See. Where the doctrine of Investigative Judgment leads.
Just because a truth is uttered by an evil person does not make that truth any less true.
We learn that it is typical for religious leaders to be dead wrong, up to, and including killing God.
I would like to encourage everyone to read an article that appeared in our very own SPECTRUM Magazine in its Summer 2015, VOLUME 43 ISSUE 3. As one may easily guess this issue was dealing with the aftermaths of the beloved 2015 San Antonio GC Session. Under the titel “What happens next?” Mitchell Tyner analyzes on pages 75 to 79 the legal situation of the WO issue. He concluded with what is still valid today:
In the meantime, we can only hope that calm, settled reason will trump fundamentalist fervor.
May I add that we find such fervor on both sides of the issue.
The North American Division requested the 1995 GC Session:
The General Conference vests in each division the right to authorize the ordination of individuals within its territory in harmony with established policies. In addition, where circumstances do not render it inadvisable, a division may authorize the ordination of qualified individuals without regard to gender. In divisions where the division executive committees take specific actions approving the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, women may be ordained to serve in those divisions.
Thus, it has set a precedent that it now does not like to be reminded of:
- It acknowledged the power of the GC Session to decide the issue
- It acknowledged it did not have the right to decide the issue on its own
Today, it seems, the NAD holds a view just opposite to the one it once held.
Finally, here is how the church has moved:
- In 1995 the NAD motion was rejected with 1,481 to 673 votes, i.e. a whopping 68.7% or more than a two thirds majority.
- 20 years later, in 2015 that vote had shifted to 1,381 to 977, i.e. 58.5% or still a significant majority.
- The 2018 AC vote now came in at 185 to 124, i.e. 59.8% or the church vote hasn’t changed significantly since 2015.
So we better heed brother Tyner’s advice.
Putting these three votes together AS IF there were on the same subject is either,
- Product of reading deficiency, or
- Deficiency in comprehension of a written text, or
- Ill intentioned act to misinform and mislead people, or
- A total disregard to people’s intelligence, or
- All the above, or
- What else could it be???
I vote for option 5 with special emphasis on Item 3
Possibly…option #5? Or even an added option #7 “Who cares”?
What the delegates in 1995 had to vote on I have already cited above. Just go there and read it again.
Here is what the delegates voted on in 2015:
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?
The UOC proposal now voted into action by the GCC deals - among others - very prominently with the issue of compliance to the GC Session decisions of 1995 and 2015.
So two of the three votes were directly on the issue of WO AND the right of divisions or unions to decide that issue on their own. The third concerned the compliance to it.
So, on what factual ground do you rant in the way you have done?
You have none - and you know it.
For all those looking on:
This is NOT - I repeat NOT - arguing against WO but against breaking the rules as set by the GC Session(s).
If one does not want to play by the rules then at least one should have the courage to say so openly. It would make discussion much simpler.
Take care and God bless.
@Eugen this is conflation. The votes were directly about Division ability to do what is not within their jurisdiction. As the Divisions are actually a subset of the GC, both votes are out of order and akin to the left hand asking the right hand if it can clap. The Unions have sole authority with regards to ordination.
Posting just so we are clear about current organizational authority and responsibility as set forth in the “Working Policy” or SDA Church Manual. This is found on page 41, Section B re: Organization & Administration.
Exactly, it is strange that their is such a level of confusion on this.
Forgive me for perhaps being redundant but I would like to rewind a bit.
In 2015 the question of “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?”
Based on the record I think everyone agrees that was the question asked…but why ask in the first place?
Here are some Y/N questions for making more sense out of this:
a) are spiritual gifts described with gender qualifications attached?
b) does the Holy Spirit require the approval of humans for His choice of assigning spiritual gifts?
c) was ordination established with gender qualifications as a criteria to recognize the spiritual gift associated with it by the SDA church?
d) as an administrative process was the GC established as the authority to make decisions regarding Ordination?
e) has gender ever been retroactively added and if so why?
f) were divisions established with authority in matters of Ordination?
g) does the Holy Spirit alone assign these gifts?
Lastly why was this a voting question to begin with if Divisions held the administrative power managing ordination to begin with?
I just got this BREAKING NEWS from CNN:
"The GC has its first female President. Sandra Roberts, a career SDA minister and senior SDA official, was appointed today by the NAD. She replaces Ted Wilson, who stepped down as GT predicted 8 years ago.
WOW!!! Astonishing!!! Ain’t great?
But, then I put on my glasses …, and read it again,
" Ethiopia has its first female President. Sahle-Work Zewde, a career diplomat and senior UN official, was appointed today by the country’s parliament. She replaces Mulatu Teshome, who stepped down yesterday."
So, I realized that the extremely turbulent era mentioned in the Southern Union’s statement will actually not end. Brace for impact!!!
This article has been updated with the latest statements and opinion pieces.
Last update: October 25, 2018 at 11:58 a.m. (ET)
Hi everyone, once again.
Church pastors are employed at conference level. Whomever the conferences want to employ, however, needs the approval of the union. For new candidates an ordination will be arranged after they have stood the test of (some) time. Thus the ordination itself is in the hands of the unions. However, they cannot ordain just anybody. The rules for it were set by the GC Session(s).
Knowing this, the NAD (i.e. its leadership) approached the GC Session back in 1995 to “legalize” WO which had not been “legal” before. Being tacticians, they already anticipated that asking this for the whole church would not get approval, thus, they opted for a “division-by-division” tactic as the church was already neatly split into 13 divisions. Essentially, the GC Session was asked to allow for local amendments to their global rules. This is how the wording came about that we find in the transcripts today.
By the same tactics it is argued today that the GC Session has no vested right to control ordination. But that is non factual. Even the past NAD actions testify to that. Thus, it is hoped that the past is forgotten - not without reason as it seems.
But you know: Whoever forgets the past is doomed to repeat it.
Some of your comments seemed to suggest your familiarity with mental conditions. The one you are exhibiting for some time now is called wishful thinking.
Take care and God bless.
I am not sure what you are specifically referring to here. What rules for ordination are you highlighting, what are the rules set by the GC Session(s)? I would appreciate your clarification, thank you.
I am referring to the NAD Working Policy L34 Qualifications for Ordination to the Ministry.
Its wording seems to suggest to current interpreters that it is not gender neutral i.e. not including WO.
I hope that helps.
Take care and God bless.
George @GeorgeTichy…it seems that you have been “instructed” into what the mental state of “wishful thinking” is (via Psychology Today). If a tree falls in the forest…does anyone hear it fall??
Ah, yes, thank you for your clarification. I’ve read so many “casual” comments being posted I did want to know what you were specifically referring to.
Gender neutral wording is certainly an issue to resolve in all of our periodicals, SS lessons, manuals and policies. To some degree it was addressed at the GC Sessions 2015 when the language of our Fundamental Beliefs was changed to gender neutral. The project needs to continue.
–sorry it took a while to finish my response. I had to take a “time out” to change the diaper of my grandson and give him a bottle. Thank God, (figuratively and literally) those sweet tasks ARE gender neutral!
This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.