(http://christorculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/wo-policy-rejection-sm.jpg) (http://christorculture.com/portfolio-view/adventist-union-rejects-world-church-policy-regarding-womens-ordination/)
In spite of a clear and heartfelt appeal from Ted Wilson, world president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Columbia Union Conference voted on July 29, 2012, to ordain women as pastors.
This historic action creates a doctrinal rift between the eight Mid-Atlantic conferences and the majority of the world church. Elder Wilson cautioned this divisive vote could produce “many grave consequences” and lead to fragmentation and disunity.
Founded in part by Ellen White, the Adventist Church has always supported women being active in a broad spectrum of ministry. Yet the Sunday vote represents a major departure from the historic Adventist position that the Scriptures only support men being ordained as pastors.
The Pacific Union Conference is scheduled to consider a similar vote on August 19 in Southern California. If you are opposed to North American Conferences separating theologically from the world church:The petition and growing body of information will be presented to all the NAD and GC leaders prior to the August 19 vote.
- Please review the material here at Christ or Culture (http://christorculture.com/resources/blog/)
- Sign the petition (http://christorculture.com/petition/)
- Forward to loyal SDA friends
Visit Christ or Culture (http://christorculture.com/) for continuing updates …
Founded in part by Ellen White, the Adventist Church has always supported women being active in a broad spectrum of ministry. Yet the Sunday vote represents a major departure from the historic Adventist position that the Scriptures only support men being ordained as pastors.Is Amazing Facts being entirely honest in this statement? From my understanding of church history, the SDA church historically ordained women, including Ellen White, and this practice continued until after her death. It is also my understanding that on December 5, 1881, the GC in session approved the ordination of women. It would then seem that Amazing Facts has their information inverted.
Founded in part by Ellen White, the Adventist Church has always supported women being active in a broad spectrum of ministry. Yet the Sunday vote represents a major departure from the historic Adventist position that the Scriptures only support men being ordained as pastors.Is Amazing Facts being entirely honest in this statement? From my understanding of church history, the SDA church historically ordained women, including Ellen White, and this practice continued until after her death. It is also my understanding that on December 5, 1881, the GC in session approved the ordination of women. It would then seem that Amazing Facts has their information inverted.
And how about any documentation regarding EGW, and ither women of that time being ordained pastors? Would that also clear up anything?Founded in part by Ellen White, the Adventist Church has always supported women being active in a broad spectrum of ministry. Yet the Sunday vote represents a major departure from the historic Adventist position that the Scriptures only support men being ordained as pastors.Is Amazing Facts being entirely honest in this statement? From my understanding of church history, the SDA church historically ordained women, including Ellen White, and this practice continued until after her death. It is also my understanding that on December 5, 1881, the GC in session approved the ordination of women. It would then seem that Amazing Facts has their information inverted.
Murcielago,
I would be interested if you or anyone else could present the documentation on the December 5, 1881 vote where the GC in session approved the ordination of women. This would go a long way towards clearing the air about our church's past history on this issue.
Much thanks,
SDAminister
And how about any documentation regarding EGW, and ither women of that time being ordained pastors? Would that also clear up anything?Founded in part by Ellen White, the Adventist Church has always supported women being active in a broad spectrum of ministry. Yet the Sunday vote represents a major departure from the historic Adventist position that the Scriptures only support men being ordained as pastors.Is Amazing Facts being entirely honest in this statement? From my understanding of church history, the SDA church historically ordained women, including Ellen White, and this practice continued until after her death. It is also my understanding that on December 5, 1881, the GC in session approved the ordination of women. It would then seem that Amazing Facts has their information inverted.
Murcielago,
I would be interested if you or anyone else could present the documentation on the December 5, 1881 vote where the GC in session approved the ordination of women. This would go a long way towards clearing the air about our church's past history on this issue.
Much thanks,
SDAminister
Was Ellen White ordained?
Elle White was given tehe credentials of an ordained minister for years. She was listed as such in the official records of the denominaiton. She was never ordained in a public (or private) ceremoney in whichothers laid their hands upon her.
So, those are the facts. Nowthe question is, how do you intrepret them.
1) I say she was ordained because she had the credentials.
