All the more reason to excise the words "ordained"and "commissioned" from the Adventist vocabulary.
People should be set apart for church leadership by the laying on of hands, on each and every occasion that they undertake a different leadership role whether it be a position as local pastor, deacon, elder, conference administrator or lecturer. Of this group only certain people with the requisite skills would be put forward as marriage celebrants.

This means that we wouldn't have a globally certified clergy elite, that were immediately transferable to wherever. Our church leadership would no longer have eternal tenure, but rather they would serve on contract.

I agree with the principle of your ideas, Peter. But you are fixated on the laying on of hands as if it has some magic power. An 'ordination' or whatever ceremony/ritual is something that can be far more meaningful and creative and well thought out than just hands-on and a prayer.

You seem to have a one track mind on Spectrum. I've heard the same words/thoughts dozens of times. When I see your name, I basically know what you will say! Perhaps that dogged insistence and focus will break through the walls and create the revolution!

Grace,

If you took alook at all my comments on Spectrum over four or more years, it would be quite evident that I have commented on many issues at hand - prophecy, politics, homosexuality, creationism/ evolution. I attempt to cultivate a social conscience.

I am basically a complementarian rather than an equalitarian.

My first foray into the ordination debate was in 1994 in a letter to the editor of the ADVENTIST REVIEW. My basic position has not changed much since then.

I could wish thatthis website were more committed to a more singular hermaneutic.

What a bunch of nonsense.

Dan: “we think it’s OK for a woman to be a conference president.”
Ted: “I don’t.”
Dan: “we need a variance.”
Ted: “no variance for you.”
Dan: “we voted yes three times on that variance.”
Ted: “So.”
Dan: “we changed our E-60 Policy by adding the word commissioned.”
Ted: “So, change it back.”
Dan: “We’ll see about that. We have an attorney.”
Ted: “So.”
Dan: “Our attorney says you’re right.”
Ted: “Told you so.”
Dan: “We’ll take the word ‘commissioned’ out.”
Ted: “In or out, doesn’t matter.”
Dan: “I’m not happy about this.”
Ted: “So.”
Dan: “I’m going to write a letter.”
Ted: “Go ahead.”
Dan: “I’m going to tell my people to be more intentional.”
Ted: “Intentional?”
Dan: “Yea, intentional. And I’m going to use more important words like practical, philosophical, belief, application, development, methods, pathways and mentoring, etc.,. You know, stuff that really sounds important.”
Ted: “Go ahead.”
Dan: “By the way, where do I send the bill for our attorney?”
Ted: “Send it to my office.”
Dan: “Thanks Ted.”
Ted: “You’re welcome.”

What a bunch of nonsense.

tg

PrBigKev - Tue, 02/07/2012 - 02:55
Rather than seeing the hand of the General Conference in this about face by the NAD perhaps we are seeing the hand of God?

The hand of God. Oh, yeah, that's it - the hand of God. "Can't have those females running things- telling us MEN what to do and how to do it." They're only the wives and moms. Just throw some recipes at them and buy a new vac for Christmas and they'll be happy.

PrBigKev - Tue, 02/07/2012 - 02:55
"Rather than seeing the hand of the General Conference in this about face by the NAD perhaps we are seeing the hand of God?"

WHAT?!? You make a difference between "the hand of the GC" and "the hand of GOD"?

Shameshameshame.

@Robert Sonter:"The only explanation is that the GC has pulled some very serious strings internally within the church, but for political reasons wants to make this look like an NAD back-down, rather than a heavy-handed response by the GC."

What's new?
This is for sure the action of the KGC and to save face they arranged a way that the NAD would retract the way they did. All well orchestrated. It's certainly despotism in its best action.

And there comes a guy saying it was the hand of God? Since when is Pope Wilson II God? Was he promoted again???

But don''t panic people. This reformation will not come from the top, but rather from the bottom. It will have to happen in San Antonio, by electing a new GC president who is not a despot.

TJG was very generous with the dialogue above. I think it was very different: "Either or! My way or the highway!"

Jackson would not just resign over this. Actually, we need him there, we need him to stay and fight. Had he left his position would have been immediately filled with one of Teddy's minions. And that would have been much worse than it is now.

Why did Jackson do this? My bet is that he GC threatened the NAD with legal action, and an agreement was reached to avoid a major public scandal. Which wouldn't be such a good thing for Teddy either, because it would expose publicly the way he operates and that wouldn't be convenient.

I bet that in the next few weeks there will be much more info about the REAL STORY behind this action. The whistle blowers will start working very soon... and the KGC's despotism will appear more clearly.

TJG,
I've learned so much from you. Sometimes I laugh and sometimes I get upset but either way the nonsense of double standards and the rhetoric is made easy to understand by your explanations. Seriously, sometimes I'm like what does that mean and then you break it down and I understand the bigger picture. I'm sure there are people who don't like your explanations but I do. Btw, thanks for explaining 'Vital Force', I had heard an elder talk about it once and was completly confused.

This is sad... At least in God's eyes, ordination/commisioning are the same thing.

Help for any pastors...

http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archives/1996/MIN1996-06.pdf
p 19-22
(Whole issue is good)
See PAGE 30 too !!!!!!

I agree, George. President Paulsen was right when he said the only way to see change was to do it from the bottom up.Btw, if you haven't sign the ONE in Christ petition, please sign it. Here's the link to the petition, http://www.one-in-christ.com/

Hey all,

Peter, I like your thoughts, but am curious how that plays out practically in some aspects. I'm a young SDA minister, not ordained yet, I support women ministers being on level ground with men (wherever that ends up being.), I have to admit, though, the laying on of hands for each role might lead to a LOT less job certainty.

Theoretically, I might do a mediocre job in my first few years, and then won't get hands laid on me again for another role. In that scenario, I"ve just spent 5 years of my life supposedly discerning a "calling", leaving a potentially lucrative business career to spend 3 years at seminary, and 2 years pastoring, and then having no job certainty whatsoever.

Does this make sense? Maybe I'm being paranoid.

Interested in anybody's thoughts on the practical "play-out" of Peter's (and others) ideas!

matt

@Second Opinion: I don't want one cent of my tithe dollar going to pay for Ted (or Dan's) lawyers.

Are you kidding me????
Not a penny should go toward the salary of people who discriminate against women!
Imagine the position of a working woman: She works, gets a check, and sends part of it to pay for the salary of guys who discriminate against her in church. This is just insane!!!

It's time for women to stop this abuse and get their self-respect and dignity back!

This is so funny, hilarious indeed: YOUR FRIEND (not mine...) criticizing the "anonymous"....

Ahhh, excuse me,........what's your name again?....

An element of the Jackson letter was left out:

"We are committed to the support and networking of our women clergy. Our Ministerial Department will be hosting the North American Division Women Clergy Conference in Berrien Springs, Michigan between April 23-26, 2012. We are encouraging every woman pastor, and every woman student at the [Seventh-day Adventist] Theological Seminary to attend.

"The North American Division, its Unions and Conferences (as local circumstances permit) must become more intentional in the development of pathways to ministry for female pastors. We must also develop intentional methods of mentoring women who can take on executive leadership positions within our conferences."

I believe even homemaker pastors are invited.

In deep conviction,
Chris Blake

PS: Matt, continue following God, no matter what, where, or when. (Good to hear from you.)

I've been following this issue (women's ordination) because gender equality is important to me. I'm close to leaving this church based on this issue alone. The SDA church is one hundred years behind society with its sexism. Maybe I should move to Riverside since they're heading in the right direction.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world: indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

George. Let apologize in advance if you didn't feel my comments were appropriate. I hope and pray God will use this stumbbling block as a blessing to his Church, and that more people will realize that we are ONE in Christ. I applaud the La Sierra University Church for the excellent presentation that was made last weekend. My prayer and hope is that what happened last weekend, will spread around, not just in SECC, or even PUC, but even within the NAD and it's various local and Union Conferences.

Woud someone post the full letter from the NAD or post a link where it can be accessed.

Thanks.

The issue was not ordination but governance.
NAD was in rebellion in a sense against the GC or which it is part. And though I have no problem with women's ordination, to go against the policy of the GC is really to open a big can of worms. Is any division allowed to go against the policy of the whole? I think not.
If the NAD were allowed to get away with this what would the other divisions do? After all, they look to us for leadership, and they could say, "Well, if they can do that, we can do this.... Let them try and stop us." Seems it would lead to total breakdown of the church, such as the Episcopalians are experiencing.
Women will be ordained in time. Be patient. Jumping the gun makes you look bad.

Of course it's not at all about equality -- it's about function. Feminists and their supporters can do all the petitioning they wish.

Incidentally, Blake's post proves quite conclusively that NAD is intent on violating the spirit of the ruling and, while not attempting to help poor kids who are left day after day to their own devices, is attempting again to lure women away from their God given tasks in the home.

What about unmarried or childless? Isn't being a Bible worker doing the work of the Lord? Or is it *power* women and their followers are seeking quite shamelessly?
MARANATHA

Honestly, "Friend"! If God gives some women the gift of pastoring or administration, they aren't seeking "power" but only wanting to use the particular gift God has given them.

And if you're so worried about "latch-key kids" you need to be out campaigning against women working, period. Most working women today have tried hard to make special arrangements so their young children are well-supervised and cared for. A pastor's flexible schedule makes this easier than most jobs.

Your Friend,

If Adventist women didn't work, most families could not afford to send their children to Adventist private schools. If a family is dedicated to "Christian education," it usually means in most middle class families, that the mother works outside the home--not always--but typically.

Adventist women's $$$$$ help keep the money flowing back into the church that otherwise would not be available for everything from funding educational institutions, tithe, mission offerings, to the thousands of fund raisers one encounters in the Adventist community.

You must read the full letter that Alex gave the link to.

In popular consciousness the Divisions are another layer of church below the GC. But really they are the GC but located in the geographical areas of the world. So a Division can't make such decisions as in this case that differ to GC. but Unions, Missions and conferences can.

This is great! Decisions need to be made closer to the ground / grassroots. This can be a motivating factor and message for that. All power to the people!

Matt,

I know you asked foreveryone's ideas!! Here's how I read the practical impact of my ideas!!

