A Point of Order

[Richard OFfill]

Today the Columbia Union voted to recommend the ordination of women. It seems to  me, there were two issues, one explicit and the other implicit. The implicit issue is that Unions are able to vote what they deem as best for the churches in their area whether or not this has been voted by the world church in General Conference sessions.

A precedent has been set that would allow a Conference or Union to go its own way regardless of a policy that may have been voted by the international church. Though we would hope not, this may have started a fire that time will show cannot be put out.

In more than fifty years of ministry I have never seen an action such as this. What amazes me that this kind of action, were it in the days of John Osborne

[newbie]

the end must be closer than we think 

[Soli Deo Gloria]

Ted Wilson tried to stop this but could not

Here is an excerpt  from a report in AT

Elder Ted Wilson, president of the GC, personally appealed to the delegates not to vote the action.

[Slingshot]

Hello Everyone:

I was a delegate at the meeting and I voted in support of the Motion. I respectfully but very strongly disagree with the notion that the Union did anything inappropriate in terms of church governance. This was not an act of rebellion. It is, in fact, the GC that has overstepped its bounds.

There appears to be widespread confusion regarding the roles of the various levels of church organization. Each has its function. Higher levels of the church organization cannot dictate to lower levels regarding those issues that lie within the control of the lower levels.

For example:

Local Churches:  Control membership of their church. Neither Conferences, nor Unions, nor even the GC may disfellowship anyone in a local church.

Conferences:  Hire personnel in their territories and recommend candidates for ordination to the unions.

Union Conferences:  Ordain ministers but cannot fire conference employees.

Divisions: Act as arms of the GC in their territories.

GC:  Sets worldwide church policy and determines matters of theology.

This system works very well to keep power de-centralized and allows different regions of the world to work in ways that best fit their circumstances.

The following facts are not disputable:

Unions ordain, not the world church.

The previous actions taken at GC sessions with regard to female ordination are not relevant for several reasons. First, neither vote stripped ordination authority from the unions and, in fact, did not even address this issue.  One asked that female ordination be authorized within divisions. This was clearly inappropriate under our church structure as ordination is not a division matter. If I recall the other asked that the ordination of women be addressed at the GC level. Rejecting both of these motions was appropriate because this issue is a union and not a GC matter.

This is a critical point:  There has never been a GC action prohibiting a union from ordaining women. The fact that actions to allow Divisions or the GC to authorize ordination within their territories were voted down at GC sessions does not change this fact.

In fact, the GC ought not ever to have addressed this issue in a general session. It is a Union matter and the GC getting involved only muddied the waters. Similarly, President Wilson's attempt to keep this issue at the GC level was, I believe, inappropriate. Under the way that our system currently operates, the GC has no jurisdiction over this question.

You may disagree with the action on theological grounds. (Interestingly, to the extent that the Church has a position on this issue, it is that the Bible neither explicity authorizes or prohibits the ordination of women.) However, this action should not be seen as rebellion. Our model of church governance clearly allows the CUC to take the action that it did.

In closing, I note that this action sets no precedent for a Union to change the Church's theology within its territory. Those are clearly GC functions which can only be performed by the GC in session.

[Slingshot]

In response to Slingshot's contribution, I note that you've done very well to explain the different functions of the various administrative levels of the church. You say that ordination is a function of the Union Conference and that the world church should not interfere in this at all. However, towards the end of your contribution you say "this action sets no precedent for a Union to change the Church's theology within its territory". What you do not seem to appreciate is that the controversy surrounding women ordination is a question of theology and not administrative function. In fact, everyone knows that this is so - that is why certain administrative divisions have repeatedly tabled the women ordination motion at world church sessions. If they genuinely believed that this was an issue for the Local Conference they wouldn't have tabled it at GC sessions. Moreover, whenever this issue has been discussed, theological (not legal) arguments have been advanced by either side.
To me, this unwise action by my brothers and sisters is really depressing. Nevertheless, this is God's church and I know that ultimately this will be the 'Church Triumphant'. Trying to be clever and exploiting every available loophole in the church constitution may give us a sense of victory in the short term. However that victory is hollow. Remember that for thousands of years Lucifer thought that he was winning against Christ, until Christ pronounced those historic words "IT IS FINISHED".