2) Others say she was not because there never was any kind of a ceremoney in which people laid hands upon her.
Take your pick. Both sides have valid points.
And how about any documentation regarding EGW, and ither women of that time being ordained pastors? Would that also clear up anything?Founded in part by Ellen White, the Adventist Church has always supported women being active in a broad spectrum of ministry. Yet the Sunday vote represents a major departure from the historic Adventist position that the Scriptures only support men being ordained as pastors.Is Amazing Facts being entirely honest in this statement? From my understanding of church history, the SDA church historically ordained women, including Ellen White, and this practice continued until after her death. It is also my understanding that on December 5, 1881, the GC in session approved the ordination of women. It would then seem that Amazing Facts has their information inverted.
Murcielago,
I would be interested if you or anyone else could present the documentation on the December 5, 1881 vote where the GC in session approved the ordination of women. This would go a long way towards clearing the air about our church's past history on this issue.
Much thanks,
SDAminister
Founded in part by Ellen White, the Adventist Church has always supported women being active in a broad spectrum of ministry. Yet the Sunday vote represents a major departure from the historic Adventist position that the Scriptures only support men being ordained as pastors.Is Amazing Facts being entirely honest in this statement? From my understanding of church history, the SDA church historically ordained women, including Ellen White, and this practice continued until after her death. It is also my understanding that on December 5, 1881, the GC in session approved the ordination of women. It would then seem that Amazing Facts has their information inverted.
Was Ellen White ordained?
Elle White was given tehe credentials of an ordained minister for years. She was listed as such in the official records of the denominaiton. She was never ordained in a public (or private) ceremoney in whichothers laid their hands upon her.
So, those are the facts. Nowthe question is, how do you intrepret them.
1) I say she was ordained because she had the credentials.
2) Others say she was not because there never was any kind of a ceremoney in which people laid hands upon her.
Take your pick. Both sides have valid points.
You are ignoring the part where the term ordained was crossed out on one of the her certificates, and also on a form that she had to fill out she put an "X" in the space where it asked if the person was ordained, thus indicating that she did not consider herself an ordained minister.
Is there some reason you left those facts out?
I will.Founded in part by Ellen White, the Adventist Church has always supported women being active in a broad spectrum of ministry. Yet the Sunday vote represents a major departure from the historic Adventist position that the Scriptures only support men being ordained as pastors.Is Amazing Facts being entirely honest in this statement? From my understanding of church history, the SDA church historically ordained women, including Ellen White, and this practice continued until after her death. It is also my understanding that on December 5, 1881, the GC in session approved the ordination of women. It would then seem that Amazing Facts has their information inverted.
Murcielago, these historical points have been discussed ad nauseam on other sites.
You might want to check some of them out before just regurgitating liberal SDA talking points.
See the info in my above post on Ellen White's "ordination".
In December, 1881, the GC definitely did not approve women's ordination. Check your sources again.
So let me understand this properly if I might. Evil men in the conference years later marked out the word ordained, to keep women from being ordained at a later date? Dog if only they had used an thick ink instead of a pencil. Do you have any idea who did this dastardly deed?Was Ellen White ordained?
Elle White was given tehe credentials of an ordained minister for years. She was listed as such in the official records of the denominaiton. She was never ordained in a public (or private) ceremoney in whichothers laid their hands upon her.
So, those are the facts. Nowthe question is, how do you intrepret them.
1) I say she was ordained because she had the credentials.
2) Others say she was not because there never was any kind of a ceremoney in which people laid hands upon her.
Take your pick. Both sides have valid points.
You are ignoring the part where the term ordained was crossed out on one of the her certificates, and also on a form that she had to fill out she put an "X" in the space where it asked if the person was ordained, thus indicating that she did not consider herself an ordained minister.
Is there some reason you left those facts out?
The card where the word "ordained" is crossed out, is one exhibition at Elmshaven, where I saw it last time I was there. It is remarkable, that while other items on this card is filled in with ink, the word ordained has a very thin line over it, not in ink like the other items, but a very weak pencil. Since nothing is crossed out on the other two copies still available of the card, there is a strong suspicion that that pencil line has been added at a much later date.