You are correct! If the Adventist system of ordination were changed to one where people were set apart for every new role they took on it would certainly achieve the following:

1. it would remove any claim to "eternal tenure" the Adventist ministry currently has. They would become indentured servants of the Lord and His people, able to be taken out of service, by "surgical strike." Do medicos or lawyers or ship's captains or teachers have such a built in system of "eternal tenure?" Why should our ministers have more certainty than there spirit-led congregants.

2. The emphasis would move to a spiritual gifts model of ministry and church leadership. It is the Spirit that both calls and equips all who are gifted by the Spirit to serve. Though it is possible for church administration to frustrate the call of God to an individual, church administration does well to rely on local input as to whether one is demonstrating the call of God to his/ her life.

3. In todays world is any "job" a certainty? Why should my place in the work of God be any more certain than the jobs of the people I lead, as an under-shepherd?

4. The proposed system of spiritually gifted church leadership would remove the "professional" element from the Adventist ministry. Adventist ministry should not be a "professional" calling as much as it is a "spirit-gifted" service.

Amen, Carole!

I don't want a lawyer's opinion - I want a reasoned argument pointing to the relevant documents.

Spectrum could do some genuine reporting and gather the facts!

/Bevin

Most assuredly, Tom Z!! Why would anyone with your thinking want to remain a Seventh-day Adventist? It's one of the most sensible comments I've ever heard you make! I only wish those of like mind on this site would pay closer attention.

The Episcopalians are still waiting. I pray this reversal by the NAD will persuade more and more so-called "progressives" that to work and hope for their kind of "progress" within Adventism is an utter waste of time.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

There is some relevant information regarding Jackson's letter that was published by Lynetta Murdoch. It's been reposted on a website called ADvindicate:

"After careful study and consultation with the General Conference Office of General Counsel the North American Division Executive Committee (NADCOM), on Thursday, January 19, voted to ask the Division President to write a letter to the full Committee advising them that the Division did not have the authority to change the wording of the E-60 Policy and that the word “commissioned” would be omitted in the 2011-2012 edition of the NAD Working Policy. This action was based upon the opinion/finding that Divisions do not have the independent right to develop policies, which are out of harmony with the General Conference Model Constitution or voted General Conference Working Policy. While all Divisions have the authority to develop and implement policies related to their field they may not act independently when it comes to voted General Conference policies." (http://advindicate.com/?p=838)

Tom Z.
"Why would anyone with a college education and just a little critical thinking and lateral thinking want to be a Seventh-day Adventist much less an ordained Seventh-day Adventist Pastor."
A. The church is one of the fastest growing ones even here in NA in spite of its stand on women's ordination. But of course all of this accrual must be from the ignorant classes. I mean, how could Tom be wrong here?
B. Don't you think this is sort of an offensive way to interact with to those who disagree with you? I mean, what is the purpose of such a statement? Would a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People help? I could send one along. Seems you would rather offend than win the argument. How is that strategy working for you?

A college educated MD and ordained minister sycophant.

Selected Key Statements from:
The church: voice of God? Written by George E. Rice
http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1987/December/the-church-voice-o...

After the organization of the General Conference in 1863, Ellen White spoke of the authority of the church as being the voice of God. In 1875 she published a letter written to a brother who prided himself in his independence: "God has invested His church with special authority and power which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising, for in so doing he despises the voice of God."4

In another letter she said: "I have been shown that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered. Your error was in persistently maintaining your private judgment of your duty against the voice of the highest authority the Lord has upon the earth." 5

Following the 1888 General Conference session there was a decided change in Ellen White's attitude toward the voice, of the General Conference. Understanding the dynamics of what happened during the 1890s and the circumstances under which Ellen White wrote can help eliminate the confusion that exists today.

Although in 1875 Ellen White considered the General Conference and the decisions made by this body as "the voice of the highest authority the Lord has upon the earth," less than 20 years later her attitude was quite different.

Taking into consideration all of the abuses that existed at the center of the work, Ellen White was forced to say: "This is the reason I was obliged to take the position that there was not the voice of God in the General Conference management and decisions. Method and plans would be devised that God did not sanction, and yet Elder Olsen made it appear that the decisions of the General Conference were as the voice of God. Many of the positions taken, going forth as the voice of the General Conference, have been the voice of one, two, or three men who were misleading the conference." 12

As the church gathered for the General Conference session of 1901, Ellen White stressed the urgency of reorganization: "That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be—that is past. What we want now is a reorganization. We want to begin at the foundation, and to build upon a different principle." 15

In 1909 she spoke again about the authority of the General Conference when in session: "At times, when a small group of men entrusted with the general management of the work have, in the name of the General Conference, sought to carry out unwise plans and to restrict God's work, I have said that I could no longer regard the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few men, as the voice of God. But this is not saying that the decisions of a General Conference composed of an assembly of duly appointed, representative men from all parts of the field should not be respected. God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of commit ting is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work. "21

Three points emerge from our study: 1. When two or three men dominated the decision-making process of the General Conference in the 1890s, Ellen White could not consider the voice of the General Conference as the voice of God. 2. Precisely at this time (in the 1890s) she defended the church against those who would destroy it by calling it Babylon and urging God's people to forsake it. 3. God will not allow the Seventh-day Adventist Church to so fully apostatize "that there would be the coming out of another church." Rather, this church will go through to the end.

Your unFriend hopes that women will be encouraged to stay home. Let's all hope for a return to Biblical marriage.
http://bobcargill.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/biblical-marriage.jpg

Regarding the spirit of the chat: I don't believe the Devil is so stupid as to just use angry and cross comments and commentators to propagate his views. More often the Devil disguises himself and his message in polite, seemingly spirtual talk and language from strongwilled, powerhungry leaders. To disguise the issue of justice and rights of women in the church as a spiritual and faith issue, is against the spirit of the Bible. I believe we will be judged for this one day.

If the Divisions can't make independent decisions without consulting with Ted, why do we have them?

Where is the first Union who dares to do what is right and go against the establishment?

@ Hougen: Be angry but sin not. Those hiding behind false spirituality and politeness in trying to advance a false idea as is evident when working contrary to justice and righteousness of this Bible truth does not excuse us from being like Jesus in our attitudes towards them. So those who work for justice and righteousness can afford to be truly spiritual and genuinely polite and still express in the strongest terms the truth and expose the false and unrighteousness of those who are against women in ministry, because they are preaching the truth as it is in the Bible and in Jesus Christ. The reason the Reformation gained the day in Martin Luther's day was that he did not back down on his convictions on the truth, but neither did he stoop to the methods of evil words and comments that would have denigrated the enemies of the truth. Luther's Christlike approach gained the day and God's enemies lost out. Not to do this (being spiritual and polite yet strong and truthful) does not make the truth stand, but it weakens it and places us on the same level as those who are denying this truth. So be ANGRY and sin not, as Paul counsels us. Be forthright and firm and clear, and certain in the understanding of God's Word on this subject and be bold, but be HUMBLE and KIND without being rude or weak. Then God will bless because Righteousness will win the day in the end! If we cannot do it in this way, God cannot bless us no matter how right we are, because He does not bless sinful means to a righteous ends! Remember: We do our best SINNING when we are the most right, by virtue of this arrogant approach that destroys the purpose for which we work. Just Be Careful that we don't slip into our own kind of self-righteousness!

Allan

It seem the Truth hurts. The stalwarts I cited were not picking a fight--they were merely looking for Truth---and what did they find? obfuscation, vindictive retaliation, shunning, and bad mouthing them in the most vile terms. I merely raised the issue--and you responded in step with mob.

1. Ellen White was a fraud
2. The I J. was a dodge
3. Her Gospel was bondage
4. The isolationism reaked of Triumphalism.
5. Children were brain washed.
6. All other organized religion was damned
7. Other theologians are anathama

Is that the pulpit you wish to stand in?

Women declare their are as smart as men. I think they are smarted That is why I think they are
wrong in trying to compete with flawed and false Gospel riders.

If they have a passion to preach Christ--go to it. I know several with in the Presbyterian Church USU who are very successful in their ministry. They preach Christ not institutionalism. Adventist preach the S's. Sin, Sabbath, Sanctuary, Subjection, Sanctification. The Gospel is to preach the C's
Christ, Cross, Confession, Communion, Covered with the robe of Christ's Righteousness. and Coming Again.

I was a slow learned. It took me 56 years to wake-up. With my time short. I must be compellingly frank.
Far to many are going over the Cliff--pun intended. Tom Z

@F Ben Moor, III: "3) I'm convinced that much of this negative chat is merely revealing the spirit of its source and it is not of the Spirit of Truth that would uplift women from spiritual bondage to men and tradition.

Some of us become very frustrated with the inconsistency (EGW was a woman) and the discrimination that we are witnessing in church. As Kerbyco pointed out above, "Though many remain blinded, the world can see our inconsistency."
And sometimes some of us, certainly including myself, write utilizing words that are very strong - may be too strong.

To characterize this fact as "merely revealing the spirit of its source" is (poor) judgment.
Was it an insinuation that the Devil is that source? It looks like to me.
But it would be considerate to remember that dissident voices are not necessarily Devil's agents. They can be, sure, but I don't think it's the case in this forum, especially regarding this women's discrimination issue. Actually, I am not that sure that the Devil is actually that much interested in having women freely participating in the ministry as ordained pastors. This would allow so much more talent to be used against him - and I don't believe he is that stupid! I honestly believe that he is much more interested in keeping all those talents boxed and unused for as long as possible.

The Devil is certainly not inspiring me to speak out in favor of women's rights in church. He does not want more people preaching against him. The more discrimination against women in church the better for him. He wants to keep God's army small and as ineffective as possible. Women would only increase the size of God's army, and would add a new approach, a new perspective to God's ministry. The Devil will certainly fight this idea.

"...revealing the spirit of its source and it is not of the Spirit of Truth that would uplift women from spiritual bondage to men and tradition." This phrase has it all right. The Spirit of Truth, sooner of later, will uplift women from the bondage. Is this a suggestion that the bondage is actually imposed by the spirit that is the opposite of the Spirit of Truth?

Hmmm.... I have never thought that way. Interesting insight! May be too revealing...

