have dropped the whole issue of women ordination, realizing that there is a greater mission to accomplish - that of the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather, they are prolonging their own agenda, using every church mechanism and authority possible to force their views on church membership- even using the name of God to do so. This is wrong. and I believe that I am one of the many modern day Nathans to say so.
Very well said. This is why we need to educate people to vote!
I would refuse to take part in a so-called “election” conducted/completed in 90 seconds! It’s so fishy, and nobody opposed to it? Where were the voices in the wilderness?
Also, isn’t it time to choose a different system of having multiple candidates running? What kind of “election” is it when there is one candidate only, chosen by a small (manipulated) group, and then the name is just presented to the plenary for affirmation, not for a true/hones/transparent vote? It sounds like some kind of “Soviet Tactics”…
It is an obvious “good ole boy” power play. While the intent of the process may well be intended for streamlining the process and eliminating unnecessary faction-ism, the end result, administered by individuals with an agenda, is not something that can be blessed by God. Can he use even that to accomplish his purposes? You bet he can. Will be interesting to see what that result looks like, yes?
no, sorry but I’m not with you on this one brother.
There is a lot of hypocrisy around.
Any Church official has the right to disagree having their names listed in the Yearbook. If they refuse, it may be called a “shameful and rebellious act.”
All Church officials have the RIGHT to have their names listed in the YB. If one of them is denied this right, by the GC President, what should we call it, other than discrimination?
Pardon? The officials that are operating in rebellion are in grave error. I cannot stand with them/
yeah, I agree - it is discrimination. But I do understand the Prez’ perspective; current rules do not allow a female headship and Wilson’s rejecting her via the yearbook is apparently his only method at present (which I’m not fully in support of - to me it seems petty). The bigger question at hand is a local conference in defiance of the NAD/GC - that’s pretty serious.
SECC reminds me of Adam. He did something that he knew full well would not end up in his own favour.
There was a time when Israel was a slave in Egypt and Moses thought to himself that maybe he was opportunely placed in time and position to effect his people’s deliverance. But it was not to be. Sometimes, the hand of God stays the actions of men because He is working towards a greater good. Who knows what God has in store for women instead of a these peanuts for which they fight?
But then again, who knows anything at all? Where there is no vision, the people beat each other up!
You are out of step with our founders. They not only promoted women as pastors, speakers, preachers, but also said that the if the women did not follow their talents and Holy Spirit given gifts to preach, they would deeply grieve the Holy Spirit and have to answer in the day of judgment despite brothers and sisters who were opposed to their being spiritual leaders/speakers/preachers.
This was after a thorough study of all the Biblical passages and scriptures related to the issue. They concluded that speaking and preaching is a gift of the spirit, a spiritual gift to be used. They also strongly believed that our church should be a leading enabler in empowering women, unlike the Churches of Babylon from which they had come.
Are you up on this?
Perhaps those who are opposing are the ones who are in “grave error.”
I agree with you, to oppose and refuse to follow the Holy Spirit and to stand in His way IS wicked.
But what does the Holy Spirit say?
Should women be allowed to preach? Even the question causes the mouth to fall the ground. It is like asking whether children should learn to speak. Of course! What about speaking? Should women be allowed to speak? Sure. What about being spiritual leaders? Should women be allowed to lead out in spiritual matters? Definitely. I find it ludicrous to even ask such a silly question.
But again I ask, “What does the Holy Spirit say?”
Paul, in his pastoral counsel to Timothy, said, “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” 1 Tim. 2:11-12
The point Paul was making is not that women be barred from preaching, teaching or speaking but that the leadership of the congregation should not rest on the shoulders of a woman, “for Adam was formed first, then Eve.” (v. 13) The allusion to the Garden of Eden is interesting; but that is another matter.
Sorry. You are totally out of step with our founders and classic Adventism.