EGW has written elsewhere when and where she was ordained by God.
You are ignoring the part where the term ordained was crossed out on one of the her certificates, and also on a form that she had to fill out she put an "X" in the space where it asked if the person was ordained, thus indicating that she did not consider herself an ordained minister.
Is there some reason you left those facts out?
So let me understand this properly if I might. Evil men in the conference years later marked out the word ordained, to keep women from being ordained at a later date? Dog if only they had used an thick ink instead of a pencil. Do you have any idea who did this dastardly deed?
So, those are the facts. Nowthe question is, how do you intrepret them.
1) I say she was ordained because she had the credentials.
2) Others say she was not because there never was any kind of a ceremoney in which people laid hands upon her.
Take your pick. Both sides have valid points.
Was Ellen White Herself Ordained?
There is no record of Ellen White ever having been ordained by human hands. Yet from 1871 until her death she was granted ministerial credentials by various organizations of the church. The certificate that was used read ?Ordained Minister.? Several other credential certificates from the mid-1880s are still in our possession. On the one from 1885 the word ordained is neatly struck out. On the 1887 certificate, the next one we have, it is not.
Had she been ordained in the interim? Some have argued that she had. But the question is settled definitely by her own hand. In 1909 she filled out a ?Biographical Information Blank? for the General Conference records. On the blank for item 19, which asks, ?If ordained, state when, where, and by whom,? she simply inscribed an X. This is the same response she made to item 26, which asked, ?If remarried, give date, and to whom.? In this way she indicated that she had never remarried, nor had she ever been ordained. She was not denying that God had chosen and equipped her, but she indicated that there had never been an ordination ceremony carried out for her. 29
Why then do some of her credentials say ?ordained minister?? The fact that ?ordained? was sometimes crossed out highlights the awkwardness of giving credentials to a prophet. The church has no such special category of credentials. So it utilized what it had, giving its highest credentials without performing an ordination ceremony. In actuality, the prophet needed no human credentials. She functioned for more than 25 years prior to 1871 without any.
Was Ellen White ordained?
Elle White was given tehe credentials of an ordained minister for years. She was listed as such in the official records of the denominaiton. She was never ordained in a public (or private) ceremoney in whichothers laid their hands upon her.
So, those are the facts. Nowthe question is, how do you intrepret them.
1) I say she was ordained because she had the credentials.
2) Others say she was not because there never was any kind of a ceremoney in which people laid hands upon her.
Take your pick. Both sides have valid points.
You are ignoring the part where the term ordained was crossed out on one of the her certificates, and also on a form that she had to fill out she put an "X" in the space where it asked if the person was ordained, thus indicating that she did not consider herself an ordained minister.
Is there some reason you left those facts out?
The card where the word "ordained" is crossed out, is one exhibition at Elmshaven, where I saw it last time I was there. It is remarkable, that while other items on this card is filled in with ink, the word ordained has a very thin line over it, not in ink like the other items, but a very weak pencil. Since nothing is crossed out on the other two copies still available of the card, there is a strong suspicion that that pencil line has been added at a much later date.
EGW has written elsewhere when and where she was ordained by God.
Founded in part by Ellen White, the Adventist Church has always supported women being active in a broad spectrum of ministry. Yet the Sunday vote represents a major departure from the historic Adventist position that the Scriptures only support men being ordained as pastors.Is Amazing Facts being entirely honest in this statement? From my understanding of church history, the SDA church historically ordained women, including Ellen White, and this practice continued until after her death. It is also my understanding that on December 5, 1881, the GC in session approved the ordination of women. It would then seem that Amazing Facts has their information inverted.
Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor. Not a hand should be bound, not a soul discouraged, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publicly, to help forward this grand work. Place the burdens upon men and women of the church, that they may grow by reason of the exercise, and thus become effective agents in the hand of the Lord for the enlightenment of those who sit in darkness. {RH July 9, 1895, par. 8}
Adventist News Network in a program onHope TV has announced to the world the action of the Columbia Union Conference to ordain irregardless of gender. The announcement was fair and mentioned the Biblical study currently underway.