Jesus came to heal the blind, deaf, and dumb. Even the rocks could have cried out. why are people so hard hearted against the obsious truth. TJG. you are often a contributor to this wed site--please reference any Gospel endorsement you have offerred. You generally are found in the seat of the scornful.
Your response here is in character.

My point is that women are free to preach the Gospel. The benediction of God is on such action--it doesn't require a male endorsement. Endorsement by the SDA Church means merely to be subject to the norrow bidoted world view of Ted Wilson. Who needs that?

Your take and mine will never be reconciled. You are are are free to disagree within the parameters of Specturm discourse. However, misunderstood or not, I feel I have given full expression to what I consider a well read and well experienced 58 years within. I have been there when the brethren went into their soft shoe dance pogrom. If you want to be recharged with Ellen White. Read Jud Lake
It you want to know the Truth read, Fred Veltmann, Don McAdams, Wlater Rea, and Ron Numbers.

If you want to understand the gospel read Edward Heppenstall.

Better yet be an Ellen White and read outside the box. John R. W. Stott, J.I. Packer, Fed Craddock,
Philip Yancey, R.C. Sproul, and a host of other dedicated and learned theologians and then said: The Lord showed me. Yes He did through the pen of some well considered students of the Gospel.

Tom Z

Tom Z

It seems that keyboards sometimes may confuse people... :):)

Seems rather ironic that a religion whose doctrine is largely based on the "inspired writings" of a woman and who allowed that woman to lead the church (both during and after her lifetime) does not believe women can serve Christ through leadership. To this day Ted and the GC is being led by a woman.

Christ alone.

Not My Friend:

Try to stop your car deliberately on the freeway when you are driving. Or, still better, turn around and go the wrong way. I bet you will get a ticket!

Impeding progress in church, or going backwards in time is causing the same inconvenience as your car on the freeway. (I am in no way suggesting that the Pope is doing it to the RCC...).

By the way, I am "so interested in this matter" because I am a member of the SDA church, for almost six decades.

TJZ?
Ohhh, that keyboard again!!! :):):)

Jesus was so disobedient in not following the established rules and policies.

There are times the only ethical thing to do is go against the established order.

Yes, right on the money: stay and support the effort to integrate women in the church.

Paraphrasing a certain GOP candidate, (his initials are...Willard Mitt Romney), "Women are people, too!" Why is it taking so much for Adventists to recognize and accept women as equal to men? When is this discrimination going to end?

Dan Jackson may become a martyr, but we know what the martyrs' blood did, right? Same can be expected in this case.

The history of Humankind (and churches as well) is the history recorded about the great martyrs' lives. Insignificant people are not mentioned in the history books!!!

If everyone who has shown the call of God to ministry can't be publicly recognized and affirmed in that calling, then I don't think anyone (ie. just males) should be recognized and affirmed in that way. It would be great if all men just humbly and quietly served without needing or seeking or even desiring to get the recognition or acclaim.

This is so sad capitulating to pressure. Why is it that Dan an so many of his colleagues allow Ted to constantly kick them into submission. They are so many texts in the Bible and history to support that women should be ordained and NOT COMMISSIONED. Some sent me this link that really spoke volumes to this cause. http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/wo/welcomeapp1.htm
This is an amazing find!!!

This is so disappointing. For a while I thought we were making progress.

"I would like to encourage every progressive SDA not to heed the extreme advice to leave the SDA church, but to stay and support Pastor Jackson support women in ministry!"

Hopefully Jackson is on his way out. Order is heaven's first law we have been told and Jackson violated that law. It is not at all about equality -- it's about function. And many of us do not believe any female has been called to function in a position that is contrary to Paul's admonition. The feminists are taking a toll on unity within the church and that is sad.

Your Friend

Ted Wilson is writing Ichabod in bold letters over the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Why encourage him.
Tom Z

If Dan Jackson leads out in violating the constitution of the higher authority in the SDA Church -- the General Conference -- who is being divisive? And those who support his action are they being divisive? God is the Judge.

@your "friend"
Well ... you are entitled to your conclusion. I read the chronology of events and the letter differently.
The intended changes were discussed and decided "three times" - if I am not mistaken twice before the GC "discussion" (which had been by manipulated by NOT following custom procedures) and upheld by a third vote. If such discussions and decisions are "rebellion" we indeed should drop the tier of "Divisions" (pun intended) from our institutional structure.

Furthermore I understood that the letter rescinded the (prayerfully and democratically obtained) decision on E 60, in order to keep the peace. Whether this is wise in terms of contents is a matter of debate. But to turn around and condemn Jackson after that U-turn is somewhat inconsistent with your opinion - or a flagrant disregard for the gospel (i.e. unwillingness to forgive).

Yet surprise - for once I agree with you... neither you nor me are the judge in the matter.

As I read the comments above I noticed that most of the participants swapped off humility and waiting for God's timing for some sort of aggressive activity that suggested retribution in some fashion. The suggestion to withhold financial support, the suggestion to do it my way or the highway, the third option of doing away with ordination and others. Those comments each seemed to suggest that those involved have been injured and therefore justification of this injury needs to be addressed in some manner.
Whether justification is needed or required is beyond me, however the single thread that ties most of these comments together is the detail of self interest!
From experience I have learned that has we go forward hanging onto the hem of Jesus' robe, the perplexing details of items like ordination, which sex ministers to what clientele, what church leader is not a godly steward or which neighbor is a bigot all fall into the background as we each become more like Jesus, and exhibit the fruits of the spirit noted in Galatians 5:22. Items like love, joy, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control! As I recollect the main theme of the Bible is that we love God because He loved us first 1John 4:8,19. Perhaps it is time to share God's love and let God handle the details and settle the unrest.
I remember a very applicable quote--or a thought based on common sense that provides a personal message to each of us. As i recollect it goes something like this; Most if not all arguments could be settled in less than 5 minutes if selfishness, greed and self interest were set aside.
From the comments above, it certainly appears that there is a controversy that is generating a general outlook that could be interpreted as "ANTI-FRUITFULNESS OF THE SPIRIT".
This ANTI-SPIRIT stuff is an offensive maneuver by the enemy satan to take our minds off the major campaign goals that each of us face as a team that is working, striving, endeavoring, and campaigning to recruit those around us to join the winning side with Jesus and to be "over comers" that will share eternity in God's kingdom and with each other. (Rev 3:21)

Split the church? Of course it's possible!
Months ago I already wrote on some Spectrum blog that TED WILSON's theological and managerial styles are potential tools for a split in the church. I am still betting he will either resign before finishing his term, or the church will split!
(Am I a false prophet? Who cares? SDAs don't care, they don't "SHUT THE DOOR" on any prophet...)

Regarding the NDA/GC "event" I asked a question somewhere above asking who started that process of reviewing the NDA's position. Was it initiated by people at the NAD or at the GC?

I have my guess on it, but I would like to hear that my guess is wrong. Anyone there who has this information?

"At the most recent GC Session in Atlanta in 2010, the newly-elected GC President Ted N. C. Wilson promised that an in-depth Bible study of the concept of ordination would be undertaken with a report back to the next session in 2015. The GC Annual Council has voted a step by step time-table for this study to be conducted in all parts of the world and the findings brought together." http://www.atoday.org/article.php?id=1016

Re: "in-depth Bible study of the concept of ordination." This will be conducted by the BRI. The same folks who did an "in-depth" study on Daniel 8:14. If they do conclude (that's a big IF) that women can be ordained, it will take 2300 years to enact.

tg

@Andreas: "On atoday.org (http://www.atoday.org/article.php?id=1016) the report suggests 'Jackson sat down with the GC officers and was pressed to rescind the action'."

I am afraid my guess may be right, eh?

Any further info on this? Anyone?
------------------------

TG,

You completely misunderstood it: The promise is, "We will give you an answer after 2,300 years."

Then another 1,260 years to implement it. Provided the DOOR IS NOT SHUT in the meantime....

”I praise the Lord we have a General Conference President who holds to the supremacy of God's Word over human opinion, human scholarship, and human experience.”

This is a confusing statement, if not intentionally misleading. Please define what constitutes "GOD'S WORD" in this case. This needs some clarification.

I think it that it is sometimes helpful to step back and try to see the bigger picture. If we do so with the help of some good sociologists of religion, I thank that we will see that many denominations are now moving in very conservative directions and that this is related to larger trends around the world. The differences between the current Pope and Pope John xxiii among Roman Catholics are ample illustrations of this. At the very least, this should help those of us who are liberal SDAs** not to feel too sorry for ourselves.

**The primary difference between conservative and liberal Christians in any denomination is that conservatives fear that if they make too many changes they will lose their identity whereas liberals fear that if they make too few changes they will lose their relevance.

Maybe it depends on how those 100,000 pages are used.

TJG,

Like many people here, you reduce everything to opinions. To me, it reminds me of the words of the serpent in Eden, "Did God really say?".

George:
As you know, this blog is entitled: "Legal Opinion Contests...." Therefore, it is my opinion that your opinion is correct concerning Anon7's opinion contesting my opinion of Kevin's opinion regarding our General Conference President's opinion of the supremacy of the Scriptures over other human opinions which we should all be praising the Lord over. However, none of this reminds me the serpent in Eden. However, it does remind me of what's going in our church regarding the ordination of women -- complete nonsense. Then again, that's just my opinion.

tg

George:

As you know, when the GC is in session, it is the highest authority on earth. This comes straight from the Infallible Interpreter of scripture.

I'm curious: do you think the "men upstairs" really believe this? I mean, REALLY believe it?

tg

Tom:

Thanks. I just wasn't sure that they, the "men upstairs," would take it that far. Unbelievable (almost).

tg

I'm curious: do you think the "men upstairs" really believe this? I mean, REALLY believe it? - TJG

TG,

If they DO, it says something about them.
If they DON'T, it also says something about them.

May be they have to pretend they believe, so that others will believe it too. Got it?

GT
[Any similarity in our (reversed) initials is mere coincidence...]

Dear George(s) Tichy,
I appreciate your posts. I usually find them helpful in my recovery from sda ptsd. :)

Your comment above, "May be they have to pretend they believe, so that others will believe it too...."

