Singled out in communist times because of faith.
Singled out in a faith community because of gender.
I just wonder what hurts more?!

Herbert

I was there but left before the actual ordination because my 9-month child couldn't sleep in the loud atmosphere (both in the hall and outside).

My take is this - the Australian church likes to push the boundaries. It leans heavily on the liberal side, with a few conservatives trying to pull things back but struggling. The current President and Secretary of the Victorian Conference, Wayne Stanley and Darren Croft (the pastor of my local church a few years back), have done a creditable job pulling things back a bit from the previous administration's steady rush into semi-pentecostalism, but there's only so much two men can do when working with so many others.

The issue of women's ordination has to be settled at the highest level - the General Conference session. At the moment, the world church has said no to women's ordination but some conferences, including in Australia, are trying to blur that line as much as possible. Ted Wilson rightly was hesitant to play along. What he did may have been upsetting, but he should not have been placed in that situation, because the official stance of the world church is that it doesn't ordain women. Until they decide to do so, continuing to play these games is simply rebellion.

I'm at a loss for words.

I see arguments for and against the ordination of women and their roles in church leadership. Perhaps it would be helpful to find a scriptural solution instead of reacting one way or the other.

In Christ,

Lemuel S.

Not many comments to the Record article. :)

This article *should* draw more attention than the one on the White's marital status, but I am prepared to be disappointed (again). :(

A comment was made here: http://record.net.au/items/president-visits-melbourne asking if pictures of the ordination would be made available.

A response was received from Pablo Lillo editor@record.net.au with a link to the pictures:

https://www.wetransfer.com/dl/P4IJQsc4/ceee4fa1c24e65b1315c3daf6aeaac27a...

Download the zip file and unzip.

"A picture is worth a thousand words"...

There can be more scriptural sources for continuing the practice of slavery than the
refusal to recognize female ministers. There is not a single text in Scripture that could be interpreted as eliminating slavery, but somehow, the moral principles in that instance seemed to result in its abolition. Why? Without biblical disapproval of slavery, nevertheless it was FINALLy abandoned, not by churches, but by those who recognized human rights a being more important than scripture. The church has never led the way to recognize equality for all humans.

That'd be *Dr* Ted, if you don't mind! We value our appellations, and our appendages, here in Oz.

Re downloading a zipped file, Ivan, some would be cautious.

"that women ministers be commissioned, which *most* consider a blatantly discriminatory distinction." Jared with emphasis supplied.

Do you have any stats, Jared, to back up your statement as to how "most" was determined? If not, I assume you have to be referring to most of the spectrumites. I'd really appreciate a clarification.

How very sad and disappointing from a church that should champion fairness and kindness.

"Without biblical disapproval of slavery, nevertheless it was FINALLy abandoned, not by churches, but by those who recognized human rights a being more important than scripture."

At first I was wondering why many disapproved of my post encouraging the need to appeal to scripture for our position on this question. Now I understand why. It is saddening that people who call themselves Christians would reject to use the Bible as their guide in life, nevermind Ellen White (who was somewhat mum on the question of women's ordination).

I refuse to be a part of the crowd that allows their emotion run their lives over the clear word of the Bible.

Again I present the challenge that we must test everything by the Word.

If we do otherwise, are we following man's word over God's. Maybe that is alright for some, but most definitely not for anyone who calls themselves a Christian.

In Christ,

Lemuel S.

My problem with all this is that prayer is being used as a political ping pong. What Ted executed there on that platform was not a prayer, but a political statement - and that is just plain wrong. None of this has anything to do with God, His church, or sending out workers to proclaim the gospel. Whatever Wilson said up there, God, most certainly didn't hear since it wasn't directed at Him at all.

But then, politicizing God comes to Ted quite naturally. Back when his dad was running things, the church cut a deal with the Soviets to let them run a printing press in Moscow, or somewhere, and in return the SDA church sanctioned Sabbath work for its members. SDAs who refused to play along, insisting on keeping the Sabbath, had to go underground since they were not sanctioned by the official SDA church. Nice.

Lemuel....you are sounding over-emotional

It doesn't appear that sola scriptura is working very well.

This is dangerous ground Alex. In that case we can toss away scripture entirely.

Lemuel S.

Not what I wrote nor believe. Let's email more on this topic and now focus on the story. —AC

So shameful and heartbreaking. I will join Donna in praying for our leader.

I could imagine many embarrassing situations due to many arrogant and insensitive souls among us Adventists.. but something like this surprised and deeply saddened me. EGW was good enough to establish and run the church for decades,. but it is always up to impotent men to take over when the system runs smoothly. Yes Mary Magdalene was looking for the disciples to tell them about the resurrected Savior (and yes they were hiding in upper room) and she was good to finance Jesus and the disciples with other 2 women mentioned in Luke but the male testosterone always needs to take over. Why is this so? Are we men so insecure and weak? Or do we know inwardly how much stronger women are and how faithful they can be, so we need to ignore them. But our wives, sisters, mothers and daughters are women. We all owe our existence to women. We were raised by women milk.
How can we be so arrogant, so weak so blind?
All because some old book states that God created a man first..or because Paul didn't like women, due to his thorn in flesh, and put them down as second class citizens two millennia ago?
So do I want my daughter to be an Adventist? To marry a black suit who will quote her some irrelevant verses and treat her as his subordinate.. Shall I continue to pay tithe so Willsons of this organization can go and see the world flying in business class and staying in five star hotels while he believes that women cannot be ordained? Don't we live in the time of the Holy Spirit or do you brethren still love to enjoy patriarchy?. Does it make you feel like real men..strong and potent....
May God be merciful to our dying church.. and it is dying.. with help of leadership like Wilson and all poltroons around him..

>>> it is always up to ***impotent*** men to take over when the system runs smoothly

typo, or freudian slip?

/Bevin

I am confused by the account given in the article. Can someone clarify a few things for me?

• Is it the case that Elder Wilson was asked to perform the ordination/commissioning only moments before the service? Or was he asked earlier and only demurred with respect to Pastor Trajkov's commissioning moments before the service began?
• And when Elder Wilson said he wasn't comfortable praying for Pastor Trajkov, is it the case that they then agreed he would only officiate for the men? If so, who made the decision to allow him to pray for the men but not for Pastor Trajkov? And have they been asked for comment? Have they justified this decision?
• It's not clear to me what happened on stage that made the event more embarrassing. I'm not sure what I'm asking here except for a better explanation of how it went down.

Thanks.

I reckon this is a set-up by the Australian powers that be, to embarrass Teddy. If it wasn't it appears to be a brilliant accident. Sadly Pr Trajkov was caught in the middle. Hopefully Teddy won't come back in a hurry. If he does the Australian Powers need to beware of a knock out punch.

The battle continues. No change ever occurred without pain.

Billman,

Having worked as a minister in the Victorian Conference and knowing most of the major players involved two scenarios are possible to explain the situation that developed.

1. As you say, it is possible that the Australian powers set out to embarrass Teddy.

However, I would prefer to think better of my friends.

2. I choose to believe that they didn't imagine that it would be a problem for the GC President, and were only alerted that it was at the last minute. Perhaps, Ted Wilson was so busy that he hadn't given much thought to it before the last minute.

In which case we shouldn't be too scandalized by the events as they happened, although it certainly does point to an issue that needs to be addressed.

Peter,

If your second scenario is correct, how could any church officer, much less the president, refused to pray at the totally standard commissioning of a pastor? Instinctively without hesitation. This defies the imagination.

Whether the confusion was due to short-sightedness, or intention, would be best asked of the person who should have been in charge of the ritual, Victorian Conference president, Pastor Wayne Stanley. The Stanleys may have discussed the plans once or twice over dinner. It's difficult to see how Wayne, and his wife Martina, could have overlooked the potential for conflict, considering Ted's well-known views.
That prompts the question - are there any wives of ministers (still on full-time pay) who openly support women being equal to men in the paid denominational work-force right up to the highest ranks? Can anyone name one, just one?

Talk about a failing up response. Ted Wilson's response magnifies the truth about SEXISM in the SDA church, and it is an insult to women in ministry and young women who may be contemplating entrance into this field. This is an ideological response that says yes to women doing community service work to assist in church planting or enhancing of already established ministry.But do not become a Pastor because you will not get the ESTABLISHMENT recognition as your male colleagues. This story was about a sad day for the denomination. To ignore a person because of her gender is not only WRONG, its insulting. This was not a HIGH HOLY DAY AS THE ARTICLE STATED, it was a low point to the pioneering contributions that many women have given to support the growth the SDA denomination

I agree with Peter Marks that the best solution is likely to do with current "ordination" altogether and go back to a simple laying on of hands to commission individuals for various kinds of service, regardless of gender. It seems to me that would be more in keeping with the New Testament model than anything we do now.

Our practice of "ordaining" seems to have been adopted from the churches of our pioneers, and those churches were very much influenced by the Roman Catholic hierarchical system. We teach the priesthood of all believers. Thus it would be fitting for representatives of the laity to participate in the laying on of hands, rather than reserving it for the ministry, which implies something akin to apostolic succession.

The less said about the GC president's part in the matter, the better.

My heart and my prayers go out to Danijela Trajkov. May she continue to serve with grace and humility. Her gesture of laying hands on the to-be-ordained male candidates was appropriate, since she was commissioned before them. One man cannot change her calling and commission to ministry, no matter what his position.

While schearching for that maybe you can also find the text that supports polygamy - a common practice during the Old Testament.
If I can make a suggestion, try Joel 2:28: "...I'll pour out My Spirit on all flesh: your sons and daughters shall prophesy..." So, women are good enough for God to be His prophets but they are not good enough to be pastors....

He ignored protocol in order to get "elected", why is it any surprise he will again ignore policy and protocol - established in an attitude of prayer - in order to further his own ideologies?

Let's look forward to vocalizing in 2015, if not SOONER!

The described event saddens me. I would guess that Wilson meant no ill will towards Pastor Danijela. Yet, Wilson's actions, committed and omitted, were hurtful. I wonder if he has friends/confidants who would have the awareness to speak the truth to him and help him be a leader to all? Hopefully, he would listen to such counsel after being on the job for over a year. I did hear his inaugural sermon in Atlanta and on that basis it didn't seem he was striving to be a leader for all during the beginning phase of leadership. Yet time and experience bring new awareness for most of us. God is bigger than all this and He is good and just and full of forbearance.

Carmen I appreciate your comments so very much.

This is what happens when the institution and the rules become more important than people and reflecting the love of Jesus. People frequently end up behaving in ways that are unkind at best and at cruel and destructive at their worst. Forever more, at some very real level the dedicated Holy Spirit lead humble woman, will know that the heart of the leader of her church he sees her ministry, her calling as unworthy of his blessing.

I do believe he did not mean any ill will, but the fundamental problem is that his priorities were not, at least at that moment, the priorities of Jesus. I do not believe that anyone would suggest this is how Christ would have handled the moment.