Some people think it's theological  and other people consider it an administrative matter.

You state that "Everyone knows" that this is theological due to the GC's actions I discussed. Respectfully, we "know" no such thing because the GC has never voted that this is a theological issue. To the extent that the Church has spoken through various studies and commissions, the consensus is that the Bible neither explicitly prohibits or allows female ordination. 

The World Church has never spoken decisively either way. The GC speaks through its actions. We cannot read anything into those actions as a basis for setting policy -- the actions must be allowed to speak for themselves. All those actions did was deny motions to authorize ordination at the Division and the GC level. That's it. You cannot fairly read anything else into them.

It is important to remember that the Church is designed to do things differently in different parts of the world. How does the CU ordaining women hurt an Adventist in Kenya or Bolivia? Does the fact that certain African conferences and unions created variances from church policy for polygamy in the case of new converts hurt me in my church? Of course not! We can have unity without uniformity.

[V. Hahn]

To the extent that the Church has spoken through various studies and commissions, the consensus is that the Bible neither explicitly prohibits or allows female ordination. 

Interesting.  I just read on a non-SDA forum the following similar argument:

"The issue is that nowhere in the NT is anyone obliged to observe a particular day (Col 2:16)."

"Absolutely nowhere in the NT in the Law of Christ are we ever commanded to observe the sabbath. The sabbath was never moved from Saturday either." 

[Slingshot]

Interesting.  I just read on a non-SDA forum the following similar argument:

"The issue is that nowhere in the NT is anyone obliged to observe a particular day (Col 2:16)."

"Absolutely nowhere in the NT in the Law of Christ are we ever commanded to observe the sabbath. The sabbath was never moved from Saturday either." 

I don't think it's a similar argument at all.

The CUC is being accused of being in rebellion against the world church.  This is a "sign of the shaking" and so forth.

Yet no one can point to any action of the world body that prohibits what the CUC did. Indeed, the CUC is the body acting in conformity with our system of governance as opposed to the GC which is trying to extend its authority into an area that is reserved for unions.

Put another way, would you like for the Conference, Union, Division, or GC to be able appoint officers in your local church? Disfellowship members? That is exactly what the GC is attempting to do here.

[Larry Lyons]

The vote by the union to go their own way is nothing other than in your face rebellion against the world church. Women's ordination has been voted down twice in GC sessions. Variance for the NAD has been voted down twice in Autumn Councils. It has been argued and studied at length as a theological issue and books and articles have been written. It is quite clear how the world church views it. To suddenly try to make it merely a matter of policy and none of the GC's business represents a change in tactics away from the biblical/theological arguments that cannot support women's ordination.

 Does anyone believe that when the bylaws were written which outlined the administrative authority of the Unions that it was intended for the Unions to be allowed to decide on and make drastic changes as to who can be ordained into the ministry, and that this could differ from place to place in the church? That is unthinkable and would represent an avoidance of responsibility on the part of the General Conference. If the church as a world body in GC session cannot make decisions as to who may and who may not represent the church as ordained ministers, then the church has truly been "neutered."

I do not think it is an overstatement to say that this is an attack on the very structure and unity of the church. As elder Wilson said, it will have "grave consequences." As we all well know, as Slingshot said, Ellen White warned that just before the close of probation there would be a "shaking" in the church and that the church would appear as about to fall. It will not fall, but a large number will leave. I fear that that may be "grave consequences" that Elder Wilson warned about. .

"For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft." (1Sam. 15:23)

[GraceVessel]

My concern is not so much the Women's ordination per se.  The way the church "functions" in how we deal with this process is my major concern.  Stepping back from the process to 40k feet... Is the issue regarding Women's ordination stopping the presentation of the Gospel (the resulting debate and decisions from differing "camps"... has most of the thread.   Depending on how this is handled ... is being watched by other "fringe" elements on both the liberal and conservative wings of the church in order to "push their agenda".  I agree with Slingshot's technical point, but also agree with the theological premise of the dissussion (SIC). 