It reminded me of something I've heard in secular discussions of religion and the problem of clergy who loose their belief-- The Clergy Project clergyproject.org

Is this problem discussed in the clinical psychology literature? ... or at seminary?

Thanks for allowing a little detour in the thread. Cheers, Dave Langworthy md

From the not so recent past:

The NAD Women Pastors Document

The North American Division (NAD) has enacted a package containing a couple dozen, or more, of startling new regulations which constitute a stunning violation of Scripture. Only a small segment of this revolt against the clear statements and intent of God’s Word has so far been implemented; more is to come. Viewing the complete document and its implications is breathtaking. You will read it for yourself in this report. Surely, when our leaders forsake the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, we are nearing the end of time.
First, we shall consider the historical background which led up to the writing of this document. Then we shall view this graphic insult to the Word of God.

— SECTION ONE —
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

In 1968, the Northern European Division sent a request to the General Conference, requesting permission for Finland to ordain some women as ministers.
Of course, this was an unbiblical request, but the matter was submitted to several committees to consider. Instead of standing solidly for the Bible pattern, the leaders stalled for time.
In the meantime, the Potomac Conference (the conference in which our world headquarters is located) ordained a woman elder. Then Germany announced that it also wanted to ordain a woman elder.
Church leaders were faced with a problem. The Bible clearly pointed in one direction, but it would not be politically wise to shut the door too fast on the requests. Surely, there seemed to be a way to keep peace in the family. Besides, were not a number of other Protestant churches moving closer to the feminist agenda? Should we be too quick to say no? Should we not, to some extent, keep pace with the current religious fads of our time? With all these thoughts in mind, delay was considered a better reply than an absolute no.
In 1973, a committee met at Camp Mohaven (the Ohio Conference youth camp) to discuss the whole matter of women in the church.
Papers were read, discussion groups held, and it was voted to recommend the ordination of women elders on a restricted, experimental basis.
But why should we do something on a "restricted, experimental basis,"—when it is contrary to Scripture?
"The very beginning of the great apostasy was in seeking to supplement the authority of God by that of the church. Rome began by enjoining [requiring] what God had not forbidden, and she ended by forbidding what He had explicitly enjoined."—Great Controversy, 289-290.
The liberals claim that the Bible does not say we can not ordain women ministers, therefore we can. By the same logic, the Bible does not say we can not smoke cigarettes or sniff cocaine; therefore this is permissible also?
Unmistakable principles are clearly given us in Scripture, and we are not to seek ways to circumvent them by, what logicians declare to be, a weak defense: "the argument by silence."
The problem is that our leaders want to "bridge over the chasm" between our church and the others. "If worldly churches can have women preachers, why can’t we also?"
Over three centuries ago, church leaders in England wanted to come as close to Rome as they could. They decided to do this by adding things not specifically forbidden in the Bible. We are repeating their experience today. Certain leaders in our denomination are determined to "narrow the gulf," and bring us as close to the other denominations as they can. Gradually they are doing it. Here are the three paragraphs preceding the above quotation.
"The English Reformers, while renouncing the doctrines of Romanism, had retained many of its forms. Thus though the authority and the creed of Rome were rejected, not a few of her customs and ceremonies were incorporated into the worship of the Church of England. It was claimed that these things were not matters of conscience; that though they were not commanded in Scripture, and hence were nonessential, yet not being forbidden, they were not intrinsically evil. Their observance tended to narrow the gulf which separated the reformed churches from Rome, and it was urged that they would promote the acceptance of the Protestant faith by Romanists.
"To the conservative and compromising, these arguments seemed conclusive. But there was another class that did not so judge. The fact that these customs ‘tended to bridge over the chasm between Rome and the Reformation’ (Martyn, Vol. 5, p. 22) was in their view a conclusive argument against retaining them. They looked upon them as badges of the slavery from which they had been delivered and to which they had no disposition to return. They reasoned that God has in His Word established the regulations governing His worship, and that men are not at liberty to add to these or to detract from them.
"The very beginning of the great apostasy was in seeking to supplement the authority of God by that of the church. Rome began by enjoining what God had not forbidden, and she ended by forbidding what He had explicitly enjoined."—Great Controversy, 289-290.
In the above passage, did you notice that the disputed issue was the church service, and that the solution is to stay with the clear statements of Scripture,—and not go beyond them! Read it again; it is all found in one sentence:
"They reasoned that God has in His Word established the regulations governing His worship, and that men are not at liberty to add to these or to detract from them."—Great Controversy, 289.
There it is, all in one sentence. That should be clear enough. But the complaining Israelites of today hanker after that which Scripture does not permit,—and they are determined to appoint committees until they get it!
So, as a result of the Mohaven meeting, it was voted to allow a few women to be ordained as deaconesses and elders.
It was obvious to the liberals and feminists that, if they kept pushing their demands, they would get even more. Although they now had an increasing number of women elders—and even women pastors,—demands began to be made that they should have the right to serve communion, baptize, and perform marriages.
Once again our leaders were confronted with the same quandary which Pilate, because of his hesitation, experienced. Instead of just saying, "No, you cannot crucify Christ, because He is innocent!" he kept giving in, little by little. And the local church members in Jerusalem knew that, with more prompting and demands, they would yet obtain everything they wanted.
Confused as to what to do, our leaders, instead of saying, "No, it is not Biblical to have women ministers over the churches," replied, "No, it cannot be done because they are only ordained elders, and not ordained ministers."
More time passed; and then, as mentioned earlier, in 1984 the Potomac Conference authorized three of its women pastors to begin baptizing. That year, one young woman elder, serving as a pastor, baptized someone with the backing of the Potomac Conference office, but without authorization of the Church Manual and in violation of the Inspired Writings.
In the face of this open rebellion against church authority and Scripture, what should the General Conference do? Instead of saying, "This is wrong and unscriptural and someone is going to be fired," church leaders timidly said, "Please postpone this activity for a time and we will appoint yet another committee to study the matter."
Once again the liberals and feminists were winning. Step by step, they intended to gain everything they wanted.
In 1985, the Annual Council forbade any more baptisms by women elders; but, the next year, the Southeastern California Conference voted to let them baptize anyway.
This shocked the General Conference; and they persuaded Southeastern to do nothing more for a time, promising to give the matter further study.
Although they agreed to do that, the harsh, hateful terms of radical feminist politics began to be heard. There were cries of "gender exclusiveness," "discrimination," "affirmative action," and demands for "justice" and "equal rights."
So a Commission on the Role of Women convened at General Conference headquarters that same year. But it did not arrive at a united decision.
Repeated warnings from local conferences, that they planned to go ahead with the ordination of woman pastors, led to a second session of the Commission on the Role of Women in 1988; this time it was held at Cohutta Springs in northern Georgia (the Georgia-Cumberland Conference youth camp). Time and time again, General Conference leaders went to conference officers and begged them to please wait a little while longer.
Just as at its first session, the second session of this commission was deadlocked, day after day. Because it was attended by both conservatives (who believed the Bible as it read) and liberals (the progressives who wanted to ape the latest fads that other denominations were dabbling in),—neither side would yield an inch.
The 1988 Cohutta gathering was finally presented with a compromise statement by a General Conference official who, after reading it, pleaded with them to approve it in order to keep peace in the church family. This they did, although it satisfied neither side.
According to this recommendation, women were not to be ordained to the gospel ministry; but each world division, at its own discretion, could authorize Seminary-trained women who were local elders to "perform essentially all the functions" of the ordained minister in their local churches.
With this vote of approval, another in a series of victories for the feminists had been made.
The year after that recommendation was approved, a large study group, called the Women’s Commission, was appointed by the General Conference. It was assigned the preparation of a document to be submitted to the 1990 Indianapolis Session;—but, instead, it was handed one. Leaders from the General Conference presented those in attendance with a written recommendation which could either be voted up or down, but could not be altered.
The members were told that this recommendation, if approved, would be sent on to the Annual Council for further action.
Like the previous recommendation, this one was a halfway compromise: Give a little to the liberals and feminists, but not everything. The situation had become a political matter. It was not what the Bible said, but what was needed to best please all sides that counted.
Compromise is always a delicate balancing act. In this case, keep the liberals from rebelling while somehow keeping the conservatives from doing the same thing. The solution was found to be gradual gifts to the liberals over a period of 20 years while the conservatives became so tired of fighting that, in North America, they gave up or left the church.
This recommendation had two primary points: (1) Women could not, at the present time, be ordained as ministers. (2) If they met certain qualifications (i.e., Seminary training and local elder ordination), they could perform essentially ALL the functions of an ordained minister, but only within their local churches.
This recommendation, which pleased no one, was passed by a majority of those present—and sent on to the 1989 Annual Council, where it was approved for placement on the agenda of the 1990 Indianapolis Session.
When the delegates met at Indianapolis, they were presented on Wednesday with the first half of that recommendation (without, at that time, being told that there was a second half).
Prior to the vote, North American Division leaders appealed to the delegates to vote yes. In effect, they said, "Yesterday, we voted with you for what you wanted; today, please, vote with us for what we want. We want to keep peace in our family here in North America, and please remember that there are special ‘cultural needs’ on our continent which you may not have overseas."
The politics of appeasement. No Bible. No Spirit of Prophecy. No earnest prayers to God for guidance. —Yet, for those who disregard His Word, what other guidance could Heaven give?
When we turn from the Inspired Writings, we invite the whisperings of sinister, dark powers.
The ordination of women ministers was defeated by a large majority: 1,173 to 377.
The grueling 10-day Session was nearing its end. Everyone had come to the Session prepared to vote on this issue; and, since it had been voted down, many delegates were not in the main auditorium the next day—when the second recommendation was unexpectedly presented. (Apparently, the liberals and feminists had received word to be there.) This second provision stated that ordained local elders could perform all the functions of ordained ministers.
A yes vote to this second recommendation was made, much to the anger of the absent delegates when they learned what had happened.
But if you think this satisfied the liberals, you are wrong. Determined to obtain all their objectives, they kept plotting how to achieve their ends.
In 1993, responding once again to pressure, a majority of NAD leaders reached a consensus in favor of ordaining women pastors. But further waiting did not satisfy the Southeastern California Conference. They wanted to go ahead and ordain women pastors, without waiting for any official approval.
Once again, in desperation, the General Conference stalled for time; this time they promised to bring the matter to a vote again at the 1995 Utrecht Session.
The question was not whether the objective was Scriptural, but how to frame the proposition, so it would meet with delegate approval at Utrecht.
When the 1995 Session convened at this Dutch convention city, the North American Division asked for the right to ordain women ministers—in North America only.
In preparation for this vote, four fluent speakers pleaded with the delegates, explaining why this ought to be done. As we reported shortly afterward, their words were remarkable for what they revealed: a willingness to replace Scripture with logic. Do we believe in taking it as it reads or can we talk it away with philosophy and speculation?
Only one speaker was given the opportunity to defend the Bible position on the matter: Dr. P. Gerard Damsteegt [WM 646]. His presentation was magnificent. We reprinted it. Thank God that He still has those who will defend our Bible-Spirit of Prophecy positions!
Four against one, and then the vote was taken. It was 1,481 to 673 that the North American Division should not be authorized to go its own way.
Within less than a month after that decision, the Sligo Church, located only a few miles from world headquarters, ordained several women pastors. Not long after, La Sierra University Church did the same. Several more have occurred since then. All of them were, according to church rules, illegal. No command or precedent for any of them was to be found in the Bible.
Under intense pressure, the NAD appointed a commission to seek ways to broaden the scope of women as pastors.
Casting about for ways to sneak in the ordination of women ministers, after two Sessions had voted it down, the brethren recalled an innovation from the 1970s: the "commissioning" status. So they decided to try to substitute "commissioning" for ordination—and accomplish the same objective.
In order to understand this, we need to review some earlier history.
A process that began with a plan to reduce income taxes for certain younger Adventist ministers led to the concept that ordination is merely a matter of church policy—instead of to Scriptural mandates. This was finally twisted into the concept that commissioned female ministers are equivalent to ordained male ministers.
Here is what happened:
In earlier centuries, many churches in America would provide rent-free residences for their pastors. These homes were known as "parsonages." Because the homes belonged to the church, the government considered them tax-free. So the ministers had rent-free and tax-free homes in which to live.
Later, churches began paying their pastors a "parsonage allowance," permitting them to find their own housing at church expense. The government agreed to treat the parsonage allowance as not taxable.
But in 1965 in the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) noted that young Adventist ministers who had not yet been ordained were classified—not as ordained ministers—but "licensed ministers"; yet they still received this IRS benefit. The IRS maintained that, since they had not been ordained, they could not be eligible for the parsonage allowance.
The problem here was that Adventist licensed ministers had previously been regarded by the IRS as ordained ministers, which the IRS classified as "self-employed" workers who had to pay their own social security. If all Adventist licensed ministers were, instead, to be treated as non-ministers, then they would be ordinary employees (not self-employed), and the church would have to pay half their social security. The total cost of this in the U.S. would be immense.
The impasse over this continued for 12 years, as the church-hired lawyers tried to persuade the IRS to change its mind.
But, when it became obvious that the IRS was not going to change its position—and, instead, was about to seize conference properties in lieu of taxes and penalties—our leaders met together with IRS officials, to see what they could do to convince them that licensed ministers really were ministers.
The IRS said that if the denomination changed its rules, so that licensed ministers were authorized to perform weddings, the problem would be solved.
So, in 1976, it was voted that, in the North American Division, licensed ministers—although not yet ordained ministers—could henceforth perform weddings and baptisms. But they must be ordained as local elders, and their conference committee must give its approval. This action affected the entire worldwide church, yet was done to satisfy the IRS in the U.S. alone.
At the time that vote was taken, some General Conference treasurers—the very ones who had to deal with these difficult IRS financial problems—argued that it was wrong to reduce the value of ordination to a nothingness, merely to save money.
Robert Osborn, an assistant General Conference treasurer, wrote to NAD leadership:
"There is a definite detected feeling that it is hardly becoming to alter our attitude toward our licensed ministers for tax considerations in a particular country."
But, ignoring the warning, church leadership decreed something very ominous:
"The difference between the functions of a licensed and ordained ministry is not a moral or theological issue, but a matter of church policy"; and "the process by which the church trains its ministers obviously is not a matter of theology nor doctrine, but one of methodology, policy."
In order to save some money, church leaders have been willing to sacrifice ministerial ordination. By a newly made official addition to their policy books, the ordination of Adventist ministers no longer amounts to much. Indeed, the calling is no longer one that is determined by the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. No longer does the work of a minister have to be in agreement with Scripture. Instead, it is said to be exclusively within the jurisdiction of committee action and administrative policy.
But there is more to this. In 1978, the IRS said that it would accept someone as equivalent to an ordained minister,—if he had been "licensed, ordained, or commissioned." This gave our church leaders a new word to work with.
So the church began calling its church treasurers and other non-ministerial staff workers "commissioned ministers." The IRS would accept this for parsonage allowance; and, because those men were not ordained ministers, critics in the church could not say the church ordained men who were not ministers so they could be paid from the tithe. Now commissioned workers could be paid from it also.
Bible workers (who were women) were also for the first time "commissioned." Then came the idea to "commission" church-school teachers as "commissioned ministers."
In 1975, the practice of granting ministerial licenses to women was discontinued; but, at the prompting of the liberals, it was agreed that, henceforth, if great caution were exercised, selected women might be ordained as local elders.
Two years later, women were permitted to serve as "associates in pastoral care." It was hoped that this wording would placate those who did not want "assistant pastors."
So that is the sorry history of how we came to have "commissioning" in our church. This matter of "commissioning" is now being used, by the feminists and liberals, to better fulfill their objectives.
The whole issue reached an astounding climax in Silver Spring, Maryland, during the October 7-10, 1997, North American Division Year-end Meeting. But first we must go back to a Year-end Meeting two years earlier.
~End of Section One ~