These things do matter and they send terrible messages to the young people of our church who ask themselves if Christianity is worth it . . . if Adventism is worth it.

In the grip of grace

Steve Moran

David you say:

"Elder Ted Wilson gets good marks from me for being candid and consistent about his views. He is not the primary problem."

I am puzzled by this. While I agree he is consistent, he is also in a rather heavy handed way, telling local conference and union leaders to ignore the church manual and obey the General Conference leadership. I am also not comfortable with the idea that as long as someone is consistent but cruel, that consistency should be seen as an admirable thing.

In the grip of grace

Steve Moran

Rather than Setembrini accusing Jared of slamming Pres. Wilson, let us accept Jared's forthright reporting. Who can deny that the policy is blatantly discriminatory?
As others have said, Wilson's other option would have been to follow church policy to lay on hands for a commissioning service. If he wants to follow Ellen White and get back to the spirit of our church pioneers, he needs to heed EGW's comments on recognizing women in gospel ministry. How can a church who has Ellen Gould White as a founder, not heed her counsel on women in ministry? How can she be a leader and Pres. Wilson refuse to offer a prayer for a commission service for a woman, recognized by local church officials? I realize Pres. Wilson didn't mean for the service to be so awkward. I wonder if maybe the Holy Spirit was trying to give him one more chance to pray for a woman who was being commissioned.

This comment from AC above touched me the most: "Under the current General Conference policy, your gender and your level of power determines whether the head of your church will publicly pray for you." What a great symptom of the disease of patriarchy, on public display, no less!

The greatest lie perpetrated in the name of patriarchy is that women are the "weaker" gender. Nothing in my experience with my own strong mother, three sisters, two daughters, mothers-in-law, and especially my wife, in contrast to the many male leaders I've served under, provides evidence to support the idea that women are weaker than men.

So, I'm not surprised to find the church steadily weakening in every area in which we deny it the strength of its female leaders. Pastoral ministry and conference leadership, where SDAs allow the least female leadership, are the most embarrassingly bumbling and weak and corrupt areas in the denomination.

Thank you, Spectrum, for continuing what is in the official church media a largely squelched discussion.

-Jim

Here's a link to a sermon that Pastor Trajkov presented in May. http://hamilton-adventist-org-au.adventistconnect.org/podcasts/841/media.... It's actually pretty good.

I will be entering a PhD program next fall with the focus of my disertation being how the Roman Catholic theology has determined SDA practice. I will seek to trace the links back through Methodism, Anglicanism, to Catholicism. Our very conservative friends will have a hard choice to make as we look at the prospect of "ordaining" everyone who ministers in the church through their spiritualngifts and dispense with the current system.

Thank you for the responses to my posts. It seems you all think the specific answer lies outside the Bible. Fine. We have no specific Biblical mandate to avoid drugs.

But we find principles. The question we must now ask is this, if there is no Biblical injunction for women's ordination is there anything in the Bible against it?

I want to thank Dana and Inge for the attempt at getting to a scriptural solution. Let's see more.

No more of the ridiculous "well the Bible says to sacrifice animals and we don't do that anymore" logic. That is not the answer to the problem. If we base our faith on hearing the words of scripture (Romans 10:17), then from scripture we must find our answer.

If not specifics, then principles. Let's see sound Biblical principles for what we are pushing for. I am looking for the sola scriptura answer to this problem.

I've noticed a lot of indictment being placed on Wilson. I can't judge the man, I believe he is a man of principle from what I see. A lot of people on here write like he is the Church. We are not the Catholic Church (despite attempts to portray it as such, citing Ted's father Neal's poor choice of verbage) and we are a representative polity in nature. So I concur with Pastor Larson's assessment.

We need to know more about our structure before we can criticize it.

The lower conferences are hesitant on the issue. Why? Because of the people they represent. Has anyone here in Spectrum cared to poll the grassroots for those in favor of a woman's ordination policy? I will be surprised if there hasn't. Perhaps the hesitancy of the Church in general to act decisively on this issue is due to the problems I have been highlighting. The lack of Biblical support.

A Bible believing Church has to remain grounded in scripture or it ceases to be a Bible believing Church.

You want to solve the problem? Start at the basics. The Word of God.

In Christ,

Lemuel S.

Pastor Wilson owes an immediate apology to Pastor Trajkov, her family, the more than 60% of women who make up the denomination, and the entire church population. While this behavior may be "consistent" with his views on women, it is certainly not consistent with church policy toward commissioned women pastors.

In essence he made his point loud and clear:
I support only men in the ministry,
I will not participate in commissioning a female to serve her church as a commissioned pastor,
I will not offer a prayer for a non-male candidate for commissioning,
I am making a statement to the people of this denomination who want me to make this stand,
I do not believe women are "called" by the Holy Spirit to leadership, ministry, or other offices that our church requires ordination to perform,
I do not agree with the current standard policy in the Church Manual for commissioning women,
If I had a daughter "called" by the Spirit to minister and pastor, I would treat her the same way and refused to recognize that gift,
I, as a leader of this denomination, modeling how men should treat women "called" by God to minister,
I, as a father, am role modeling how fathers should treat their wives, sisters, daughters, and sisters in Christ,
As the president, I do not in any way want to be viewed by participation in such a sacred act as commissioning to the ministry, as a supporter of the "call" to ministry by a female.

The messages ARE loud and clear. Don't give Pastor Wilson the benefit of the doubt. This was intentional and strategic.

These are two quotes from Dr. Wilson's sermon in Melbourne at this occasion:

“Practical love and care of others; that’s what it truly means to be a Seventh-day Adventist… I urge you all to take an interest in young people. Speak to them, take time to care for them. Learn their names, and help them to feel a part of God’s great church family, a family that now outnumbers some 17 million members.”

“When I say we need ‘Revival and Reformation’ I mean renewing in Jesus, revival in Him, and reformation, as the Holy Spirit comes into our lives, and makes us more like him”. Dr Wilson quoted from Ellen White’s writings to highlight the need of a revival at this time.

I am praying that Dr. Wilson will accept the revival through the Holy Spirit using women as gifted instruments for His service.

I am also praying that my teen aged daughter learns that what it truly means to be a Seventh-day Adventist is that Adventism supports ALL the gifts of the Spirit to any person the Spirit chooses, including a teen like her who may be gifted to serve Jesus as a pastor.

However, I find this cognitive dissonance almost too much to bear, for I love my daughter and pray earnestly that the gifts she has already be received will be used for His service; it appears this may not be the Adventist Church that I have found my home in for so many years.

Since Merikay's courageous battle for equality, the devastating decision of Utrecht, the Division presidents voting women off the agenda for the 2010 Atlanta business meeting, with the president himself relinquishing the microphone and chairship of the Autumn Council to go to the microphone to make a major speech against women. And now this...

My hopes and prayers for full partnership by the Holy Spirit's gifts are sadly leading me away from the organization. How can it be blessed by the Spirit when it rejects those who are devoutly gifted by the Spirit for service in leadership?

Upon hearing this story from Melbourne, my spouse said, "It's time to take my name off the church books. This isn't my church."

Judy,

I truly believe that to Pastor Trajkov this is not "about power, it's about pure obedience. 1 Tim 2:14.15." I am troubled of this judgment of her motivation by you.

Her life, persecution, service with her husband to five churches. How can you oppose her commissioning by intimating that she is coveting "higher power" after her name (but you do not mention the two men who were ordained as having the same motivation). You say the "focus of godly women in ministry today...is my name written in the book, not is my name followed by the title of a "higher sphere" as Sis White calls it. *PATRIARCHS and PROPHETS* page 58,59.

I truly believe that is Pastor Trajkov's motivation--to serve her Lord with all her heart and soul and mind. How can you oppose her commissioning as a recognition of the Spirit's work in her life?

Lemuel said:

"We should be moved by Biblical principles not by impulse (whether its the female or male impulse to dominate)."

Are you saying that Pastor Trajkov's motivations are impulsive and an attempt to "dominate" by being a commissioned pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and serving selflessly by the side of her husband?

If not, what are you saying?

Daniel said ..."although I'm disappointed with President Wilson not praying for Pastor Trajkov's ordination-commissioning service, I have hope that this will change. It's going to take time, so we need to patient. The best is yet to come for the Seventh-day Adventist Church."

I admire your hope, Daniel. Has it been 35 years since Merikay's class-action suit finally brought equal pay to Adventist women? The teens of today, if it "takes time" as you have said, could be pushing 50, their life gifts ignored...Is this obedience to the Spirit?

This is a sticky ethical and moral issue.

What do the ethicists, philosophers, and those purely honest in heart think about a young gifted person, ignoring the call to ministry by the Spirit because the church she is growing up in refuses to recognize this call to leadership?

Do you say, "This is going to take time--maybe another 35 to 50 years. Tell the Spirit to give you something else to do. Maybe you can lead the potlucks...(not in any way to denigrate that gift--it's a wonderful blessing)."

"Are you saying that Pastor Trajkov's motivations are impulsive and an attempt to "dominate" by being a commissioned pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and serving selflessly by the side of her husband?"

That is NOT what I am saying. I am saying we should go by scriptural principle and not impulse. Sister Trajkov's motivations are her own. I can't judge her. I know and acknowledge that in SDA history women have held ministerial licenses and have served in that capacity such as Anna Fulton, Ellen S. Lane, Julia Owen and others like Margaret Caro of whom Ellen White writes, "I am greatly attached to her. She holds her diploma as dentist and her credentials as minister. She speaks to the church when there is no minister, so you see that she is a very capable woman." —Letter 33, 1893, p. 2.

The debate should be settled by scriptural principles if we can't settle by specifics.

Kind regards,

Lemuel S.

Pastor Wilson has his standards...standards he sincerely believes will stay the narrow road. Recently, he agreed to officiate at the marriage of one of the vice-presidents of the General Conference. But after agreeing to officiate he discovered that his colleague had been through a divorce. So he quietly step down and let someone else conduct the marriage. His explanation was simple. He told the ministerial staff at the church he did not want any tarnish to befall his reputation. So therein removed himself from the upcoming wedding and someone else had to conduct the wedding. I suppose you could say, among other things, he is in a tough position as the nexus between God and His fallen children.

Cheers
tjoe

"But evidence from the biblical principle of treating men and women alike has been given here over and over again...which you chose to ignore so far."

Seriously? I have already acknowledged Dana and Inge's attempts. Those need to be developed further. Then we can make a conclusion. I challenge you, Marriane, to develop it. Let us reason together. You mention the principle of love. We need to define that, scripturally, not by our own definition.

If you want to talk equality, I personally believe in it. But my personal beliefs cannot replace that of scripture. That is the principle I have to live by.

Kind regards,

Lemuel S.

I plan to read and reread Beth's comment at 12/07/2011 5:54 and I invite others to do the same thing because I believe that her analysis of what went wrong is precise and pertinent.

