Women’s Ordination Lost Again Today


(Jeffrey Kent) #23

I find G. T. Ng’s statements to be particularly repulsive. And the fact he was propped up to give his demeaning “Emergency 911” lecture (with the amateur-hour PowerPoint slides that were printed in the document) tells us much about Ted Wilson, who we must assume fully supported the message.

I truly hope we can vote these guys out of office in 2020 (if the Lord does not intervene sooner).

The consensus view among conservatives is that the GC San Antonio vote was God’s voice, and that the GC Annual Council vote on Monday was Satan’s voice. Apparently, not all GC decisions reflect God’s voice, which they had insisted on before Monday. The anger about the decision–much of it directed toward the GC and its wimpy (emasculated) leadership–is palpable. Apparently, many no longer support the GC with their tithe.

This was too rich not to share–a quote from David Read, taken from another blog:

Birder, the New Testament authority for Sabbath-keeping is insignificant next to the New Testament authority for male headship in the church. Who is following Scripture more closely, the Baptists or the Adventists? Since the Baptists have more carefully guarded their high view of Scrpture than we have, I’d say there’s more hope that the Baptists will accept the Sabbath than that we will accept male headship in the church. And it’s going to get worse before it gets better, as more and more Adventists accept the basics of the LGBT movement.

Some seem to place male headship right up there with the decalogue in doctrinal, if not theological, importance.


#24

Sad as I am to consider your assertion that women’s ordination lost, that is not the part that I find most troubling in this multi year ordeal. Three other things are of greater concern in my view.
First would be the loss in the role of scripture to guide our denomination because TOSC conclusions were not fairly presented to the world body.

Second, is the pull of the denomination away from bottom up accountability to top down coercion. This policy didn’t pass but we face strong currents of authoritarianism away from protestantism toward something papal.

Lastly, Is unwillingness in open forum for Elder Wilson to represent fairly the issues involved. Specifically, the so called rebellious units are actually entities of a worldwide body who are trying to follow the conscience of members in their constituency. Accordingly, the unions had thought they held the purview to oversee ordinations. Thus, the unions are not rebelling in their view—since the San Antonio vote was about divisions not unions. Rather than explain this point of view, the unions continue to be cast in the worst light which is unfair from a management conflict resolution perspective. Very disappointing in a church family. I remember how several years ago a similar time crunch occurred at Fall Council (similar to Monday) TOSC report was presented and little discussion allowed. Instead, the specific wording that made its way to San Antonio was presented to the Fall Council by Elder Wilson and basically rammed through.


(ROBIN VANDERMOLEN) #25

Pastor Trevan Osborn,
( are you any relation to the splendid Ronald E Osborn now serving humanity in the Sudan? )

Your elegant and insightful analysis of Monday’s malignant mismanagement of church affairs, employed the most appropriate adjectives :
TOXIC and COERCIVE.

The most troubling aspect of this toxicity, was your discerning observation that Ted Wilson’s team, who assembled this scam, comprised upwards of seventy people. Apparently few of them were sufficiently nauseated by the document, to reprimand their leader about his scandalous shenanigans, before it was submitted to the church body.

This would imply that almost the entire upper echelon of Adventist leadership is suspect.

Your compelling comment about their prolific use of EGW, confounds me.

That they would use a female power player, our prophet, to curb the aspirations and abilities of other women ( our female pastors ) is a contradictory conundrum.

But then nothing astonishes me anymore about this heretical church hierarchy.

Why heretical ? Because their miserable misogyny, as exemplified by the heinous “ headship “ dogma, flies in the face of the relentless, unstoppable global march to gender equality.

Even that bastion of maleness, the American Boy Scouts, is now encouraging GIRLS to pursue their enviable distinction: EAGLE SCOUT!


(Pierre-Paul Legault) #28

„Je weniger die Leute wissen, wie Würste und Gesetze gemacht werden, desto besser schlafen sie!“ - Otto von Bismarck [the less people know about how sausage and laws are made, the better they will sleep].