— SECTION TWO —
THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE WHICH PREPARED THE DOCUMENT

At the 1995 NAD Year-end Meeting which convened in Battle Creek, Michigan, on October 12-13, it was voted to appoint a new commission to study the women’s ordination problem. This meeting was held only three months after the Utrecht Session had seemingly settled the matter on July 5. (You may recall that, at that Session, one NAD leader told the delegates that the NAD would accept the delegates’ decision in the matter, and not press the matter any further.)
In order to please the angry liberals and feminists, announcement was soon after made that the NAD had appointed a special committee to study the matter and "recommend ways to expand the role of women in ministry, recognize and deploy the gifts God has given to women, and affirm women in pastoral and other spiritual ministries."
It was stated that the work of this commission was to advance every aspect of pastoral ministry among women, other than ordination itself. As we shall learn below, the commission’s recommendations would make the ordination of women irrelevant and unnecessary.
Be sure you understand this: The "ordination of women ministers" is no longer an issue or even being sought after. Instead, we will have the "commissioning of women to the ministry."
But, very important, although a different name is used, every other aspect remains the same! In all its ramifications, "commissioning" is identical to "ordination" in all its aspects and empowerment.
(Clarification: A "commission" is a committee appointed to a special purpose. "Commissioning" is something very different. As interpreted by the liberals, it is identical to ordination.)
The membership of the commission was officially approved on February 28, 1996, by the NAD Committee on Administration (NADCOA). To our knowledge, not one conservative was placed on that committee. This is why, as you read the shocking document, you can understand why it can be so blatantly radical.
The commission met in June and July of that year, and again in May 1997. It was at that May meeting that the final form of the document was approved.
The document which it has produced makes no attempt to discuss ordination as such. It says nothing about Biblical teachings respecting men and women, nor does it seek at any point the support of either the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy. It is entirely a political maneuver, nothing else.
Without saying so, this document assumes that the 1990 and 1995 General Conference Session votes were positive instead of negative. So we have here a full-blown rebellion against the highest earthly authority in the church. It is also a blatant rebellion against the God of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy.
The new recommendation does not use Scriptural terminology, but modern political and cultural concepts.
The 1990 General Conference Session overwhelmingly disapproved women’s ordination to the ministry (1,173 to 377); and the 1995 Session decisively (1,481 to 673) refused to let the North American Division have a special dispensation to ordain women to the ministry, when the rest of the world field did not.
—Now the NAD is going to do exactly what two world Sessions forbade. In the face of these overwhelming decisions, the document intends to grant authority to women to serve as senior pastors, even as conference presidents and union-conference presidents, subject to their being "commissioned"—but without their needing to be ordained.
That is how the NAD intends to sidestep two world Session decisions. It was twice voted that the women could not be ordained to the ministry, so the NAD will commission them to the ministry—with full authority equal to those ordained to the ministry. Henceforth, the men will be ordained and the women commissioned! Their assignment, empowerment, and functions will be identical. How is that for using words to set aside the plain teachings of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy?
For clarification, it would be well to mention that the most important gathering of the world church is the fifth-year General Conference Session. The second and third most important is the October Annual (formerly Autumn) Council and April Spring Council. In each of the world divisions, the most important meeting is the Year-end Meeting, which convenes immediately after the Annual Council (generally in October). All of these meetings primarily consist of the presentation of reports and the discussion and voting on—for the most part—previously prepared actions. Little discussion is generally given to actions presented to Year-end Meetings.
The other name for this is "rubber stamping." Unfortunately, it frequently occurs at executive councils on all levels of the church. A few men make the decisions, then assign a writer or two to put it on paper. Then it is presented to a committee to approve with little discussion.
One of the actions which was presented to the NAD October Year-end Meeting in 1997 was this special document, entitled "President’s Commission on Women in Ministry—Report." (This is what, throughout this present study, we refer to as "the document.") The preparation of the document and its enactment, by the NAD Year-end Meeting, was carried through amid a remarkable degree of secrecy.
Some NAD leaders naively planned that this document would merely be read at the Year-end Meeting, and then laid aside. In other words, they had hoped it would be a "received," but not a "voted on" document.
But when the document was actually read to the assembly of Division, union, conference, and institutional leaders from throughout North America, and "received,"—urgent voices spoke up and demanded that it be voted on as an official "recommendation."
Although a substantial number of conference presidents and other church officers voted against this document, a majority of those present voted to recommend it,—and in this manner:
First, various portions of it were to be sent to different committees to be studied and worked on.
Second, those recommendations which would later be approved by those committees were to be implemented, to the degree that funds permitted.
In other words (with the exception of Section IV, of the document, which requires Council approval) if the committees approved of the document, it was to become part of official NAD policy and carried into action throughout the Division.
It can be expected that the liberals were as careful in preplanning who would be on those committees as they were in initially writing the document.
We are told that some portions of that document are already in place as official policy and are being acted on.
Very likely, most or all of the rest will eventually become church policy in North America. Unfortunately, Adventist church members today are not very troubled by Bible and Spirit of Prophecy violations.
~End of Section Two ~