The local "powers that be" could have--and in my view should have--respectfully informed Elder Wilson that he was welcome to participate in both the commissioning and ordaining services or neither of them; however, he would not be allowed to participate in only one of them. Instead, they "gave away their power" and let Elder Wilson do something that only made things worse for everyone, including him.

I often wonder if we SDAs understand that our form of church governance is designed to have administrative influence flow bottom>>>>top rather than top>>>>>>down. Each elected leader is ultimately responsible to those who elected him and not to those who serve in positions that are higher in the administrative structure.

In this case Elder Wilson had no direct "line-authority" over the leaders of the Division, Union Conferences and Local Conferences in that part of the world. They are ultimately answerable to their own constituents.

According to the reports I have read, Elder Wilson understood this and made no attempt solely by his administrative authority to prevent the commissioning service from taking place. Instead, he simply and respectfully informed the "powers that be" that he--himself-- could not in good conscience participate in the commissioning and he respectfully waited on the sidelines until it was over.

I cannot fault Elder Wilson for any of this because he was true to his convictions and I respect him for that even though my convictions on this issue differ. He did what in his heart he honestly believes God and those who elected him want him to do. "Good on him!"

The problem is that, even though they had every administrative right to do so, the local leaders of the church in that part of the world appear not to have been as true to their convictions. Why?

This happens again and again on this issue. It will keep taking place until it stops taking place and it will stop taking place only when it stops taking place

David Larsen,

Agree with you. Respect is a two way street!

Lets pray for the man and stop demonizing him.

Progressive SDA: When my group did a survey of over 1000 people at last GC session in Atlanta, we found that a large majority of those we interviewed who were from Inter-America Division were in favor of women pastors and ordination.

Thanks also, Jared. I understand my understanding of what scripture says is my own. But there is also plenty in scripture that might serve to prove my hermeneutic wrong. I only ask to be proven wrong by the Bible. I will ignore any other attempt except that which uses the Bible and I'm sure you can respect that. I believe my attitude is shared by our GC president. I don't get the feeling that he is not changable. But to change him it will have to take more than extra-biblical arguments to do that.

If it is the Church's policy that you want to change, maybe, as Dr. Larson suggests, starting from the bottom going to the top will help more than barking at the top shelf whose support relies on the shelves beneath it!

We should applaud a man of conviction, even if he may seem harsh and we disagree with him. We don't call Christ rude when he chased the money changers out of the Temple.

Kind regards,

Lemuel S.

Lemuel,

It appears you are walking on boh sides of the street at the same time. You say the Bible has principles, giving the reasoning on drugs that there is nothing in the Bible about drugs, yet the church rejects their use. There is nothing in the Bible against coffee, tea, even alcohol, yet those too, are prohibited by the church.

By the same argument, there is a clear principle given by Paul that we all, male and female are equal in God's eyes; yet the church does not practice this principle.

Which is it? Must principles be sacrified because there is no "Thus saith the Lord"?
This is gross inconsistency to find principles for some things, and yet demand definitive statements for others.

I have heard sincere and convincing arguments on both sides of this issue, and am leaning towards the Women's ordination camp. Thus, I am rather surprised that nobody in favor of women's ordination has noticed/admitted that this situation was really a crafty setup to force Wilson's hand and put his position in the worst possible light.

The circumstances are overwhelmingly suggestive! Why was this service planned for Wilson's arrival? Why was the stage too crowded for Trajkov to exit? Surely the experienced conference officials could have foreseen and forestalled these potentially awkward circumstances. Given what in fact happened, they did quite the opposite. I conclude, therefore, that everything went exactly as planned: Wilson lost by looking like a chauvinist (at least to many people) and Women's ordination gained by acquiring a compelling poster-child and victim.

Rather than fodder for gnashing teeth over Wilson and/or the issue of women's ordination, this story should be cause for sober reflection on the destiny of our church. When church leaders resort to politics on a theological issue, we must conclude that their theological differences cannot be reconciled. Such an impasse is full of foreboding for the future.

Dr. Larson said:
"I often wonder if we SDAs understand that our form of church governance is designed to have administrative influence flow bottom>>>>top rather than top>>>>>>down."

This is simply not true. Maybe in the beginning, but not now. As a former member of a Union Executive Committee and delegate to the General Conference session, I can testify to the near impossibility of any issue going from the grassroots>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to administration.

Example: The removal from the agenda of the Church's official 2010 General Conference Session of the issue of ordination of women. Less than 15 men voted to remove this issue. In this session, there is no way to place this issue on the agenda by anyone from the grassroots. In fact, the NAD was asked by the GC to withdraw its motion in 2009. This is top>>>>>>>>down administration.

As an ethicist, an expert consultant on ethical issues, how can you defend Dr. Wilson's stand when it, in fact, violates the church's own policy of commissioning? This wasn't an ordination service for a woman; this was a commissioning. Why wouldn't Dr. Wilson, despite any circumstance, jump at the chance to bless a commissioned pastor?

If Progressive is correct and this is a $$$$ issue and the GC is fearful of losing "a lot in offerings and tithes," if they in any way support women utilizing gifts of ministry from the Holy Spirit, how can that be ethical?

The rules of engagement and tradition in this church for decision making exclude over 60% of the membership from the board room table. How is that ethical? How is that NOT top>>>>>>>>>>>>down?

At the last two churches where I have held membership, women did not give scripture, preach, call for the offering, have the morning prayer or hold office as an elder. That is top>>>>>>>>>>>>>down.

You must live in a large Loma Linda, California, community and not in the hinterlands where women are more apt to be second-class in some Adventist congregations, and where a devout Adventist who holds scripture close:

Joel--Your young women shall prophesy and dream dreams
Paul--There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female....

These scriptural principles are ethical guidelines for the last days. Why is the top>>>>>>>>>>>>down church ignoring this Biblical principles and discriminating against young women and causing them tremendous angst when the Holy Spirit calls them to leadership roles of ministry? To even place young women in this situation at all is morally questionable and reprehensible because it might offend someone. How do you explain this as an ethicist?

There is no such thing as grassroots clout, voice, or vote. There is apparently "influence" by men to keep women "out." And it obviously is top>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>down.

Biblical principles for equality and empowerment of those whom the Spirit gifts:

--Redemption as equal opportunity for everyone
--Equality as articulated by Paul
--giftedness of the Holy Spirit
--God speaking through a donkey (to Balaam) illustrating that He will speak through whom He chooses
--Deborah leading armies of "men"
--Phillip's daughters prophecying (you think they didn't tell anyone the prophecies?)
--The annointing of Jesus by a woman
--The angel appearing to "women" at the tomb of Jesus who "told" the apostles as they were instructed and the "apostles" not believing them (men drawing women OUT of the circle and not listening)
--Jesus empowering the first "evangelist" to go tell what she had learned from HIM--the woman at the well
--Joel giving equal opportunity for dreams and prophesying to men AND women IN THE LAST DAYS!
--Jesus "touching" women who were considered definitely unclean, second class, unworthy, and who were outcasts.
--Jesus, who chose a woman's body in which to live as an embryo, who chose to be raised by a woman who gave birth to Him. He could have dropped out of the clouds or arrived by chariot of fire. He gave dignity and preference to women, unlike the Pharisees who dismissed them.

These are Biblical principles of the restoration of dignity of humanity by Jesus.

The story of Deborah ALONE illustrates God-given gifts of leadership to women--even in the "masculine" world of war and battle.

If this story was about women's ordination, this outcome would have been predictable. Unfortunately it is worse. If indeed "he neither looked at nor acknowledged Danijela" the incident (if you can call it that) is far more serious than a "political" (or theological) statement.
John 13:35

Watching with Interest

1. I think I understand that the way our church's administration is designed to function and how it actually does so are often very different. My disappointment is that many of us do not take advantage of the opportunities to influence the life of the church that we now actually have.

2. It is very difficult to achieve change at the very top because there is a sense in which the constituency of the General Conference is the entire SDA world and it is culturally very diverse.

3. Thirty or so years ago some local and union conferences faced a decision as to whether to ordain exceedingly effective women ministers in their regions. Instead of deciding the issue themselves--as church policy expects them to do--they referred the issue to the General Conference. We all know the results.

4. My view is that destroying ordination for everyone so that we will not have to ordain women is an embarrassing solution. This is like burning down the entire house so that we do not have to wash the dishes.

5. The best way forward is for some Local Conference and some Union Conference to ordain qualified men and women without any distinction. When this is done, initially there will be much administrative distress. But it will subside within a very few years, life will go on and we will wonder why it took so long.

6. I believe that the Southeastern California Conference and the Pacific Union Conference are the ones that should show leadership on this issue and the sooner the better.

7. If those of us living in the SECC and PUC who believe in the ordination of qualified men and women without distinctions of any sort cannot persuade our own constituencies to move forward on this issue, I believe that we are not in a strong position to criticize the leaders of the General Conference for being unable to do so for the entire world.

8. Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me say that according to my understanding of Scripture and our other subordinate resources, Elder Wilson could not be more mistaken than he is about (1) ordaining qualified women and men and (2) about the necessity of the entire SDA world moving simultaneously on this issue.

9. In my view he is as mistaken as were those in nineteenth century North America who used the Bible to defend the continuation of slavery. I am not saying that women ministers today suffer the same kind and degree of oppression as did those slaves. I am saying that both groups of Christians read the Bible the same way with the same disastrous results.

10. Elder Wilson has an opportunity to change this just as Richard Nixon was surprisingly the first U.S. president in recent memory to "open" China to the West. It is my hope and prayer that he will not sidestep his chance to make an profound and positive difference.

Claiming to rely on the Bible to find women's ordination is a two-faced proposition.
If the church truly followed the NT instructions of Paul there would be no women teaching men, no women offering prayer, no women serving in any function other than in the kitchen.

Everyone realizes that the church does not faithfully abide by Paul's exclusion of women for teaching, nor in being "silent" in church. Yet when the question of a woman's readiness to receive the same position as men which is offered by ordination, it suddenly becomes a major concern; one that the entire world church must accept before any woman can be ordained. The old rule that anyone ordained must be acceptable to work anywhere in the world is never applied to men who cannot speak the native languange and so are never considered for fields where they would be totally inadequate. These are very thinly disguised rules that a child can see through--and they ARE CHILDISH.

Dr. Larson has made the suggestion that if followed would likely never bring a rustle from Silver Spring. The Southeastern conference for many years has had senior female pastors, unordained, something that would never be considered for a male senior pastor of a large church. This all shows sexual discrimination. The SDA in the initials should stand for "Sex Discriminating Adventists."

Please consider adding a "some" when you make these sorts of sweeping generalizations... Without it, the claim is not only sexist and false, it is unkind...
Thank you for your consideration,

This appears to be typical Ted Wilson behavior. Fail.

Hooray! A signal return to the chauvinistic good old days of patriarchal orthodoxy.

Under the changes to the Record, which Pablo was installed to oversee, anything negative is not published and/or referred to the heirachy for comment directly.