Also the petition on the Christ or Culture site against women's ordination in the Pacific Union Conference has quickly shot up to over 6,000 in the last several days.
Obviously a reaction to the CUC vote?
This is a very heavy and divisive topic in the SDA Church.
I am still digesting that union's vote myself.
Whew!!!!!
Adventist News Network in a program onHope TV has announced to the world the action of the Columbia Union Conference to ordain irregardless of gender. The announcement was fair and mentioned the Biblical study currently underway.
Do we interpret this to mean it is deemed politically correct to the satisfaction of the theological left???Is this how you interpret it?
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporterAdventist News Network in a program onHope TV has announced to the world the action of the Columbia Union Conference to ordain irregardless of gender. The announcement was fair and mentioned the Biblical study currently underway.
The WO issue is definitely a divisive issue, however, right now I am more concerned over the action of a few Unions over their voting to go against present GC church policy, not only in relation to the WO issue but any other issue that they may one day disagree with in relation to GC church policy.What action was that?
The action of these Unions is opening up a can of worms that may affect the integrity of the SDA Church's organizational structure, if the GC doesn't make an appropriate response, as they eventually did in relation to the NAD action that was declared null and void by the NAD President.
The WO issue is definitely a divisive issue, however, right now I am more concerned over the action of a few Unions over their voting to go against present GC church policy, not only in relation to the WO issue but any other issue that they may one day disagree with in relation to GC church policy.What action was that?
The action of these Unions is opening up a can of worms that may affect the integrity of the SDA Church's organizational structure, if the GC doesn't make an appropriate response, as they eventually did in relation to the NAD action that was declared null and void by the NAD President.
The WO issue is definitely a divisive issue, however, right now I am more concerned over the action of a few Unions over their voting to go against present GC church policy, not only in relation to the WO issue but any other issue that they may one day disagree with in relation to GC church policy.What action was that?
The action of these Unions is opening up a can of worms that may affect the integrity of the SDA Church's organizational structure, if the GC doesn't make an appropriate response, as they eventually did in relation to the NAD action that was declared null and void by the NAD President.
The action of the . . . German Union, which I wasn't even aware about, and need to do a google regarding their action.
The action of the . . . German Union, which I wasn't even aware about, and need to do a google regarding their action.
The North German Union came first - in April. The president stated they were forced to this do this because they would break federal laws of Germany if they didn't do it. He also made it clear that the General Conference had never had any theological objections to ordaining women.
The action of the . . . German Union, which I wasn't even aware about, and need to do a google regarding their action.
The North German Union came first - in April. The president stated they were forced to this do this because they would break federal laws of Germany if they didn't do it. He also made it clear that the General Conference had never had any theological objections to ordaining women.
Johann, could you share with us what federal law in Germany prohibits us from recognizing and implementing the roles of men and women as outlined in Scripture?
When it comes time for Germany to mandate Sunday rest and prohibit Sabbath worship, will the North German Union follow suit since they have now set a precedent that they place human laws above Scriptural mandates?
There was absolutely NOTHING in the president's speech to indicate that he was against ordaining women, or that the Columbia Union's motion was going against God or against scripture. None of those issues were mentioned by the president as reasons for them to reconsider their aim and purpose for the constituency meeting.
The reason for his appeal was based solely on the fact that according to church policies, and GC votes that determined those policies current, they had no legal right to make such a motion. Their motion was "out of order" according to the church's constitutional policies. His appeal was to wait and allow "due process" to move forward.
It is the rebellion aspect of these Unions that bother me more than anything else.
Why am I telling my own story in this connection? It is because I was reminded of it when I listened to the discussions at the PUC meeting Sunday. Several of the speakers expressed they were held back from following the leading of the Holy Spirit by rules as interpreted by human agents.
Why am I telling my own story in this connection? It is because I was reminded of it when I listened to the discussions at the PUC meeting Sunday. Several of the speakers expressed they were held back from following the leading of the Holy Spirit by rules as interpreted by human agents.
Johann,
The Zwickau prophets spoke in similar terms. What is their evidence of the Holy Spirit truly leading? They can't just assert that without some sort of evidence, and use that mere assertion to undermine gospel order in the church, order which the Holy Spirit really did lead in establishing.