This wise proverb can be applied to Church policy as well. The whole WO debate, discussion, manoeuvering, politicking, etc. is the metaphorical making of sausage. It is not pretty. It is motivated by human passions, egos, ambitions, and I fear preciously little spirituality. It’s about gathering votes, playing procedural games and campaigning for a result. We (SdAs) don’t accept the decisions of the ancient oecumenical council of Nicae partially on the grounds that Nicae was all about good old-fashioned power politics. But I ask, was San Antonio any different? Was the annual council any different? Is the SdA church, in its organisation any different that any other church or any other company? Was the atmosphere any different than at a shareholders’ meeting with a proxy fight going on? Was the spirit of the meeting any more collegial and filled with brotherly love than a session of the US Senate? Do the Pro and Anti WO factions see each other as brothers in Christ or as enemies?


(Tim Teichman) #29

So, this is a rather tragic account of the proceedings on Monday: https://atoday.org/watching-coercion-and-attempted-control/1

I like the closing statement:

The Voiceless Are Not Toothless
"Although church members have no voice in their deliberations, in fact, we all can vote. I will be voting. My vote is that any SDA church organization that permits a self-serving, central-authority-imposing, status-quo-fixing document, which is a blatant conscience-trampling power grab, to become SDA policy will not see any of the Lord’s tithes or my offerings from me. My support will be entirely for my local congregation or other congregations, other organizations, other movements of God in the world resisting attempts to maintain male-dominated abusive power and control over the church of the living God."

This has been me since the WO vote a couple of years ago. Please join in!

If everyone who supports WO, 75% of the church members, stopped sending the GC any money, that would send a message.

Only 10% of the membership think the GC has authority over WO. The other 90% are right.

—update—

This will fix itself: If enough people protest to the point that the church starts having issues making payroll, presumably they will seek to find out why. When they find out then they can decide what to do.

If they stick to their guns and continue to defy the membership of the church, then that’s on them. But I doubt they would let it come to either of those cases: They’d probably respond long before they had any issues making payroll.


(Sharon) #31

I hope David Read is correct in this case! I would love to see the Baptists accept Sabbath, and it would be very upsetting were the Adventists to accept male headship!


(Terry Whitted) #32

The withholding of tithe monies is a reasonable response under the circumstances. Having paid tithe to the GC for 50 years - I believe they’ve seen my last dollars till this issue is resolved and Ted is either out of office or placed on a leash.


(Darrin Parker) #33

While the Catholic Church, except within the Papal States, abolished the institution of the Inquisition in the early 19th century; it appears the proposal of the Adventist Church’s Unity of Mission Oversight Committee with punishment of those who do not follow the general Conference’s lead is the birth of the Adventist institution of the Inquisition.

This proposed process assumes the supremacy of the General conference over the conferences, churches and members. It flies in the face of our church’s alleged grassroots up structure. Further, such a position is dangerous in it assumes Pope like power for the president.

Lord, spare us from the enemy!


(John Carson) #34

As a member who wholeheartedly supports WO, I keep seeing this reference to anti-Trinitarian leanings by the anti-WO contingent in the church. I also never see any valid explanation or proof of this accusation, and frankly, I’m not sure that it’s valid. Will someone of you who holds this view please explain to me why it is valid? Because to my way of thinking a person can believe in absolute truth of the trinity and still be a sexist, authoritarian administrator. The two do not have to coincide. Ignorance on one issue does not imply ignorance on the other.

Edit:

It has now been 9 days since I first asked this question and no one who supports the proposition that anti WO equates to anti trinitarian doctrine has come forward with any kind of argument to support their thesis so I am forced to conclude that the argument is mere bluster and invalid :slight_smile:


#36

As I think of this church that places such a strong emphasis on the creation story, I wonder how it is that it seems so often to forget that the Creator said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness so they may rule. . . “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created _them; male and female he created them.” (Gen 1:26,27) I am not a Hebrew scholar, so I will stand to be corrected, but from the simple reading, it seems to me it takes both male and female to give a somewhat adequate representation of God to this aging earth. How is it then that this church is trying to take away a God-given responsibility from half of the humans he created?