The record is only a "good news" magazine

So the Unitarian-Universalists are posting here! Perhaps it's about time! They should do the Adventist Church a favor by inviting this whole Spectrum crowd into their fellowship. It would be an excellent fit. No Biblical authority, no transcendent doctrines, no objective standards beyond what intellectuals find fashionable at any given moment.

Praise God for Elder Wilson's courage in making a clear distinction between the roles of women in ministry! That is the Bible way. Those wishing for inspired authority to be tempered by human opinion, human scholarship, or human experience cannot in honesty call themselves Seventh-day Adventists. A parting of the ways is fast approaching. Perhaps some of the liberal denominations like the Unitarian-Universalists might actually see a spike in growth in the coming years!

What a fantasy world some on this blog seem to inhabit! Calling for Elder Wilson to resign?? Resignations are coming, all right, but more than likely from the opposite theological direction. And they are long overdue!

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Larson- "6. I believe that the Southeastern California Conference and the Pacific Union Conference are the ones that should show leadership on this issue and the sooner the better."

Fomenting rebellion; Many of us realize that SECC has been rebellious in the past and maybe that is why you chose it. There is a way to do things and it's not by acting in a way that violates the stated policy of the church. Don't the libs get all het up when a conservative suggests that the church should not serve certain foods, for example, at potlucks?

You know better Larson that to incite rebellion.

I cannot wait for the day to see a women a conference president or division president. We might finally have change. The statisictics are saying that men are leaving the church more than women but look who is in control > men??? doesnt that say somethign about the church ... if we have a women then we might have nurturing and growth in the church rather than strict dogmentation(sic).

Let cultural issues play a role in local issues.

The way that Ted seems to be going is the "old missionary ways". That is the topf of the heirachy nows best and you do as we say cause we know best.

Lemuel Sapian - Tue, 12/06/2011 - 14:33
Quoted:
"Without biblical disapproval of slavery, nevertheless it was FINALLy abandoned, not by churches, but by those who recognized human rights a being more important than scripture."

At first I was wondering why many disapproved of my post encouraging the need to appeal to scripture for our position on this question. Now I understand why. It is saddening that people who call themselves Christians would reject to use the Bible as their guide in life, nevermind Ellen White (who was somewhat mum on the question of women's ordination).

I refuse to be a part of the crowd that allows their emotion run their lives over the clear word of the Bible.

Again I present the challenge that we must test everything by the Word.

If we do otherwise, are we following man's word over God's. Maybe that is alright for some, but most definitely not for anyone who calls themselves a Christian.

-------
Hi Lemuel,
I'm not real clear on just what it is you are saying...The bible gives every appearance of supporting the institution of slavery, therefore there is no way to support the abolition of slavery using the bible...So are you saying that since we can't use the bible to support the abolition of slavery we should not oppose it?

I think the original poster used an unfortunate choice of words in saying, "human rights a being more important than scripture." Perhaps saying that "knowing God's character would tell us that slavery is wrong while the scriptures appear to uphold that evil institution", may have been a better choice.

Yet, I am not sure what you are opposed to...

If Ted Wilson had even given a loving eye contact and a warm hug and then perhaps, quickly encapsulated he felt he needed to stand in his conscience,...it would have gone a looong ways for me; but it is that cold, lifeless protocol that left me with no sense of God and the Holy Spirit...shudder

I am absolutely certain in my conviction that one significant reason our Lord has yet to return is because his church has yet to fully recognize the ministry of women equal to men in His church. It is so sad and discouraging.

Lemuel Sapian - Samuel Pipim - whatever. Why this obsession with keeping women in their places? Why do you a black man whose people were enslaved by the same hermeneutic by which you wage war against women cant let it go? Is your real problem ordination of women? What is really going on in your soul?

I am disappointed that Ted did not speak out. This unscriptural nonsense of ordaining women is a barrier to the Holy Spirit and makes us liable to the wrath of God. Nevertheless, I am glad things did not go smoothly. This issue needs to be agitated. And people need to decided to follow the authority of the scriptures or philosophy/vain deceit. Women's ordination has no place in the Church of Christ.

The service is akin to asking God to bless and make clean your ham sandwich. God is not going to make clean something he expressly told you not to eat. Neither is he going pour out his Spirit upon us when we do that which is not authorized by the Word of God. The New Testament teaching and examples are too clear!

How long we will suffer under this limp wristed soggy spiritual existence? When will it be the Bible and the Bible alone....not a day sooner than we stop practicing women's ordination (and a host of other theological errors....but there is hope).

God have mercy on us for disobeying. We deserve to be cut off for thinking ourselves to be wise--while being fools.

Whether we like it or not Revival is coming. It will either be voluntary, like with Hezekiah and Josiah or involuntary under the cruel hand of Nebuchadnezar (or Diocletian). As long as we are recalcitrant we destined for involuntary revival. As the world becomes a police state and liberties are thrown to the wind...there awaits for us a revival of privation, imprisonment, and famine.

I hope it does not come to this....but it looks like we leave God with no choice.

Seems like some have already made God's choices for Him. Has He given you a vision?

I see many assumptions.... Who are we to judge the motives of Elder Wilson in this case? Do any of us have first-hand knowledge of the conversations that took place between leadership prior to the service?

If not, how can we interpret an act as being one thing, or another?

As someone who has been on the wrong end of a judgmental finger, I'm careful to ever do the same to someone else, even if I know all the facts. I would rather love them as Jesus does, forgive them (if they offended me or others) and look for the best in the person. In whatever way you agree, or disagree, with Elder Wilson's views and actions, he is still a person deserving of kindness, respect, and Christ-like love.

I am saddened to see the negativity and rush to tear someone apart based on what people perceive to be the motives. The attitudes displayed, and words written here in the comments are revealing. While the view of women in ministry Elder Wilson holds may be out of step with what you or I believe the Bible says, it's a viewpoint, not a sin. What is a sin, and grieves the Holy Spirit ( I believe ) is when we are bitter, angry, and degrading of a fellow human.

I pray for all of us that we would look for the best in every person, and situation, sharing love for all men and women, exemplifying Christ to the world.

Dean Waterman, Pastor
www.deanin.com

Careful there. It would be unfortunate to see a pastor painting with a broad brush. I actually a lot of understanding comments.

But beyond words, let's also be aware of how a discriminatory policy can also harm people in serious ways. I'll take seriously a defense of Wilson when that church leader shows me evidence of how they welcome being publicly not prayed for by their church leadership.

Pyalle,

I was highlighting who the pastor is responsible to...

Ivan,

Yes, I hear you. I was highlighting how inequalities are built into our very church language.

I will be entering a PhD program next fall with the focus of my disertation being how the Roman Catholic theology has determined SDA practice. I will seek to trace the links back through Methodism, Anglicanism, to Catholicism. Our very conservative friends will have a hard choice to make as we look at the prospect of "ordaining" everyone who ministers in the church through their spiritualngifts and dispense with the current system.
_____________________________________________________________
Pastor Newman has really hit the nail with the hammer in this statement. The problem with ordination goes far deeper than the perennial question, "Should females be ordained?" Our whole method of ordination (and that of most Protestant denominations) is not in line with the New Testament's teaching regarding the priesthood of all believers. Where does the New Testament state that only pastors are to be ordained? Where does it speak of "ordaining" and "commisioning" as two separate categories? Where does it even command an ordination service? OK, we have instances of the New Testament Christian community laying their hands on people who had been called to specific ministries, but this appears to have been an informal thing, and there is no evidence that it was always practiced. Was it ordination or commissioning? The New Testament knows nothing of these categories! Furthermore, according to the New Testament, anyone with a spiritual gift has a ministry, so how about laying hands on them and praying for them, regardless of what their ministry is? And how about not worrying about whether it's ordaining or commissioning? If we would quit making such a big deal of ordination as if it's a sacrament and follow the New Testament model, conflict over women's ordination would become a totally moot point!

Editor, would you care to comment on why you just deleted my post connecting the dots between Elder Wilson's behavior and the White Estate's endorsement of Gothard's "God's Chain of Command?"

_____________________________________

Revelation 1:1 suggests what might well be called "God's chain of command" (to borrow a phrase from Bill Gothard).

God's Chain of Command

Just as all three members of the Godhead participated in the creation of this world,[29] just so do all three participate in the process of inspiration: The Father gives the message to the Son, and the Son gives it to the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit moves upon the prophets.

The Godhead delivers the message to "his angel," Gabriel; and Gabriel delivers it to God's servants, the prophets. And thus the prophets could authoritatively declare to their fellow beings, "Hear, therefore, the word of the Lord."

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/rev-insp.html
__________________________________________

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4094/%E2%80%9Ctaliban...

http://godsownparty.com/blog/2010/09/christian-dominionist-candidate-web...
___________________________________________

The White Estate is promoting a completely misogynistic doctrine, which manifestly destroys lives and families, and you don't think that's relevant to what happened in Australia?

I'm really curious to know your reasoning.

Thanks.

"Yes, woe upon you, Pharisees, and you other religious leaders—hypocrites! For you tithe down to the last mint leaf in your garden, but ignore the important things—justice and mercy and faith. Yes you should tithe, but you shouldn't leave the more important things undone. Blind guides! You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” Matthew 23:21- 24

Kevin D. Paulson - Wed, 12/07/2011 - 18:09
Vote up!2 .Vote down!-24
"So the Unitarian-Universalists are posting here! Perhaps it's about time! They should do the Adventist Church a favor by inviting this whole Spectrum crowd into their fellowship. It would be an excellent fit. ..."
=======================

I read this several times. It's not that often that we have such a nonsense written here.
What is this? Despair because some issues are being openly dealt with instead of hiding them?

I suggest that TED WILSON should do the Adventist Church a favor by RESIGNING. How come we have a president who discriminates against women regarding ministry? He wouldn't give a prayer for his sister's dedication to the ministry? This is crazy!!! What kind of "Christians" are those people anyway?
This is just unthinkable!!!!

David Larson's, "A factual question:"

Yes, that is what I have been thinking as I have read through this discussion. To my knowledge, the commissioning of female pastors took off in California not too long after the GC Session in 1995 at which it was decided to not ordain female pastors. It now seems to be common practice. I witnessed an ordination of a male pastor this year where the local elder referred to a previous commissioning of a female pastor as an ordination and the Ministerial Director referred to the ordination of the man on that day as a commissioning. Not sure of what the intentions were, but it surely created confusion.

Your original comment was unpublished, and subsequent postings may be as well, because it was off-topic, excessively lengthy and bordering on slanderous. In short, this is not the place to try to convince people that "the White Estate is trying to take us into Gothard hell." One appropriate venue for that would be a website of your making elsewhere on the Internet. Thanks. -Editors

Actually, my quote from Salon above suggests that what I'm saying is quite possibly too on target for comfort.

I realize you can't imagine the hell I'm describing, but it might be a fruitful start if you imagine the humilation of the woman who is the topic of this article.

Multiply that by the whole SDA church community, and you will know what Gothard hell is.

If this happens, you will not be thanking the White Estate for the favor.