— SECTION THREE —
COMMENTS ON THE DOCUMENT

We are reprinting the entire document in Section 4, on pages 9-11
Listed below are a number of its key provisos, given in the order in which they appear in the document. They are startling, in the extreme.
All of the following, of course, is to be done at church expense; and, since it concerns "ministers," it is to be paid from the tithe. Not one item, listed below, has ever been done for Seventh-day Adventists following any other career path, including ministers who are men.
1 - A woman must be placed as ministerial secretary or associate ministerial secretary on the Division level. This must be done with a sense of urgency.
In other words, we must rush this through before the laity wake up, rise up in protest, and stop us. When this policy is fully implemented (on the union and conference level, as well as the Division), all Adventist ministers in the United States and Canada will be under women and answerable to them; since the ministerial department is in charge of the ministers and how they carry on their work, it will be her responsibility to guide their activities.
At the October 1998 Annual Council, which was held in Brazil, a woman was elected to serve as an associate ministerial secretary of the General Conference Ministerial Association.
2 - On the Division level, the following 12 things are to be done (To our knowledge, men in the Adventist ministry have never received even one of the following paid-benefit opportunities, which will be given to woman ministers.):
(1) A professional association of woman ministers is to be formed, so they can attend an annual retreat; expenses are to be covered by the sending conference or by the Division.
(2) An internet connection between woman ministers and women and girls who are interested either in entering the field or taking college work to that end.
(3) A women-in-ministry newsletter; copies of which are to be sent to conference offices, to encourage them to hire more women pastors, and to local churches.
(4) An NAD data base is to be maintained—of churches which may want women ministers, so these can be filled. This information is also to be supplied to local churches, to spur them to hire women pastors.
(5) A "speaker’s bureau" is to be established, to place women as speakers in all Adventist gatherings. If necessary, the Division will pay all expenses.
(6) A mediation system is to be set up; so that, when women ministers have trouble with their employing organization (the president may not like women in the ministry), a paid mediation board will help them.
(7) Special training classes are to be set up for women ministers, so they can learn how to deal with problems in the ministry.
(8) A special, completely equipped placement service for women is to be established, so they can more easily be hired. "Regular contacts" must be made with conference presidents, to keep pushing them to hire women as pastors. This service will have a second data base of local churches which might hire a woman minister. "Career counseling" must also be offered by this placement service.
(9) A continual promotional campaign must be carried on by the Division, to urge conferences to hire more and more women as ministers. All policies that "encourage the hiring of women pastors" are to be implemented.
(10) Church administrators who have hired women ministers are to be defended and retained in their positions, in those instances when the laity have aroused themselves to replace those administrators.
(11) Establishment of a second NAD travel fund; this one will send women preachers to various gatherings for "continuing education events," when the employing organization cannot or will not do so. All travel and housing expenses are to be covered.
(12) "Multimedia educational materials" are to be prepared, at NAD expense, to advertise the importance of women ministers to the laity in every possible way and at every possible gathering. The importance of hiring still more women as ministers is to be stressed.
3 - A complete "commissioning service" is to held for each woman entering the ministry. (To satisfy IRS demands, a sheet of paper was quietly sent by mail to licensed ministers. This new policy transforms it into a full-fledged ordination ceremony, complete with laying-on-of-hands.)
4 - Four changes are to be made in the Church Manual, showing that, henceforth, women can do the following:
(1) Women can conduct male ordination services or female commissioning services.
(2) Women can ordain men or women as deacons.
(3) Women can organize local churches.
(4) Women can lead out in a meeting, to unite one local church with another.
5 - Four changes are to be made in the North American Division Working Policy. (None of these changes have been made yet, since they require approval by an Annual Council or a General Conference Session.)
(1) Gender-inclusive language must be used everywhere in the NAD Working Policy ! ! ! That means that the words "man," "men," "he," and "him" must, at considerable expense, be eradicated from that large policy book.
(2) The union conference president can be a woman.
(3) The local conference president can be a woman.
(4) The term, "Associates in Pastoral Care" is to be changed to "Commissioned Minister."
6 - A special edition of the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook must be printed yearly (at sizeable expense!), so that women can be listed in it. (This is because licensed and commissioned ministers are not listed in the regular Yearbook.)
7 - Several times in this document, special things must be done to get conference presidents to hire more women ministers. In addition, in a special section, three additional points are added "in order to encourage conferences to hire more women in pastoral positions":
(1) Whereas men ministerial interns receive a three-year NAD-paid internship, the NAD must now give women a four-year-paid internship. This financial incentive will go only to those conferences who do not presently have any women ministers.
(2) The NAD must energetically try to pressure local conferences to set goals as to how many more women preachers they are going to hire over each subsequent three-year period.
(3) The NAD must push Adventist colleges and universities to direct women, with any interest, to take the ministerial course.
8 - A third data base must be set up by NAD; this one will be for women interested in being hired onto conference- and union-level staffs.
9 - It is again mentioned that the NAD must keep urging the conferences to have women as speakers; here the emphasis is on having them to preach at the Sabbath morning worship services at camp meetings. It is to be done through the woman "speaker’s bureau," mentioned earlier.
10 - The NAD edition of the Review and other church papers should regularly feature articles on various women "in pastoral ministry." (A full article on one woman preacher, with a large picture of her, was in a recent Review.) These articles must not, in any way, be negative.
11 - Articles, news clips, and pictures about women preachers doing things with men preachers must be in our church papers.
12 - Church members should be shown a continual variety of video presentations of women ministers.
13 - An ongoing series of cassettes, both of women ministers speaking and sermons about how important they are, must be provided to the church.
14 - ACN "First Wednesday" segments must praise the work of women ministers.
15 - A large "resource center" must be built and manned (pardon the non-gender neutral word) to provide the following:
(1) Headquarters for a women ministers’ Professional Association which organizes retreats, etc., for them.
(2) An e-mail and internet linkage of all the women preachers, students, and interested girls.
(3) Women’s ministry Publishing and Newsletter Center.
(4) Job Vacancy and Referral Center.
(5) Employment Data Base Center.
(6) Women Speaker’s Bureau which will "solicit and market" women as speakers to our people at all gatherings.
(7) Legal and Mediation Department, to mediate job disputes of women with their fellow workers and conference presidents.
(8) Conflict Resolution Training Center for women preachers.
(9) A Placement Service with a large-enough staff to [1] provide a second active employment job placement data base, [2] maintain ongoing promotional, referral, and placement contacts with hiring officials on all levels, and [3] provide "career counseling for women in ministry."
(10) Women-in-ministry Literature Distribution Center, to send advertising and promotional literature to all offices and officials which hire ministers.
(11) Church Officer Promotional Center which will routinely place news clips and feature articles in church papers, praising those leaders who are hiring the most women pastors. This office will also provide liaison assistance, in arranging for the NAD to send officers to help keep conference presidents in office, if their constituency becomes irate over such a flood of women preachers being sent into their churches.
(12) Financial Assistance Center, to provide travel expenses and registration fees for women to travel around the countryside speaking at church gatherings.
~End of Section Three ~

Please Note: In the following document, an underlined word or phrase means that it is to be added to an existing policy book; a strike-through indicates something which must be removed.

Here is the actual document:

— SECTION FOUR —
THE NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION WOMEN PASTORS’ DOCUMENT
PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION ON WOMEN IN MINISTRY—REPORT