So where is the evidence?
Why am I telling my own story in this connection? It is because I was reminded of it when I listened to the discussions at the PUC meeting Sunday. Several of the speakers expressed they were held back from following the leading of the Holy Spirit by rules as interpreted by human agents.
Johann,
The Zwickau prophets spoke in similar terms. What is their evidence of the Holy Spirit truly leading? They can't just assert that without some sort of evidence, and use that mere assertion to undermine gospel order in the church, order which the Holy Spirit really did lead in establishing.
So where is the evidence?
Is there no "Gospel Orders" in Gospel Workers or elsewhere?
If there is no specific policy or inspired statement, then there really is no way to accuse anyone of rebelling against anything.
If there is no specific policy or inspired statement, then there really is no way to accuse anyone of rebelling against anything.
So? ?
The Value of the Church Policy
...
The General Conference knows that these things are taking place, so why are they not stopping this "rebellion" against the existing policies?
V 05 20 Tithe to Local Church — The tithe is to be turned in to the local church in which membership is held. An exception to this policy may be made in regard to the tithe of denominational employees, as determined by the division committee.
According to the GC Working Policy, this is how the tithe is to be paid:QuoteV 05 20 Tithe to Local Church — The tithe is to be turned in to the local church in which membership is held. An exception to this policy may be made in regard to the tithe of denominational employees, as determined by the division committee.
V 05 10 Scriptural Obligation—Although tithing is not considered a test of fellowship, it is recognized as a scriptural obligation that every believer owes to God and as an essential in claiming by faith the fullness of blessing in Christian life and experience.
Yes, it is supposed to be a test of leadership, and it is supposed to be a test of employment.
Seems like the Dutch (Holland) SDA Union has also voted to ordain women as pastors.
This is the second union in Europe.
This is even after the Annual Council Statement.
It appears like the Dutch are still discussing how to implement the ordination - today. It seems like they want it implemented not later than 6 months after the next GC session in 2015.That is more in line with the North German Union.
I won't quote him or say anything about it any further here.
I only posted it here as it was something new.
The Road to Women's Ordination in the Netherlands
12 November 2012 | Tom de Bruin
Yesterday, after a long and complicated journey towards the acceptance of fundamental equality between the sexes, the Netherlands Union Conference joined three other unions worldwide in supporting the ordination of women.
As an ordained male pastor I have no direct stake in the argument, yet this is an issue in which I have always felt personally involved, and on which I cannot conscientiously remain silent. As a church it is our responsibility to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, and as Christians it is our moral duty to speak out where we see our fellows treated unjustly. Having grown up in South Africa during the years of apartheid, I witnessed institutionalised injustice first-hand. Discrimination is wrong no matter what form it takes, and I cannot see any fundamental difference between how the church treats women (as less than men), and how South Africa treated black Africans (as less than white Europeans).
For this reason, in May 2012 Remco Dingjan and I submitted a motion from our area to ask the Netherlands Union Conference to begin ordaining women as of January 1st, 2013. Many of the local delegates from the middle of the Netherlands, which includes some of the largest churches in the country, suggested that they would support this motion whole-heartedly.
At this time the only Adventist constitution that had voted to ordain women was in Germany, and most delegates had no idea of the events that were to take place in the Pacific and Columbia union conferences in the United States later that summer.
The motion to ordain women was passed on to the organising committee of the Netherlands Union Conference session, and was included in the agenda of the meetings scheduled for October and November. While we waited for this important discussion to take place, events abroad made things quite a bit more complicated. Two union conferences beat the Dutch to voting on the topic of women’s ordination, and just weeks before the Dutch session the General Conference passed a statement responding to the actions of these conferences. This meant that while the Dutch were not the first group of Adventists making this decision, we were the first be confronted with the problem of discussing it after the General Conference explicitly stated that they did not recognise the identical actions that the other conferences had just taken.
On Sunday, November 4th everything was set for a heated debate on this controversial topic.