But you will at least know where the ideology originated.

It's not hard to document the extreme patriarchy, misogyny and child abuse of this movement from the stories of the wrecked lives and families it has left behind.

The dots are there to connect.

http://www.recoveringgrace.org/tag/recoveringgrace-org/

Revelation 1:1 suggests what might well be called "God's chain of command" (to borrow a phrase from Bill Gothard).

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/rev-insp.html

davidlarson writes: "According to SDA policy, determining who is and who is not qualified to be ordained is the responsibility of Local Conferences and Union Conferences rather than Divisions of the General Conference or the General Conference as a whole."

If that were true, the NAD would have no need to bring the question of women in the ministry to the General Conference, and if it did come up, it could be thrown out on a point of order. I think davidlarson is wrong, but I'm open to correction if he or anyone can quote the relevant policy.

But he asks a good question: 'Is it the formal policy of the General Conference that qualified SDA ministers can be "commissioned." I am aware that certain regions of the church have taken this position. Is this officially so of the denomination as a whole?'

The answer is no, even though Jared wants you think it's yes. Again, I'm open to correction if he or anyone can quote the relevant policy.

How come we have a president who discriminates against women regarding ministry?"

If he has been marinating in Gothardism, the answer to that is self-evident to anyone with experience with and knowledge about Bill Gothard's patriarchy, misogyny and dominionism, Daniel.

This might be a very good time to get up to speed on what that's all about, before this turns into the inevitable trainwreck.

Keep an eye on the White Estate. The GC pulled the references to Gothard's "God's Chain of Command" years ago.

That it is showing up on the White Estate web site does not bode well for the mental health of Adventism.

But nobody has to take my advice.

Daniel Masel,

Don't be hopeless. Some dreams come true...
There is always hope that a nightmare comes to an end. The sooner, the better!

George Tichy writes, "Settembrini, the responsibility of deciding who should be ordained is a task that belongs to the local churches."

Really? I think you've missed the point George. The comment was about church policy. Can you refer to a church policy to support what your claim? I suspect you can't.

 The LORD said, ... “I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate. ...
The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” I Samuel 16

Did Elder Wilson look into the male ordinands' qualifications, or did he sanction their ordination solely on the basis of the local decision? I.e., was their maleness sufficient?

To refuse to pray publically for the sole commissioning candidate without explanation leaves not just the possibility of taking a stand against the ministry of women, but also an action of disapproval for that person's moral &/or competency failings. A seriously defaming question to leave hanging.

Several otherwise extraordinarily intelligent people here seem to be advocating for a conspiracy theory against Elder Wilson. Let's just think this theory through a little bit. [Edit: The following is hypothetical and not what I believe is the case.] Leadership in the Victoria Conference want to trap Wilson, so they ask him to officiate a commissioning and ordination somehow knowing that at the last moment he would decline to pray for the commissioning instead of, say, not participating in either, or participating in both. They then plan beforehand to have Pastor Trajkov leave the stage (!?!) before the ordinations but somehow manage to choreograph all of the players on the stage so that:
1. it is too full for her to make an exit, and
2. she is awkwardly stuck standing right next to the ordainees, not stepping back toward the band, stepping to the side of the crowd, or slipping passed the apparently quite sizable crowd blocking the way off the stage.
However, despite their unbelievable competence (and dare I say prescience) in pulling off the above, they fail to get any embarrassing video or photos of the scene. The plan, of course, hinges on the event (which apparently, judging by the reactions of some recorded at the end of the above article, some people didn't even notice!) becoming more than just a Sabbath afternoon conversation piece by gaining traction in the Adventist blogosphere. So they inexplicably wait several weeks.

Of course, the conspirators could have fed Pastor Wright false information for this article. For example, perhaps Wilson was never asked to pray for Pastor Trajkov. But then the whole diabolical plan could come unglued if Wilson lets this little fact slip. All of that planning, all of that incredible (and lucky!) execution would have come tumbling down for our hypothetical conspirators with nothing but a nuh-uh from the very person they intend to entrap.

Or perhaps Pastor Trajkov was not asked to leave the stage. Again, a little slip of the tongue from, say, Pastor Trajkov herself, would ruin the whole stagecraft aspect of the plot. At least in this case, through incredible luck, they got Wilson to pray for just the men. But it comes at the expense of their credibility, and their lie would muddle the whole thing.

Does this really make any sense to anyone? Perhaps the simple explanation really is the right one. It certainly is more believable.

Thank you, Ioannis, for generously approaching the subject from a Biblical standpoint. I can now reenter the discussion.

You have written well. However we need a Biblical explanation for the statements Paul makes that seem to exclude women from ministry. Are they to be understood in their cultural context only? I agree with you that the gifts given to the Christian church is not specified in scripture as going to only one gender. Then what is Paul meaning with his words? Should we just toss them out?

Thanks,

Lemuel S.

Several commenters have articulately described the need for a clear Adventist theology of ordination, citing Scriptural questions/discrepancies. The issues are more numerous than regarding gender. And so the official church agrees w/ its call for an in-depth study. So why are we ordaining anyone until this is concluded?

A moratorium, please. Or do some object to ordination being withheld from men temporarily? Why would this be a problem, since one can minister anyway & it is unseemly to grasp for power--as we're frequently reminded here?

Dear Robert S:

I am well aware of what the issue was at the recent Annual Council. But the fact is that what North America and at least one other Divisions wanted was turned down by the collective voice of the world church in the action taken by the Council. Individual Divisions are not free to develop their own policies regarding either who is qualified for ordination or who is qualified to serve as a Conference or Union president. That is a world church decision, and is ineligible for contravention at lower levels of church government.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Lemuel asks:

"we need a Biblical explanation for the statements Paul makes that seem to exclude women from ministry."

As the canon was closed at the turn of the first century, where should we look for a biblical explanation that is not already found in the Bible? If the Bible explanations for Paul have not been answered for 2,000 years, is there some magic that will now make them much clearer?

We forget that the Bible was written by men, and when men were in charge of everything except the homefront and children. Everytime the Bible says "men" it cannot be said to exclude women anymore than the Declaration of Independence which declares "all men are created equal," or when Paul says that the bishop should be husband of one wife, when at that time and culture, he also told women to be silent.

How many churches follow his rules completely? Are there any women teaching in the church you pastor? Why or why not? How literal should the Bible be interpreted when the social customs were so radically different?

It is doubtful that anyone here would claim today there should be discrimination in the workplace based solely on gender; that there should be discrimination in college admissions solely on gender, and that pay should be dependent solely on the sex of the worker; all of which were seen as "normal" only a hundred years ago.

Yet all the equality we now enjoy should stop at the church door. IOW, believing in equality of all humans ceases when one puts on his ecclesiastical clothes and enters church. Something is sadly wrong with the picture that the last holdout against equality should be maintained by religion! Religion seems to erase all ideas of right and wrong when it comes to people. It must be true:

"Bad people do bad things. For Good people to do bad things, it takes religion."

For those of you interested in policy, and want one quoted:
Check the Church Manual, RH Publishing. 15th Edition, chapter 9 entitled, "Ministers and Workers in Relation to the Church." Again and again it refers to the local Conference or Mission as the authorizing and supervising body for every credentialed worker. It's very clearly local. And the authorizing happens in local conference committees and on to each conference in constituency session. Unions, as well, do some credentialing, although that is not covered in the Church Manual. The Manual does say that conferences are to act according to their Division policies--a short sentence somewhat buried in Chapter 9.

Robert, I apologize.

Whenever a situation is "tabled" and a committee appointed to "study it" it is a code for saying, "Not now, and not ever as long a it can be put off with a determination to form a "study committee." These men have to earn their pay and with the multitudes of committes there are always many who are currently "studying" a position.

Which reminds me that my pastor dad was either very prescient or practical or both some 80 years ago when he told me after my exclamation that I wanted to be a preacher, "Girls can't be preachers, but you can always be a Bible worker" (IOW, the preacher's "helper.") The more things change, the more things stay the same. I predict that we who are discussing this will all be dead and it will still be "studied."

To put Maggie's comments regarding the White Estate and Gothard into perspective, it must be recognized that the sole instance of "Gothard" on the White Estate website does not originate from the White Estate itself but from a single statement in a reprint.

The topic is listed thus:
Inspiration/Revelation:
What It Is and How It Works
By Roger W. Coon

Reprinted, by permission, from The Journal of Adventist Education (Volume 44, Numbers 1, 2, 3, October 1981 through March 1982).