I. Appointment of an Associate Ministerial Secretary
RECOMMENDED, That the NAD move with a sense of urgency to include a woman with ministerial background as ministerial secretary or an associate ministerial secretary.
II. Needs to be Addressed by the Ministerial Association
RECOMMENDED, That the following needs be addressed by NAD administration for the implementation and/or any appropriate structure.
A. A professional association for women serving in pastoral ministry that would organize an annual retreat for the purpose of mutual support, affirmation and networking. Financial assistance which should be provided where local conferences are unwilling or unable to pay for travel, etc.
B. Development of an electronic linkage to connect more experienced women pastors with women who are ministerial students or intern pastors and desire a professional mentor.
C. Development of a newsletter for women in ministry that would publish affirmative success stories, list job vacancies of interest, announce relevant seminars and workshops, and provide other helpful information. This newsletter should also be sent to conference presidents and ministerial directors.
D. Development of a database of churches in the NAD which are likely to want women as pastors. (The newsletter and other information should be provided to these churches on a regular basis.)
E. Development of a speaker’s bureau for women in ministry which would solicit and market women speakers for camp meetings, seminars, weeks of prayer, retreats, etc. The NAD might provide travel subsidies for organizations seeking a woman speaker which could be managed by the resource center.
F. Appointment of an "ombudsman"—a person with insight into the system and denominational policies who can provide feedback and guidance when women in ministry encounter conflict with employing organizations, as well as provide mediation if necessary.
G. Development of training for women in ministry, about conflict resolution skills and how to survive in a male-dominated milieu.
H. Development of a placement service that would provide a database where women in ministry could list resumés and employing organizations could access this information. An adequate placement service should also include regular contacts with conference administrators and an identified list of local churches most likely to accept women as pastors; active promotion of qualified women seeking to match these candidates with openings; and career counseling for women in ministry.
I. Development of regular distribution of information to conferences regarding the NAD’s support of women in pastoral ministry and policies that encourage the hiring of women pastors.
J. Opportunities for the public affirmation to church administrators who have taken risks to support and employ women in ministry. (If members so resist having women pastors that the conference president finds reelection at the next constituency meeting to be doubtful—that is, if he has "taken risks" to employ women—then the NAD should send a persuasive speaker to the constituency meeting to make sure he gets reelected anyway.)
K. Development of a fund from which to provide financial assistance for travel expenses and registration fees for women in ministry to attend continuing education events when the employing organization cannot or will not provide these benefits.
L. Preparation and dissemination of educational materials in multimedia designed to raise awareness about women in pastoral ministry and the role of women in the church.
III. The Commissioning Service
RECOMMENDED, That the NAD and its union and local conferences be encouraged to promptly conduct commissioning services for those women who are eligible.
IV. Ministerial Function of
Commissioned Ministers
[Special note: Section IV is the only part of this entire document which cannot be implemented solely on the authority of the liberal committees, authorized by the NAD Year-end Meeting to do so. Section IV would require Council approval, which it might or might not obtain. It has not yet been submitted to a Spring or Annual Council.]
RECOMMENDED, That the following changes be made in The Church Manual:
A. Modify the language on page 46, in the section entitled "The Church Elder," as follows:
The ordination service is only performed by an ordained/commissioned minister with credentials from the local conference.
B. Modify the language on page 52, in the section entitled "The Deacon," as follows:
A newly elected deacon cannot fill his office until he has been set apart by an ordained/commissioned minister who holds current credentials from the conference.
C. Modify the language on page 175, in the section entitled "Organization of a Church," as follows:
Churches are organized by an ordained/commissioned minister on the recommendation of a conference or field committee.
D. Modify the language on pages 176-177, in the section entitled "Uniting Churches," as follows:
In a duly called meeting presided over by the conference president or the pastor or other ordained/commissioned minister, each church should vote on the question of union.
V. Working Policy Revisions
RECOMMENDED, That the following revisions be made in the NAD Working Policy.
A. That gender-inclusive language be used throughout.
B. That the language of CA 10 05 Union Conference Constituency and Bylaws be modified on page 100 as follows:
President: The president, who shall be an ordained/commissioned minister of experience . .
C. That the language of CA 20 05 Local Conference Constitution and Bylaws be modified on page 110 as follows:
President: The president, who shall be an ordained/commissioned minister of experience . .
D. That NAD Working Policy L 21 Commissioned be revised as follows:
L 21 Associates in Pastoral Care Commissioned Minister—Role and Status.
L 21 05 Ministerial Employee—An associate in pastoral care A person is recognized as a ministerial employee when all of the following prerequisites have been satisfied . .
VI. Changes in the SDA Yearbook
VOTED, To recommend that the NAD publish a NAD version of the NAD section of the SDA Yearbook with the licensed ministers and licensed commissioned ministers included in the listings.
VII. Encourage Conferences to
Hire Women as Pastors
RECOMMENDED, In order to encourage conferences to hire more women in pastoral positions:
A. That the NAD extend a four-year internship budget (instead of the usual three-year internship budget) to each local conference which presently has no woman employed as a pastor and hires a woman in the pastoral internship.
B. That the NAD request local conferences to set realistic goals to increase the number of women in pastoral ministry in their field during the next three years.
C. That Adventist colleges and universities in North America be encouraged to recruit young women who sense a call to pastoral ministry to pursue ministerial studies.
VII. [sic. should be VIII]
Data Base of Women
Candidates for Openings
RECOMMENDED, That the NAD departmental staff develop and disseminate a data base of women who might be candidates for vacancies on union and local conference staffs.
IX. Visibility of Women in
Pastoral Ministry Roles
RECOMMENDED, That conferences be encouraged to invite women to speak during the Sabbath morning worship services and other general sessions at camp meetings.
X. Articles in Church Journals
RECOMMENDED, That the NAD edition of the Adventist Review and other general church papers be asked to publish profiles of women serving in pastoral ministry several times a year and that multiple exposures be given to models of gift-based ministry taking place in congregations throughout the NAD, including:
A. Concrete portrayal and affirmation of women in ministry
B. Indirect portrayals of women with men in creative approaches to pastoral ministry
C. Use of both print and video media
D. A cassette ministry of sermons and lectures supporting women in ministry
E. ACN "First Wednesday" segments highlighting women in ministry
XI. Resource Center for
Women in Ministry
RECOMMENDED, That the NAD Church Resource Consortium create a resource center for women in pastoral ministry. It should provide the following services:
[To save space, the remainder of this section is omitted. It is virtually identical to Section II, except that item L is not repeated.]
XII. Goals for Gender Inclusion in Church Organization
RECOMMENDED, A. That there is urgent need to study and clarify the church’s understanding and application of biblical hermeneutics. This should take the form of:
i. Multiple articles in denominational periodicals.
ii. A hermeneutic’s conference sponsored by the NAD and/or the GC.
B. That more of the advocacy for women in ministry be channeled through the union papers and other media of mass distribution, including:
i. That Church Resource Consortium monitor and audit all NAD-produced and endorsed materials for compliance with a gender-inclusive model of ministry.
ii. That the NAD produce and endorse only gender-inclusive resource materials.
iii. That the division president issue a clear call to the church for gender inclusiveness at all levels of the church—board, committees, pastoral assignments, etc.
iv. That materials be prepared for conference administrators and search committees that specifically address the need to consider qualified women as candidates.

One Source: http://www.aaw.cc/PDF_files/Presidents%20Commission%20on%20Women%20in%20...

—This concludes the special NAD document
~End of Section Four ~

Too much (boring) reading for an issue so simple.
If the SDA one day decides to stop discrimination against women - which has been done in the name of God - it will be a simple procedure to just ordain women and welcome them to the ministry.

But Adventists love the word commissioned! As someone said, soon the SDA will have two types of marriage:
1) Ordained marriage - for straight couples
2) Commissioned marriage - for same sex couples
:) :) :)

Assuming you are SDA, it's unfortunate that you are uninterested in investigating the truth of such an issue; it might have relevance to many other issues in your church that keep people divided.

GeorgeT: I guess the World Church had no idea or guidiance in what it was doing when the vote for presidency fell to Elder Wilson. But wait, at least the NAD knew what it was doing when it elected Elder Jackson, whew!!.

GeorgeT: "True" - Just so I am clear, are saying you believe that the World Church was wrong in their vote but the NAD was right.

GeorgeT: So do you also think it quite unfair and even bias of the early church, when seeking to replace Stephen, that 100% of the voting was done by men, even though the membership included many women. Do you consider that vote and its outcome less than a true representation of the membership and to be more 'male' centric/dominated and less to do with/void of the Holy Spirit.

The NAD, every since I have been acquainted with it, has moved in it's own circle, attempting to circumvent the GC, via the GC, NAD and TED, by doing what it sees fit regardless of the greater church membership.

In 1996 soon after the Utrecht vote the NAD set about undermining that vote in hopes to have its will imposed upon the church at large, in particular the church in North America, and here we are today, some 17 years later, after all the heart-ache, disunity, disfellowship, and lost members, still being defiant. Some of NAD leadership, in co-operation with several GC and TED leaders over the years are directly responsible for this upset and disregard.

Look at Section 4 above to see if this document is the work of those who are considerate of the church at large or are more considerate of their own ideology.

The greatest attacks against God's Church today are aimed at the family, why cannot the NAD, TED and those of the GC responsible see that, instead the infuential few seem to do what they always do, in Eygpt or in the Church, they neglect the whole and focus on the few.

True enlighenment I guess.

Friends
This issue can be boiled down to some fairly simple ideas.

Christ's "gospel commission" was not directed to men only but to all believers!! (male and female)
How much of the Bible's messages are framed in the "culture of the time" vs God's principles?? God (Christ) spoke and taught by using "parables" that required the listener to use his/her God given "brain/mind" and "reasoning powers" ("come now let us REASON together") to come up with the understanding and applications for each situation in life, including our modern society applications.
God chose a woman ( EGW ) to be one of the founders of this church AND she was "ordained/commissioned" in that role!!
Why has this issue which seems so simple taken up sooooo much time and energy and slowed the work of the "gospel commission" for sooo long??
When the various proponents of each view get to heaven will God say to them "good job for keeping the women in their place" or will He say "what took you sooooo long to "get it" and follow the commission I gave to you??"
Think about that folks!!!
I would rather be on the side of following the "gender neutral" God given "gospel commission" rather than trying to defend the discrimination inherent in our current church position!!!
All the best
Fred

It seems shocking to some to suggest that the way forward is to have local unions change their constitutions to allow for female leaders. Yet our SDA history tells us that a lot of changes in our church has started by local conferences implementing issues that later have been incorporated in the world wide church. After all, according to our organizational philosophy, the local church is the highest level of the SDA church. It was Ted's father, Neil Wilson, who first tried to turn our hierarchy upside down when he witnessed in the Merikay case in the 70'ies. That is why we now are left with a church that seems more and more like the Papacy.

I just realized that Jackson obtained legal counsel to determine if he could ignore GC policy on this matter. Doesn't that go against Paul's counsel in 1 Cor 6:1-11? Now I am not opposed to women's ordination, but using these kinds of tactics discredits the effort. if proponents feel they are above scriptural admonition, they themselves are to blame for at least some of the opposition to their cause. MLK was wiser in this regard.

Kim: That's the problem, you say, "it is extremely important to some of us” - some of you - but that extreme importance was not recognized by way of the world Church vote on this issue in session, however and unfortunately, that did not quench the quest of those that 'demanded' change. Those individuals ignored the vote and forged ahead with an agenda to set in motion changes that would prove to show how disrespectful the NAD was/is to the Church in Session. Keep in mind the importance we are to place on the decisions of the world Church in Session, isn’t this where we come as a unit to ask God to reveal to us His will.

But you say,”Some of us do not believe that God is blessing the SDA church as fully as it could be because of the lack of equality in the church.”, but that’s what ‘some’ of you believe, however, there are others who believe as passionately has you, and maybe more so, women and men, that this is not scriptural, and that the Church in session made the right decision, and that the GC is taking the right stand here. But yet ‘some’ still press their ideology above any firm scriptural evidence, and in the absence of this firm evidence they contest, ignore, deny and rebel against the voice of the Church at large, in effect pulling congregations apart, discouraging members, essentially creating an atmosphere of anger, frustration, disloyalty and distrust between the laity and leadership, leadership and laity, leadership and leadership, and most importantly, between laity and laity. Shame!