#37

As it should be. It’s been voted down 3 times now. Wasn’t Biblical in 1990, 1995, or 2015. Last I checked the Bible still hasn’t changed. Let it go.

I’ll directly say it then, Those in favor of WO are in direct opposition with what the world church has ruled on 3 times now. Churches that are not in compliance should lose their SDA title, and the women already ordained should be defrocked or whatever protestants do to remove their status as ordained ministers. They are out of line with the world church and should be dealt with accordingly.

So if the vote had gone your way would you still have shielded your child from some people from church making a decision? Or were you just afraid to tell him that daddy doesn’t agree with the world church and believes in unbiblical doctrine and practices.

There is no precedent anywhere in the Bible for WO. It’s a Catholic practice introduced by people trying to undermine the church.
My personal experience with it is a Pastor whos father was a pastor and wants his daughter to be a pastor too. Doesn’t matter if it’s Biblical or not, it’s a purely personal selfish view point.
Halvorsen needs to reign his churches in or hand it over to someone who can.
Just my 2 cents


(Heather) #38

There’s little need to say any more. Anyone opposing anyone who has been blessed by the Spirit and given the gift of mission, teaching, preaching, sharing, loving, caring, nurturing, will only have themselves to blame when the Shepherd says “I knew you not”. Weep for them. Their agony of soul on that day will be unbearable.

Whether I am blonde, brunette, bald, short, tall, in a wheelchair, on my skateboard, doling out blankets to evacuees, sorting through burnt out neighborhoods looking for lost friends, doing my chaplaincy work in palliative care units, teaching classes in Sabbath School, flying a rescue mission, leading a Bible study in a village chapel, I am doing what God wants me to do and no person of either gender has the right, nor been ordained by God, to stop me now. Surely, at 11:59pm it’s too late to leave God’s beautiful lambs starving and untended? Who will come with me?


(Beverley Joseph ) #39

I’m neither for or against WO. What I’m against is the approach that is being used by some of our leaders and members to undermine the role or authority of the General Conference and the argument that gender equality means that the roles must be the same. Men cannot have children but does that make men inferior to women or women to men? The members of the Godhead have different roles, at least on this side of eternity, and I don’t know of anyone of Them viewing their role inferior.

I recall Elder Wilson stating at GC in San Antonio that he was willing to support the outcome of the vote on allowing unions (or divisions, I don’t recall which one ) to independently decide on wether women should be ordained. The majority did not vote to allow this.

As the leader of the world church, Elder Wilson is left with no other option but to address the rebellious actions of those unions that have chosen to proceed with the ordination of women. Why are we vilifying him? He is God’s anointed and should be treated with dignity and repect.


(George Tichy) #40

Mental Health and Human Behavior professionals understand what is behind the façade: a males’ psychological thirst for Power & Control.

The Church “komanders” are basically all males, mostly wearing black suits and always speaking with undisguised pomposity. This is why ca 62% of the church members are ignored… because they are females and do not wear black suits. It’s all :upside_down_face: !!!


(George Tichy) #41

In 2015??? Have you ever read the question that was voted? There was nothing, absolutely nothing about voting WO down. Are you making that statement out of lack of accurate information, or to deliberately mislead others as many have done?

Read the question please,

“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.”

Spectrum had an explanatory article on this issue, don’t miss it:

https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2015/07/06/actual-significance-san-antonio-ordination-vote

Also, please notice Ted Wilson clear statement after the vote, here:

Therefore, the current policy stays in place: The UNIONS decide issues about ordination. It’s amazing how it backfired: The GC deliberately tried to trick the delegates by replacing the $1mi TOSC results with a tricky question. But, whoever worded the question did a very poor job, and they ended up doing this:

Shoot your foot

OOOOPsssss… The attempt to subvert the current order failed badly. The Unions remain in charge of ordination issues, at least until the GC finds another “maneuver” to hijack the Unions’ rights.