Here's that "evil" sentence:
"And, having made that choice, God speaks! Twice in the stately, measured cadences of Hebrews 1:1, 2, we are told that God had already spoken, first through the prophets and then more recently through His Son. Revelation 1:1 suggests what might well be called "God's chain of command" (to borrow a phrase from Bill Gothard)."
~~~~
One wonders if that one word is worth all the drama AND all the extrapolations.

May the reader judge.

It makes little difference where Gothard's name is used. The principle of "chain of command" is explicitly set forth in the church manual for all to read.

Elaine, I think it does matter because the Gothard ideology is explicitly patriarchal, misogynist, abusive to children and dominionist. It makes Adventist authoritarianism look like child's play.

And when the Unmentionable Organization mentions Gothard in whatever context, the hair should stand on end on every Adventist's head.

If it doesn't, they have some catching up to do post haste, because their GC President is acting like the Gothard pastors in my past experience.

The dots are there to connect. People have no idea how destructive this is, and learning the hard way will be a disaster.

Read it before it disappears....

Trisha,
Thanks for sharing a portion of the timeline about Women's Ordination. What should also be noted is that none of the many studies that have been made of the Scripture have found any reason why women should not be ordained. To quote from the 1998 book "Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives" that was written by the faculty of the SDA Seminary and edited by Nancy Vyhmeister. "We believe that the biblical, theological, and historical perspectives elaborated in this book affirm women in pastoral leadership."

Now is the time to address the policies that have not kept up with the findings of our many studies. It is the policies that are dividing us. It is the policies that need to be changed.

No, thanks, don't need to read about yet another strand of patriarchy. Like, how many are there? Too many to count!
A more useful quest may be to search the archives for official portraits of Presidential (at any level) couples. Is there one with them both standing, side by side, as equals?

" . . . none of the many studies that have been made of the Scripture have found any reason why women should not be ordained. " Obviously your perusal of "many studies" has been very selective. Other studies have clearly shown that the ordination of women either as elders or as pastors cannot be justified from Scripture.

" . . . we want to treat the sisters in the church as if we are living in a first century culture where women were the property of their fathers or husbands and treated no better than children."

That's quite an allegation, and one for which I've never seen any evidence. None of the women in my local church are treated that way--and none are elders or pastors, either. And no one I know wants to treat women that way.

The rhetoric here is amazing. Gross exaggeration and extrapolation seems to be the order of the day when it comes to women's ordination. The idea of role distinction also seems to be a foreign concept, and yet, even though the 3 members of the Godhead are equal, Jesus submits to the Father. Shocking!

Mike MacLennan writes to Kevin Paulson:
"May I suggest that you sit at the feet of Professor David Larsen who has so eloquently explained that the Conferences, Unions and Divisions ARE "free to develop their own policies regarding either who is qualified for ordination or who is qualified to serve as Conference or Union president."

Well, Mike, your David Larsen is wrong (I almost added 'as he so often is', but I'm not sure we're talking about the same David Larsen).

The NAD evidently know they are not "free"; not in that sense. Why else would they submit their requests to the GC? And why do they so painfully and embarrassingly pretend they are in compliance with GC decisions, while actually conniving to undermine them?

Of course, any "ethicist" worth his salt will be able to give them a plausible rationale for their unethical conduct.

>>> How do church members effect policy change?
By using your tithes and offerings to support God's work rather than men's

>>> The tithe isn't theirs to withhold; it belongs to God.
You need to do a bible study on tithe and its usage in the OT and in the NT.

In the OT, it was used by the giver in the clan's worship services, and by the Levites, not by the local judges who are the nearest equivalent to a modern pastor, and there was no central religious leadership giving out edicts.

There was one or two occassions when a special tithe was briefly collected to rebuild things. Again, it was not for the maintenance of a central religious leadership.

In the NT, it is practically unheard of.

The SDA Church knows full well that it's rules for tithe are created by the organization over the last 150 years, and are not mandated by either the OT or the NT. Instead there is a general principle of supporting God's work - but not one of throwing your money into some central pool without regard to who did what to it.

>>> Those who withhold it because they don't like the way the church is using it are guilty of robbing God. Jesus commended the widow who put her money into the treasury, even thought the leadership was corrupt. It is those who misuse the money who will be held accountable.

This is the lie that organized Christian hierachies have foisted on gullible Christian's since the dawn of the Christian era. It is simply a self-serving deception practised by those who want the power and the money.

/Bevin

@Pastor Kevin Paulson,
Your attack on our Unitarian Universalists brethren was rude, not representative of a Pastor ,unkind and unchristian like. If you are not familiar with the rules of engagement when writing on a Blog, you should do some research on how you should respond to individuals with opposing opinions. Here are a few tips that you should put in practice when exchanging ideas on a Blog:

a) Agree to disagree (meaning-not everyone will validate your point of view)
b) Be civil when you disagree with another person
c) Be KIND, why you might ask, because as christian that is what Christ requires you to do.

I also find it very interesting that you commented that "They should do the Adventist Church a favor by inviting this whole Spectrum crowd into their fellowship. It would be an excellent fit."

Do remember that the comments made on this Blog are representations from cross section of the SDA denomination. If they (Me included) should leave, their local churches taking their offerings and tithes with them, their impact would be felt financially at the GC level.

It is interesting that in an April 2010 ANN article on the topic of female minister being ordained Jan Paulsen stated that "Of the eight divisions that declined to consider women's ordination, each included in their response a description of how women are engaged in leadership in their respective region. However, "They came back and said they would not ordain women, and the people in their part of the world would be negatively affected. ... [It would] seriously undermine the unity [of the church]," Paulsen said"

Notice the buzz words in this quote "negatively affected" and "seriously undermine the unity of the church". His prospective and yours are wrong, because there is no biblical support for the stance of not ordaining female ministers. Kevin you and your colleagues should really think about the words that you choose to use when addressing this sensitive topic.

You, Paulsen and Wilson need to stop hiding behind traditionalism and speak the truth about why this establishment choose not to ordain female ministers. The truth is that you are all concerned about loosing the three divisions, who are supportive of ordaining female minister because should they decide to leave the GC, this move would seriously impact the organization profit margin. Stop kicking the can down the road on this issue, man up and understand that women should be ordained just as men are to further the Gospel of Christ.

settembrini

I do think it unfortunate that a number of times over the past several decades Local Conferences and Union Conferences and even Divisions have gone to the General Conference asking it to make decisions on this matter instead of abiding by church policy and making these decisions themselves.

The intentions of those who made these appeals to the General Conference are beyond reproach. Yet their requests have put these GC leaders in what some of them see as a lose/lose situation. If they support the ordination of women, they create discord in one part of the world. If they oppose it, they provoke it in another part of the world.

I believe these General Conference leaders are primarily concerned about global church unity, not their own careers. And these concerns about church unity are appropriate and important.

Thus, the General Conference is in a very difficult situation. I see only two possibilities, though certainly there are others that I don't discern.

One possibility is that the Committees in each Division that have been invited to study the matter over the next two years will achieve world-wide consensus by the Fall of 2114.

Another is that Local Conferences and Union Conferences will render the General Conference a genuine favor by reclaiming their administrative right to make these decisions, thereby relieving the need of the General Conference to do so.

Those who are doing the most to maintain church unity are inadvertently causing it to fracture by insisting on too much uniformity.

We need to find a way for people all over the world to live in harmony with their own consciences on this issue.

From TruthWave
"but the Scriptures are so clear, in that only men were ordained by the laying on of hands by Jesus in the NT. And the example of Jesus is what we must follow"

Yes. And no Gentiles were allowed in either. Or high officials, royalty or politicians. Jewish fishermen and tax collectors were the only ones. Somehow these aspects of Jesus' methodology in choosing His disciples gets ignored for absence of women.

The loopholes are endless but the fundamentalist only believes what he can pigeonhole the scriptures into saying as long as it fits his conservative agenda. "Facts? Don't confuse me with the facts!" For that matter, might as well throw out rationality and logic too because those things are not used to interpret the scriptures. Definitely not context or culture either.

Not much left but strong opinion and 'letter of the law' mentality that was rampant amongst the Pharisees. Of which group is the methodology and fruits of the uber-conservative. Of course, like the Pharisees, they are still right and everyone else is still wrong.

There are no statements of Paul that exclude women from the ministry. There are statements that appear to say that they should not speak in the church or teach. Keep that in mind this is very important. The methodology to take verses that speak of one thing and say that they claim another is similar to the methodology some follow who come to me and tell me the Sabbath was abolished because Paul said to collect offerings on Sunday, or because Jesus was ressurrected on the first day of the week. These verses say one thing and you can only take that thing; you should not make assumtions of the consequences of that thing.

How do you underestand these statements? If you want to be consistent and true to the text you have to claim that women should not speak period! This is ridiculous and we know that this was not the practise in the early church.

Women were speaking in meetings, women were teaching (See Priscilla who together with her husband taught Apollo, and Phoebe who was a deacon). Deacons in those days were not there to collect the offerings. The word in Greek means minister. Deacons were the ministers, of the churches. This is why Paul in Romans 16:1-2 recommends Phoebe to the church and requests that they accept her graciously. Such a recommendation would have been absurd if Phoebe was not a minister of the gospel. Incidentally both Paul and Timothy are called in the Bible as deacons, or performing the ministry (diakonia) of the word.

Don't do the mistake of choosing to look only few obscure verses in the Bible and neglect all the other ones. The references you choose to stand by are in letters send in churches (or individuals) with particular problems we do not and perhaps cannot know. They are not in the context of whether women can be pastors. If it was so how could possibly E G White speak in the church? According to the verses you choose to study White should never have spoken and exercise her gift (at least not in the church). Thank God she did. If you want to be consistent though you should realize that the verse you speak of and the way you interpret them indicate that she made a mistake when she exercised the gift that was given to her by the Holy Spirit.

I should make a correction in my previous comment. The picture I spoke about is the picture of E G White's ministerial credentials not ordination credentials (sorry I write these comments in a hurry).

There was a time that I too feared the idea of women taking pastoral roles in the church. I felt it changed too much the status quo, I felt it was too radical. Then when I studied the New Testament in depth I realized that the early church was radical. It fought against what was established, it was comprised of rebels like Paul who would not follow traditions but ventured into the unknown under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The church has great potential. This potential can be used only if all of us men and women use our gifts and talents.

God bless
Ioannis

@Darrell: Your come back that Jesus didn't ordain any Gentiles is lame. You know that the Jews were given the "Oracles of God", and Jesus himself was a Jew, they then would bring the light of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Everything that Jesus did had meaning, it wasn't done to appease men, or done on a whim, He was doing the Father's will. The point is that, Jesus laid hands only on men, even though there were converted Jewish women followers with them at that time, so if it was God's will for women to be included among the Apostles, Jesus would have laid hands on and ordained at least one women, but He did not. And that model of leadership was left as it was shown to the disciples up till his death, to be included in the New Covenant, which could not be changed after Jesus' death.

All that this says to me is that the SDA church, represented by her president, have once again demonstrated that they are not, nor are they willing to be God's end time church. We lack the courage to take our place in the final outpouring of the Holy Spirit spoken of in Acts 2:17. We are still deluded enough to believe that there are enough old men available to do God's work and that times are not yet pressing enough for women and the young to be called into service. Far from judging all our policies and practices by the Word of God, we conveniently and selectively interpret it to suite our prejudices and power games.