The North American Division had no right to forge the path it has taken, and many, many, knew this from the beginning, but often time they were ignored, marginalize, hated, labeled, censured, disfellowshipped, etc. Shame!

You said that you, “…also recognize that you don't feel that this issue is important to you…”, well, you are wrong, if it were not important to me, why would I spend any time in sessions and posting my concerns on this issue. I have been following this issue for nearly 18 years, and frankly, I am appalled at the display of leadership and laypersons alike on this subject. I am appalled at the lack and type of biblical research into this subject, and I am immensely appalled at the worldly arguments posed in favor.

You said, “Just because the SDA church is where it is now doesn’t mean that it can not make changes.” Well, this can be said also, “Just because the SDA church is where it is now doesn’t mean that it HAS to make changes”

Kim: That's the problem, you say, "it is extremely important to some of us” - some of you - but that extreme importance was not recognized by way of the world Church vote on this issue in session, however and unfortunately, that did not quench the quest of those that 'demanded' change. Those individuals ignored the vote and forged ahead with an agenda to set in motion changes that would prove to show how disrespectful the NAD was/is to the Church in Session. Keep in mind the importance we are to place on the decisions of the world Church in Session, isn’t this where we come as a unit to ask God to reveal to us His will.

But you say,”Some of us do not believe that God is blessing the SDA church as fully as it could be because of the lack of equality in the church.”, but that’s what ‘some’ of you believe, however, there are others who believe as passionately has you, and maybe more so, women and men, that this is not scriptural, and that the Church in session made the right decision, and that the GC is taking the right stand here. But yet ‘some’ still press their ideology above any firm scriptural evidence, and in the absence of this firm evidence they contest, ignore, deny and rebel against the voice of the Church at large, in effect pulling congregations apart, discouraging members, essentially creating an atmosphere of anger, frustration, disloyalty and distrust between the laity and leadership, leadership and laity, leadership and leadership, and most importantly, between laity and laity. Shame!

The North American Division had no right to forge the path it has taken, and many, many, knew this from the beginning, but often time they were ignored, marginalize, hated, labeled, censured, disfellowshipped, etc. Shame!

You said that you, “…also recognize that you don't feel that this issue is important to you…”, well, you are wrong, if it were not important to me, why would I spend any time in sessions and posting my concerns on this issue. I have been following this issue for nearly 18 years, and frankly, I am appalled at the display of leadership and laypersons alike on this subject. I am appalled at the lack and type of biblical research into this subject, and I am immensely appalled at the worldly arguments posed in favor.

You said, “Just because the SDA church is where it is now doesn’t mean that it can not make changes.” Well, this can be said also, “Just because the SDA church is where it is now doesn’t mean that it HAS to make changes”

If the enlightened times that you hope for means, as it seems to with this issue, that we allow rogue divisions and members do as they see fit because they see the issue as an ‘affront’, simply because the administration of the church is predominately male-oriented, then I think this has less to do with the Word of God and more to do with personal preference and the belief that male female equality is scriptural beyond the saving grace of Christ. There is no evidence of such.

Are men and women capable of performing the same mental, physically, etc., duties, certainly, we see plenty of evidence, however, is this God’s intention, in some cases yes (i.e. prophets), in some cases maybe (hence the need for GC sessions and SOP guidance), but in others, God has clearly defined roles that do not appear to be equal to some. Just because a role may not be open to one, does not diminish the role itself, nor make of less importance a comparable role.

Do not concede to let the hand become a foot because it believes it is a matter of equality, the hand is equal in value and saving grace, but it has a different role, the hand should spend it’s time discovering what it means to be a hand, and actuating the gifts of a hand for the betterment of the foot, the whole body, and thus the Gospel. The same is true in reverse, should the foot desire to be the hand. We are different and we are alike, equal in some things and not in others, only God can reveal to us our roles and gifts, but it is unlikely that He will supplant the hand with another foot. This is true ‘unity in diversity’.

I am sure a comment on child welfare would be very appropriate... on a CHILD WELFARE blog!!!

Otherwise, it's just a distraction from the real issue, which in this case is women's discrimination.

I am so glad that some of you guys are not the ones God would leave in charge if He took a vacation. That would certainly be a nightmare!
(Though it seems that some of you are persuaded that He is on vacation and actually left you in charge.)

S Styrra: That's the problem with many on this issue, they "...don't think God...", however scripture has given us some knowledge of God, and to "I don't think God has..." , or I don't think God is..., is often our own opinion or desired belief in the lieu of what can be or is revealed in scripture, assuming of course, scripture is your foundation and rule.

You say, "God is not a man", really, then what about Jesus, is He God? Is He the Son of God the Father?

Maybe you mean that the Father is not a man. If so, you are somewhat right in the sense that He, the Father, is God, without flesh and bone, however, you are left with the issue that Jesus is the "express image of His Person", the Father. This leaves you with a predicament in your last statement about the DNA and the other, that I care not to repeat, as I believe such expressions about God, the Father, Son or Holy Spirit should not be mentioned, considering God is God, and He is Holy. I know that Jesus is a man, but I also know that He is God, and therefore divine, logically then, His DNA is male, and possibly divine, only if of course divinity and Godhead status can be measured or recorded as DNA.

Also, is this only what defines a male, the physical attributes. I hope not, and I hope not too many of the opposite gender think so, else they have reduced men to mere flesh and nothing more, interestly really, as this is the charge laid against many men in regard to women.

Hebrews 1:1-3
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

"They essentially assumed that God was not in charge of the Session and therefore had to save the Church from the injustice voted, I guess they figured God was on vacation.

The only instance I will agree that God was in charge of a GC session will be when only a candidate that DID NOT campaign for his (not her...) own election would be elected.

Actually, I think that ANY person who ever made any type of campaigning to become the GC Prez should be automatically disqualified. Then, I would agree that God could be cited as being in charge.

Hi again Kim, sorry for the partial duplication in my reply to you above, my whole message is related in the repeated portion of the post.

MichaelEY
And please, don’t pick on the words like “brethren” or insinuate that Elder Wilson is responsible and thus following his own judgment. The NAD step outside the lines, they went against the world Church in Session, God’s Church authority.
******************
Dear MichaelEY,
May I refer you to previous articles of Spectrum in which it was shown the manipulation that went on at the last Annual Council with Elder Ted Wilson personally trying to manipulate the voting to his viewpoints so that Adventist women's rights would not be on a par with that of men!
I am glad that as a member of a local Seventh-day Adventist church that I am not a part of that and that each member, each church, each conference, each union, and yes EACH DIVISION INCLUDING THE NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION can and will make changes.
Change will come. It's just a matter of time.
We already have women Pastors and women Senior Pastors, and a woman General Conference Vice-President.
If we keep chipping away, eventually that boulder of prejudice will break into pieces, and what the NAD has voted for in the last 3 consecutive years might be realized.
Cheers,
Mike

Mike MacLennan - Please share the reference(s) to these articles, so that I and others can review them ourselves, and not have to rely on your interpretation.

From my own personal experience I have seen the opposite to this at a local session, meaning political manoeuvring/manipulation to push the idea of ordination of women as ministers. This has been going on for years, ever since the 1995 vote.

Consider this document: http://www.aaw.cc/PDF_files/Presidents%20Commission%20on%20Women%20in%20...

Many of the recommendations in this document have been carried out and are being carried out, even the one relating to this issue, and at no point in time since I have been an Adventist, pre 1996, have I seen or heard any leader or layperson share this information. In other words, the NAD took the recommendations in this report and put them into practice without any consultation with the laity. What does this speak of, considering that they had no right, as indicated by Elder Jackson’s letter, to evoke at least some them?

I have witnessed numerous incidents of political manoeuvring by many levels of church administration from the very local level to the divisional level. This particular issue is only an issue because of political manoeuvring and manipulation, and not because it is scriptural. Therefore to charge the current GC president of this and not the myriad of others on the other side of this issue, who had more to do with it, with the same is disingenuous.

I believe as you do that, "Change will come. It's just a matter of time", question is, what will be the ultimate fallout.

So far there has been plenty on both sides, and sadly there will be more, not because of a “Thus saith the Lord”, but because of a “we think this is wrong, and we want it changed”.

MichaelEY,

I truly do understand your points but we disagree in most all ways but one- the upset over the pushing of agendas/lack of following proper procedures. However I feel that our current GC president is not above this himself on occasion :).

The GC sessions and GC presidents are not always right in their methods, ideas and opinions which has Ellen White pointed out on occasion. So I do not assume that what always comes out of the sessions/mouths are straight from God. In addition, the SDA world church is full of 2nd and 3rd world country individuals that also have different cultures and mores which I also do not share in.

You obviously don't know how strongly I feel about anything but are assuming that your passion is greater than mine and, in that, you are wrong. We simply don't agree on what some issues because I can read the same texts and come to a different conclusion.

So, MichaelEY, I respect your interpretations and ideas of what constitutes "equality" but I and many
others will never agree with you. I also accept the "shame" that comes with not agreeing with your viewpoints but know that only God is truly my judge.

Peace to you,
Kim

I'm wondering--- did Jesus ordain some and "commission" others? What about when the Holy Spirit fell on people after their baptism, was that ordaining or commissioning? Where did the Doctrine of Commissioning arrive from and why? When Jesus told the mob of 5000 men plus women and children on mount that they were LIGHTS, what He was doing was saying they were now Prophets. Was this Ordaining or just Commissioning. We need to get rid of the Legal Term "Commissioned" out of our Adventist vocabulary.

Maria, I agree with George. I believe the devil wins when we leave the church and nullify our voices. Women were in leadership roles during the life of Ellen White...during the thrities the church worked to change that use of gifts to what they religated. As for the GC being the voice of God...If they were I do not believe Ellen White would have said Uriah Smith and Butler will be held responsible in the judgement for the souls of Jones and Wagner. The GC is made up of human beings. Human beings are fallible. The amazing thing is that God does not absent Heaven from us but keeps working with us.

Blessings,

Catherine

Elder Dan Jackson for GC President 2015