I'll use an illustration of misdirection used in the computer world.  Someone attacks a website and tries to break into it... all the resources at the bank scurry to fix and defend a really small bank... (website)... while the attack is in progress another attack is lauched which is hardly detected (the real purpose of the attack).  I think that there are "other issues" at play in this .. and hence my statement regarding HOW we deal with the issue.

I was appalled in how the church dealt with Desmond Ford back in 1979-1982... making this a complete litmus test is maybe the desired response those that are presenting and pushing this are trying to create.

It's kinda obvious that the pink elephant in the church has come out of slumber.  There are alot of issues and "buttons" that are going to be pushed in order to "activate" God's people to action.. wherever and whatever church they belong to.

The bottom line is that the "administrative" decision regarding this from the GC level will not hold water.  To fully do so would require a signicicant policy change .. which may be mitigated or enhanced for shall we say... certain political considerations.

I find it interesting that we are so vehemently against a technicality and other stuff is slipping thru (with the process debacle)... unnoticed.

with kind regards,

Gracevessel

[Larry Lyons]

My concern is not so much the Women's ordination per se.  The way the church "functions" in how we deal with this process is my major concern.  Stepping back from the process to 40k feet... Is the issue regarding Women's ordination stopping the presentation of the Gospel (the resulting debate and decisions from differing "camps"... has most of the thread.   Depending on how this is handled ... is being watched by other "fringe" elements on both the liberal and conservative wings of the church in order to "push their agenda".  I agree with Slingshot's technical point, but also agree with the theological premise of the dissussion (SIC). 

I'll use an illustration of misdirection used in the computer world.  Someone attacks a website and tries to break into it... all the resources at the bank scurry to fix and defend a really small bank... (website)... while the attack is in progress another attack is lauched which is hardly detected (the real purpose of the attack).  I think that there are "other issues" at play in this .. and hence my statement regarding HOW we deal with the issue.

I was appalled in how the church dealt with Desmond Ford back in 1979-1982... making this a complete litmus test is maybe the desired response those that are presenting and pushing this are trying to create.

It's kinda obvious that the pink elephant in the church has come out of slumber.  There are alot of issues and "buttons" that are going to be pushed in order to "activate" God's people to action.. wherever and whatever church they belong to.

The bottom line is that the "administrative" decision regarding this from the GC level will not hold water.  To fully do so would require a signicicant policy change .. which may be mitigated or enhanced for shall we say... certain political considerations.

I find it interesting that we are so vehemently against a technicality and other stuff is slipping thru (with the process debacle)... unnoticed.

with kind regards,

Gracevessel

GraceVessel, you bring up good points Looking at the bigger picture, it is interesting that this issue that has been smoldering for several years has erupted with a vengence at the time when a major thrust of the GC has been for revival and reformation in the church around the world. It also appears that the Adventist message is having great success in many parts of the world, and even in Muslim countries it is believed that many thousands are receiving our message via various media. It is no surprise that Satan will make every effort to disrupt and cause disunity and fighting between factions to try to bring the church down. But I know that God is in charge and he will work things out for His glory and the furtherance of the gospel. Our main goal as individuals is to make "our calling and election sure." (2 Peter 1:10)

[V. Hahn]

GraceVessel, you bring up good points Looking at the bigger picture, it is interesting that this issue that has been smoldering for several years has erupted with a vengence at the time when a major thrust of the GC has been for revival and reformation in the church around the world. It also appears that the Adventist message is having great success in many parts of the world, and even in Muslim countries it is believed that many thousands are receiving our message via various media. It is no surprise that Satan will make every effort to disrupt and cause disunity and fighting between factions to try to bring the church down. But I know that God is in charge and he will work things out for His glory and the furtherance of the gospel. Our main goal as individuals is to make "our calling and election sure." (2 Peter 1:10)

Amen, Brother Larry!  When the Holy Spirit is on the move, Satan works to put a stop to it...but he cannot!

[Slingshot]

The vote by the union to go their own way is nothing other than in your face rebellion against the world church. Women's ordination has been voted down twice in GC sessions. Variance for the NAD has been voted down twice in Autumn Councils. It has been argued and studied at length as a theological issue and books and articles have been written. It is quite clear how the world church views it. To suddenly try to make it merely a matter of policy and none of the GC's business represents a change in tactics away from the biblical/theological arguments that cannot support women's ordination.