Of this I am certain: as long as the SDA church clings to an unbiblical notion of ordination and erroneously and blasphemously ties "ordination" to secular notions of "headship" and "authority", this conflict will never be resolved. There is still too much power and privilege to be clung to. It will only be when we are finally prepared to learn at the feet of Jesus that being a minister of the gospel has more to do with being a servant and a slave than being in a position of authority (Matthew 20:26) that we will get over ourselves and our discomfort with what a prayer of faith might mean to the social order. On that day I assure you that the stage will not be quite so crowded. The men in suits, so concerned about image and perception, will be making their way to the nearest fire escape while the widows and the orphans, the young and the poor hesitantly make their way forward. Not because they are seeking a position of authority or headship in the Kingdom of God but because their hearts are overflowing with boundless gratitude to the crucified Christ and they can no longer keep silent. Because the tables have been overturned, and the den of thieves has once again become a house of prayer.

Until the day when the church finally becomes who she is meant to be through the power of God's Spirit, the bibilcal notion of ministry not only permits, but mandates us to celebrate and prayerfully support Danijela Trajkov along with her male colleagues as she joins the long line of ministers called to take the message of the Gospel to a dying world. Wherever this Gospel of the Kingdom is preached, her story will be told in memory of her. Because she was humbled before the living God. Because she did not think herself to great to wash the Savior's feet.

Thank you, Ioannis. This is where the dialogue should head, instead of trying to look outside of the inspired Word of God. We need more of that, not more human concocted ideas to throw away the bulk of scripture. Godbless!

Lemuel S.

Trisha,

Do you believe in Divine inspiration?

Lemuel S.

Still waiting for the Bible reasons for the abolishing of slavery. Still waiting for the Bible reasons for the SDA position on coffee, alcohol, tobacco, and others that are not explicitly condemned in the Bible.

It was culture that finally condemned slavery, not the Christian church. It was culture that finally agreed that equal pay should be given regardless of sex. But the SDA church had to be taken to court and finally, and reluctantly agreed that abiding by the Law, not the church policy, was the "right" thing to do.

There is right, and there is might. The church often operates through its might, and not by doing what is right. It will probably be the last Protestant denomination to recognize the equality of women, but it may not come soon with the present administration.

I have even seen it written that if a woman feels called to the ministry, it is not God calling but the Devil! When God calls to minister does He limit them only to men?This seems to be implied to some comments here, and began with the early church father, Tertullian, who compared women to the devil "on account of you even the Son of God had to die." And Augustine wrote "if it was good company and conversation that Adam needed, it would have been much better arranged to have two men together as friends, not a man and a woman."

Some men here are saying, in effect, "I am superior to woman and she can never be my equal because God made her to be my inferior. The position of priest is too high and lofty; it can only be limited to the males."

Elaine,

The "disciminating personality disorder" appears to be difficult to cure.
I wonder if it can be actually "cured" or changed. It may not be a "racial" problem, or a "gender" problem. It may be a "discrimination" problem that manifests itself in several ways, affecting different areas of cognitive functioning.

I believe that discrimination is learned both from home and society. Usually, whatever is learned can be unlearned. But I guess we have to agree that curing the "discrimination syndrome" seems almost impossible. As we can see, not even the GOSPEL has done the job in many people's lives...

Lemuel Sapian

1. Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?
2. Do you believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit?
3. Do you believe the Holy Spirit will be poured out on God's people as we get closer to the End Time?
3. Can you point to scriptural proof that the Holy Spirit's gifts are specifically limited only the male gender?

Clearly it isn't that women are not allowed to served in those leadership functions, it's just that the orthodoxy insists on not recognizing them.

Clearly it isn't that women are not allowed to served in those leadership functions, it's just that the orthodoxy insists on not recognizing them.

@down-under: LOL (abbreviation for laughing out loud)

Don - a recent Review edition featured women's service in many areas of church work with the message - look what women are doing (without being ordained) Isn't it great what all women are doing (without being ordained) We certainly hope women keep on doing it (without being ordained.)

The message was loud and clear.

For too many years - I've listened to the stories my woman friends who work as "secretaries" and now "administrative assistants" in our conference and union offices have told me about the men in leadership positions. Over and over I've heard the same song; these women do all the work on a project , initiate the ideas, make things happen - then the men get the credit for the women's efforts. And most of the time - these men actually believe that they are the ones responsible for the success.

As Adventist we are known to base our beliefs on the solid Word of God. We use scripture; “Thus says the Lord” as the foundation to build our faith. We hold a faith that is based on facts not feelings, teaching of truths not traditions. We are warned by scripture and prophecy of false teaching that will creep from the world into our church. The ordination of women elders and the commissioning of women pastors is not “new found light” and goes against teachings found in the Scriptures and EGW. Sadly this idea of unisex is only the outer bands of the storm. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered groups are knocking at the church door for affirmation as well.

There are God given roles of Spiritual leadership/headship of the home and church placed on men. We men are to blame for not fulfilling the Lords command. This is not a cultural issue, or a matter of one’s prejudice thinking like some are trying to make it. It is clear teaching by Gods Word and the Spirit of Prophecy. Nowhere in the Bible is a women ordained as a priest, a bishop, or an elder. Nowhere in the writings of Ellen White have I found her to indorse this view. Here are a couple of clear quotes from her writings;

The primary object of our college was to afford young men an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause. 5T page 60.

Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation. 5T page 598

Those that have yielded step by step to worldly demands, and conformed to worldly customs, will then yield to the powers that be, rather than subject themselves to The following quote from Ellen White sums it up; "Those who have yielded step by step to derision, insult, threatened imprisonment, and death" (Prophets and kings, p 188)

I find what John Allen has to say discouraging and depressing because it reflects the worst of Adventist superstition. The thinking that we are better to not do something, even if that something seems to be moral and right, for fear that if we take action we will anger God and He will do terrible things for us.

I find it curious that those who oppose women in leadership refuse to explain what God and the Holy Spirit are doing in that 7,000 member church in China that is led by a ordained woman or the 4,000 member church.

John claims Scripture and Ellen White are clear, in fact while it may be clear to him, it is clearly not so clear to others. In point of fact, there are many very conservative Adventist leaders who have looked at the issue and concluded their is no prohibition against ordination of women.

The use of Paul's statement about women not speaking in church is unbelievably weak, since in another place Paul says women should not speak unless their head is covered making his statements contradictory at best. The argument that since Jesus had no female disciples is equally weak, because by that standard all pastors should be of Jewish heritage.

In the grip of grace

Steve Moran

Trisha,

Yes, I believe in gender equality. I also believe in difference of roles. You are right, inspiration isn't the point of this topic, and I am glad to concede that I am wrong in bringing it up if it makes you feel better. I had thought that the topic of the original article hinged on how one believes the Bible to be inspired, but apparently seeking a Biblical solution to the problem is hard for some. I apologize for not considering that when discussing this topic.

You say you are inspired by God everyday. Good. That makes a whole bunch of people. But you know that is not the point.

I am the head of my household. But my wife and I are very equal. I never do anything without getting her input. She sees me as an equal, and we show each other mutual respect.

Kind regards,

Lemuel S.

As commented before.... the original article was not about women's ordination, i.e. a theological discourse. When my daughter (!) made me aware of this article with some horror and dismay, I was most troubled by the sentence: "he neither looked at nor acknowledged Danijela"

Eva von Überall (Eve of Everywhere - obviously a fitting pseudonym) published a book about a year ago with the title "But he did not look at me". (Aber er sah mich nicht an). It is the story of severe abuse this woman had experienced at various levels within the Adventist church. The title of the book summarizes well the issue of shaming that is part of the abuse.

Not looking at nor acknowledging is not just about a particular understanding of theology. In fact, some of the discussion in this thread isn't looking or acknowledging either, but debating "doctrine", objectifying the subject "human being of female gender" once again.

How different the Aaronic blessing: the LORD turn his face towards you and give you peace.

Steve, We are spiritual Israel so I guess all pastors have Jewish heritage.... If we do not take the Bible as the only foundation of truth then where do we stand. The state of the dead, hell, creation week, and the Sabbath are all plain truths from Gods word. If the women in China was not ordained would her work be in vain? God forbid.... God has and will use women but ordination and headship was not the role he gave. It was not Paul that spoke in the garden of Eden but God himself. We are in the last moments of earth history and housebands (husbands) need to bind their home and church families together.

The first sin committed was by someone who did not want to follow the role given by God and reached out for a higher one.

In His service

As commented before.... the original article was not about women's ordination, i.e. a theological discourse. When my daughter (!) made me aware of this article with some horror and dismay, I was most troubled by the sentence: "he neither looked at nor acknowledged Danijela"

Eva von Überall (Eve of Everywhere - obviously a fitting pseudonym) published a book about a year ago with the title "But he did not look at me". (Aber er sah mich nicht an). It is the story of severe abuse this woman had experienced at various levels within the Adventist church. The title of the book summarizes well the issue of shaming that is part of any abuse.

Not looking at nor acknowledging is not just about a particular understanding of theology. In fact, some of the discussion in this thread isn't looking or acknowledging either, but debating "doctrine" and "policy", objectifying the subject "human being of female gender" once again.

How different the Aaronic blessing: the LORD turn his face towards you and give you peace.

John and Lemuel,

You seem confused about the scriptural basis for women participating in public leadership.

Don't do another thing until you look at the scriptural evidence from Uriah Smith and James White about Paul's words regarding women. It was published in 2005 in the Seminary Studies Journal from the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary.

“Your Daughters Shall Prophesy”: James White, Uriah Smith, and the
“Triumphant Vindication of the Right of the Sisters” to Preach

http://www.aaw.cc/PDF_files/Your%20Daughters%20Shall%20Prophesyarticle.pdf

Kindest regards

We are not trying to hush women. There have been many women prophets... even EGW refused ordination. Again this should not be political/cultural issue but bibically centered. Yes there were women priest in bible time but none of Christian or Jewish re goddess Diana. Christ has a wonderful work for both men and women to do but He has given us different roles since creation. He is what one Christian women Cabrina Bolden wrote not too long ago.

As a Woman, it saddens me that we do not find it honorable to be who God has called us to be. He has given Women such an awesome responsibility in rearing children and teaching younger Women in instructions of Righteousness. (Titus 2:3-5;1 Timothy 2:9-15;Gen 3:16;1 Peter 3:1-7). There is such a turning away from God's establish role of Women in this day that it makes me cringe at the very thought of us flat out telling God that He does not know what our role in society should be. People tell me all the time how God really uses me and such. That's fine, but to allow anyone to put me somewhere that God's written word does not condone would be sacrilege. We do not value ourselves and our given reponsibilities in the same light that God does. I am honored and satisfied with where God has placed me and to allow society and this demoralized teaching to infringe upon what I have found as credible in the Word of God and SOP is an abomination. Why can't us Women be strong and walk upright and circumspect in who God has called us to be instead of trying to do as Satan did in the garden? Do we really not see ourselves usurping the authority God has given us? Could it be in these last days that Satan is using the same tactics he used in the garden of bringing Eve from under the authority of her husband and God saw fit to put her back under her husband? How can we not see that Satan is trying to exalt Women on an equal plain with Men when God has placed a distinction between the two? Even Christ chose 12 Men as disciples. Not one Woman was chosen. Even the 12 tribes we led by Men. Not one Woman is named as one of the 12 tribes of Israel. Women, study to show yourself approved unto God 2 Timothy 2:15. Let us take pride in how God views us. Let us be an example and not be persuaded by these evil teachings that do not have any basis from the Scriptures or SOP.

In His service, John Allen

Well Steve whats as you say is offensive and insulting is your claim that for fifty years Ellen White was the head of the SDA Church. God is and always has been the head. The Bible talks about who the Elders/Bishops are to be yet in your rush to contradict our Church leader for standing up for the truth of Gods word is preposterous.

John,

Good. I'm glad you are open to scripture.

James White and Uriah Smith examined all the scriptures and particularly Paul's admonitions about women. They published 8 articles on this very scriptural evidence so I know you will find this article totally pertinent toward your request.

http://www.aaw.cc/PDF_files/Your%20Daughters%20Shall%20Prophesyarticle.pdf

I'm going to make copies and pass them out at my church.

Elaine said, "Tithing ended with the Levitical priesthood." Then what did Jesus mean when He affirmed the tithing of mint and anise and cumin? "These ye ought to have done, and not to leave the other undone." None of our money is ours anyway, since it is God who gives us the power to get wealth.

John Allan,

You said: "The first sin committed was by someone who did not want to follow the role given by God and reached out for a higher one." By this, of course, you mean, the man - right? He sinned deliberately and intentionally ;-)

John, you err - not knowing the scriptures. According to Romans - it was ADAM who sinned. But then in Hebrew a'dam means both man and woman.

Even Ellen White makes it clear - that it was both the man and woman were deceived...

It was "Humankind" that fell. The sad story of human history is that blaming the "other" has been one of the many consequences of that "fall". To "blame the woman" is the root of abuse against one half of the human race. Surely you can do better.

Elaine,
Why correct me for a mistake I didn't make. I thought only Spectrum editors were allowed to do that.

Yes, I am a teacher. I'm happy your son got all those bright female students. But it can't be generally true, as he seems to say, that females are always better. If it were so, why have feminists complained for so many years that females are inferior academically because of systemic discrimination in the schools. Can't have it both ways.

Of course, your son's experience would be irrelevant here, except that you've provided us with yet another example of the goofy arguments that always surface whenever the topic of women in church leadership comes up.

God not Paul is quoted in Genesis 3:16 though it ties in to what Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2:12 though. What I want to know is if Men are to treat Women as Christ treats the Church should not Women treat men as Church is to treat Christ? As a Church we are not to place ourselves above Christ or think ourselves to usurp His authority? We the Church are the bride of Christ. In Gods eyes we have the same access to His saving grace according to Galatians 3:28 yet we are given different roles to fulfill.

Please please don't think that we say women are not important or not smart or not able. If they could only see clearly God has given them an important role, one that no man could ever fulfill. Being the queen of the home and church should and can be a fulfilling role.

In His Service, John Allen

Dear Donna... it was Lucifer that committed the first sin...I don't know why you pulled Eve into this....
It's not abuse if your treated like a true queen... to have someone that would lay down their life you you in a heartbeat.
Blessings John

John Allen, you wrote:

“As Adventist we are known to base our beliefs on the solid Word of God…”

Then later on you construct theology and policy writing saying, “…It is clear teaching by Gods Word and the Spirit of Prophecy….” And quote a couple of EGW’s paragraphs to substantiate your opinion.

How do you reconcile these two positions. Do you consider EGW’s writings being part of the Word of God?
Please clarify.

Horatio,

In your opinion, when God called EGW for the "task", did He know that she would one day write that she "was shown" (by HIM) that the DOOR WAS SHUT? Did God know that she would defend the false teaching for about 7 years?

Did He know that after 7 years she would concede to the lie and change her position?

If you have an answer, please be straightforward and objective.

George It is clear from Gods Word and if it is needed to show the text I will be glad to do so. Gen 3:16, are the words of God. 1st Tim 2:10 through 15 echos this. Also in the third chapter it is clear about a bishops/pastors. I could quote you many examples of the Priest, Bishops, and Elders in Bible and none were Women. As Ellen White there were women prophets. Take Miriam, Moses and Aaron all called by God to be prophets but not all were priest. Miriam tried to usurp authority and was stricken with leprosy...

Ellen White and the Bible do not contradict. Thoughout history Prophets were sent for turning people back to the very Word of God. All the information is in the Bible and if people would truly study it as we should the Holy Spirit would lead them to all truth. So George do you not believe that here writings point us to the truth of the Word?

To the law and to the testtimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isiah 8:20

In His Service, John Allen

I see that davidrlarson is sticking to his point that divisions and lower organizations are not bound to GC decisions, but that the reverse is true. But he won't refer to a policy to support his point, so I would invite him to look at the GC Constitution, Art.III, first paragraph, and Art.XIV, sec.3.

In general (no, I haven't checked them all), Divisions have policy provisions requiring them to stay in harmony with GC decisions, and similarly for lower organizations. I think davidrlarson might be confusing election of officers with hierarchical authority. Elections indeed are bottom-up, but authority is top-down.

I'm still waiting for Jared to refer to some policy to support his claim that commissioning women ministers is "Seventh-day Adventist policy". Of course, since Jared applies his assertion to the GC president, it would need to be a world church policy. At present, I believe that world church policy does not provide for the ordination or commissioning of women ministers, but I'm ready to be corrected if Jared or anyone else can point to the relevant policy. (Sorry, magisterial pronouncements won't do, and neither will examples of how local fields frequently disregard GC policy.)

My 11-yr.-old granddaughter was baptized by a female pastor. No one suggested it was exceptional. Her Catholic relatives were there to help celebrate the occasion.
Is that unusual?

Are there any limitations of female pastors?

settembrini

I would prefer not to be understood to mean "that divisions and lower organizations are not bound to GC decisions, but that the reverse is true. "

My contentions are more focused. They are that in normal SDA policy and practice Local Conferences and Union Conferences decide which persons will and will not be ordained, that it would have better for us all had the regions of the church that asked the General Conference so long ago for permission to ordain women had not made this request , and that at this point the local regions should return to business as usual with as little fanfare as possible.

Signing off for an eager Sabbath rest!

Again the article address the issue of silence in the church, not headship authority given by God.

I had asked a couple of questions in an earlier post and had not heard your opinion yet.....

What I want to know is if Men are to treat Women as Christ treats the Church should not Women treat men as Church is to treat Christ? As a Church we are not to place ourselves above Christ or think ourselves to usurp His authority?

Darrell C brought out some issues he feels are contradictions... yet the Word of God is like a double edged sword. God is a God of order and a God of love. He created roles for a reason and frankly
you have to twist scripture and human anatomy to change it.

I commend President Wilson for taking a biblical stand on this issue and not be bullied by politics. My heart breaks on this issue because we as men have not been the priest and leaders of our homes and churches. I agree with the facts they bring up about women not met to be silent. Though God is clear in his word on headship of the home and church.

And I agree with Ellen White and the gender she infers to while speaking of ministers leading out.
The hundred of quotes she uses gender for ministers... The eight hour system for the minister of God. HE must hold HIMSELF in readiness for service at any hour. Gospel Workers p.451 (1915)
The primary object of our college was to afford young men an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause. 5T page 60.
Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation. 5T page 598

In His Service, John Allen

I am so disturbed by Ted Wilson's treatment of this wonderful woman who has done so much for the Lord and for the church in her life.

Does anyone here think Jesus would have treated her that way? Not only did Ted refuse to say a prayer for her, he ignored her. How shameful!!! Jesus, who treated women with dignity in an age when women were nothing but property, would have prayed for her, placed his hand on her head and blessed her. There is no way I can picture Christ doing what Ted Wilson, the leader of our church, did.

davidrlarson - Fri, 12/09/2011 - 15:50 This is not a contest between "good people" and "bad people" but between "good people" and "good people" and this is what makes it so difficult to resolve.
When we know that others cannot conscientiously change their convictions, it is theological abuse to continue trying to persuade them to do so.
Our only option is to learn how to live and serve together despite our irreconcilable differences.
====================
These words of Professor David Larson are just what this blog and this subject needs. I am confident that Elder Ted Wilson sees this bigger picture and views both groups as "good people."

by John Allen "Darrell C brought out some issues he feels are contradictions... yet the Word of God is like a double edged sword. God is a God of order and a God of love. He created roles for a reason and frankly you have to twist scripture and human anatomy to change it."

My contradiction has nothing to do with the 'Word being a double edged sword'. My issues still have not been addressed. Who exactly is 'tiwsting scripture', John? How exactly can the conservative say that women's ordination is unbiblical but still adhere to allowing women to teach, preach and hold administrative positions?

The issue is women's AUTHORITY not women's ordination. If you are going to claim to follow a 'thus saith the Lord' argument regarding women's roles in the church, then you better follow it the whole way. Quit picking and choosing what you are going to follow.

Which is it?
1. Women cannot be ordained but can hold church positions
2. Women cannot hold pastoral roles in the church
3. Women cannot hold any positions in the church

Which is it, John? Exactly what do the conservatives believe and where exactly do they get their support to pick and choose that which they want from the Bible but disregard the rest of the instructions about women? if they claim we are going against biblical principle, how exactly are they any different with such contradicting views that cannot mesh together? It is the pot calling the kettle black. If we are going to refer back to the Garden of Eden and the priesthood, why do we ignore the clear teaching of how women should be treated throughout the whole Bible? (You know the whole menstruating thing among many other things...)

Regarding the whole issue that NAD and TED did against the GC's wishes...It is most ludicrous to take a stance that women can be secretaries, treasurers and even vice presidents of conferences but somehow Jackson and the NAD are apostasizing and rebelling, going against scripture because they voted to allow women that one step higher position?

How exactly in any universe does this make any sense??

Renie, Are you upset at Jesus for choosing 12 male disciples? Are you upset at the apostles for not choosing a women to replace Judas? I can only wonder the words Satan used in heaven to get a third of the angels to turn there backs on the creator.... God is the judge of Ted and he needs to follow his conscious. Again this is not a cultural issue, and thus should not certainly be made into a political issue, for it is a theological one. How shameful of you to rebuke an Elder when you do not know his heart.

Darrell You say the issue is authority so lets look at that. First who is to be the authority of the Home?
God created man and named him Adam, from Adam He created woman and had Adam name her. In marriage the two become one flesh (children). The man is to be the spiritual leader of the home....but wait.... doesn't the fifth commandment say honor your Father and Mother Yes they are to work together in harmony with the wife submitting to the husband as the husband is submitting to Christ.

# 1. Yes they can and should hold positions in the church just as in the family.
Are they the head of the church or family by doing so.... no....

#2. Pastors/Bishops should be the husband of one wife, a women can share their testimony with the church as invited by the pastor of the congregation.

#3. This is answered by #1

The NAD and TED are not following the desires of the world church and have stepped out on their own. This renegade action does not help church unity at all.

You know Darrell we men have it bad. God ask us to make a living by the sweat of our brow and these women get to carry children for nine months and have the privilege to nurture and teach them at home. We build the house and they live in it. God just is not fair, you know we could be able to do anything they do and even better if we had a chance. We could make them have the last word, and if things don't turn out right it's there fault because they had the last word. Maybe we could make a sign or two... better yet if we all got together they would have to listen to us. Lets take it to court we need equal time at home. We are tired of fighting traffic two hours a day.

What few people want to acknowledge is that women's ordination is ultimately a matter of cultural attitudes, not theology. One's beliefs about gender roles will inform one's theology, not the other way around.

This truth is too dangerous to admit, because it invalidates so many other claims made on the basis of theology. This truth threatens entrenched and extremely invested power structures. The "theological" debate has been going on for my entire lifetime for this very reason: because those in power know it's not about theology, and to confine it indefinitely to that arena maintains the status quo. The problem is that cultural attitudes are changing at different rates within the church, not that the theology is poorly understood.

If the church persists in framing cultural issues as theological, schism and decline will inevitably follow. If you don't believe me, just think about the debate the church must inevitably face: the ordination of gays and lesbians. This is inevitable because cultural attitudes towards homosexuality are also changing, perhaps even more quickly. And once again, the theology will play catch-up to the attitudes. The resulting intellectual confusion will cloud good faith efforts by Christians to understand what the love of God actually is and is not.

This is goodness: to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk wisely with God. This is the ethical life. To walk it prudently and wisely, we must come to a clear and honest understanding of the conditional cultural attitudes we've inherited. Justice demands it, and this is the mercy of God.

Thank you, Danijela Trajkov, for your courage. I am humbled and inspired.