 Does anyone believe that when the bylaws were written which outlined the administrative authority of the Unions that it was intended for the Unions to be allowed to decide on and make drastic changes as to who can be ordained into the ministry, and that this could differ from place to place in the church? That is unthinkable and would represent an avoidance of responsibility on the part of the General Conference. If the church as a world body in GC session cannot make decisions as to who may and who may not represent the church as ordained ministers, then the church has truly been "neutered."

I do not think it is an overstatement to say that this is an attack on the very structure and unity of the church. As elder Wilson said, it will have "grave consequences." As we all well know, as Slingshot said, Ellen White warned that just before the close of probation there would be a "shaking" in the church and that the church would appear as about to fall. It will not fall, but a large number will leave. I fear that that may be "grave consequences" that Elder Wilson warned about. .

"For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft." (1Sam. 15:23)

Larry:

I am sorry that you perceive this to be rebellion. That was not our intention. You seem to be ignoring the church's governance structure in an effort to accomplish your goal of prohibiting women's ordination. Such an approach is, I would suggest, more dangerous than the "grave consequences" that Elder Wilson spoke of.

You cannot point to any GC action forbidding the ordination of women at the Union level.  The actions of the GC do not tell us what the GC thinks of Unions ordaining women because no such action has been taken. You may guess what the GC would with this issue but that's all it is: a guess. The stated position of the GC is found in Church policy and that Church policy is that Unions ordain.

Again, I am sorry that this action has caused you such evident discomfort. Please believe that hurting anyone was the last thing that we wanted to do.

I believe that I have made my position clear. I will bow out now. God's blessings to all.

[Richard OFfill]

I believe that what Elder Wilson said could be said another way and that  would be 'This is only the tip of the iceberg.

In North America the Sabbath is on the slide in a practical sense. The track is being greased by the word 'legalist'. In North America the stand on the homosexual issue is being eroded by the word, 'accepting'

Mrs. White has become to many 'my favorite author'. The investigative judgment is simply ignored. Then there is the question of  a seven day creation....

Denominations  tend to split after 150 years -- Catholics to Anglicans  --- 150 years---Anglicans to Methodists--- 150 years ---  Methodists  to SDAs  150 years.... and now??? God forbid. What happened yesterday will manifest itself now but in other ways. There will be collateral damage.

[Larry Lyons]

I believe that what Elder Wilson said could be said another way and that  would be 'This is only the tip of the iceberg.

In North America the Sabbath is on the slide in a practical sense. The track is being greased by the word 'legalist'. In North America the stand on the homosexual issue is being eroded by the word, 'accepting'

Mrs. White has become to many 'my favorite author'. The investigative judgment is simply ignored. Then there is the question of  a seven day creation....

Denominations  tend to split after 150 years -- Catholics to Anglicans  --- 150 years---Anglicans to Methodists--- 150 years ---  Methodists  to SDAs  150 years.... and now??? God forbid. What happened yesterday will manifest itself now but in other ways. There will be collateral damage.

Pastor, I heard a sermon a few years ago by someone who had done a study along the lines you describe. I don't remember for sure but it was probably someone from the BRI. I don't recall his name, but he looked at it in terms of generational changes over the history of a church. He examined the history of several denominations. After the 4th generation from its beginning, churches no longer looked or acted like the churches of their founders. The conclusion, looking back at the trends over time, it appeared to that Adventist minister that if time lasts long enough for the next generation to take over the Seventh-day Adventist church that our pioneers knew and even as we know it will be profoundly changed.

What I conclude from all this is that Jesus will come very soon. It seems obvious that these signs in the church and in the world are warning signals to God's people. 

[Richard OFfill]

It would seem that we tended to be like the Catholics in that we have looked to the 'Church' to save us. In the spiritual sense the true church has no address. In fact the word for church in Greek is 'called out ones'. Perhaps the organized church is like a basket which was made to carry a message. My dad used to say that the 'message' is not so much to save the lost as it is to keep the saved from being lost.