That day, the original motion was discussed in session. The Netherlands Union Conference session takes place in a manner that is slightly different to other sessions. Motions are discussed and voted on the floor, but are then passed on to a plans committee that has the task of examining motions for feasibility, lawfulness, and whether or not they follow church policy. The plans committee can rewrite the motions—or even ignore them—so we knew beforehand that bringing the motion to a vote would be a three-stage battle. The original motion would need a majority vote to pass on to the the plans committee, the plans committee would need to accept the motion and return it to the floor, and that new motion would once again need a majority vote.
When Remco Dingjan first introduced the motion to the delegates, he argued strongly that at its core this issue was not a theological one or a cultural one; it is simply a matter of principle. Do we believe that women are equal to men, or not? Remco also argued that while we accept the General Conference's authority in many matters, we cannot accept their authority over our own moral standards. He emphasised that by doing this we are not preempting the theology of ordination committee's investigation in any way, but that we simply cannot morally accept the call to change the world tomorrow when we can do so today. Other delegates spoke for and against, and the motion was voted to be submitted to the plans committee by a two-thirds majority. The first hurdle was behind us.
While other discussions continued on the floor, the plans committee reviewed the motion and altered it. What the plans committee discusses is confidential, so as delegates we do not know what transpired there. But on the 11th of November, Pastor Reinder Bruinsma, chair of the plans committee, presented their altered motion to the floor:
"Considering the biblical principle of the equality of men and women, the delegates in session, indicate that they reject the current situation of inequality in the church on principle.
For this reason, and considering the context of Dutch society, they charge the Executive Board to vigorously promote this perspective in the worldwide church.
As quickly as possible, and no later than six months after the next session of the General Conference (2015), equality between men and women will be implemented at all organisational levels of the church in the Netherlands. The equal ordination of female pastors also falls into this category."
In other words, this meant that the executive committee would be responsible for choosing the correct moment to begin ordaining women, but that whatever the General Conference decides in 2015, the Netherlands Union Conference will continue with their plan to ensure the equality of women in the church—including ordination. This would allow the executive committee to respect the process of the General Conference’s discussion on the theology of ordination, while ensuring that they will not compromise on the issue of discrimination against women.
Now that this motion was ready to become policy for the executive committee, the discussion became much more heated. Many delegates stood up to oppose the motion, urging the delegates to wait for the outcome of the theology of ordination committee and concerned about the repercussions of preempting the GC’s decision. Some were worried that this topic had not been discussed in enough detail theologically. After a long discussion, many of the motion’s supporters seemed to have given up the fight. Finally, one delegate submitted a request to add an amendment to the motion. The motion was tabled while the amendment was written and submitted.
A few hours later, minutes before the closing of the meeting on the final day of sessions, the amendment was submitted, and the motion to ordain women returned to the floor. The wording of the motion was altered, stating that the delegates would trust the theology of ordination committee to give biblical answers, and that the Netherlands Union Conference would follow the outcome of that committee. Because this constituted a fundamental change in the outcome of the motion, rather than an addition or amendment, a point of order was raised arguing that the changes should be considered hostile. After much deliberation, the parliamentarians agreed, the amendment was rejected, and discussion on the original motion was re-opened before it was put to a final vote.
Several delegates then took the opportunity to speak. Pastor Bertil Wiklander, the president of the Trans-European Division, called the delegates to trust in the theology of ordination committee, furthermore arguing that female pastors have most of the same rights as male pastors. He pointed out that this division has the highest amount of female employees in any division, that it is the only division with a female secretary. He referred to the recent book written by Dr Jan Barna of Newbold College, showing how hermeneutics explains the fundamental difference in opinion on this topic.
Most speakers argued in favour of the motion. Pastor Rudy Dingjan, head of Church Growth, spoke of the many theological reasons to ordain women, Professor Van Westrhenen argued that this topic has been widely discussed since the 1970s, stating that because so much information is now available, ignorance on the topic is a matter of personal choice. Pastor Gerard Frenk, the incumbent executive secretary, stood up to point out that Adventists have been discussing hermeneutics since the 1980s, and are no closer to agreeing on how to read the Bible than they are on the ordination of women. Pastor Jeroen Tuinstra argued strongly for the ordination of women, citing many theological and ethical reasons.
Following these moving arguments, I was the last person to be allowed to speak before the motion was put to a vote. After admitting the irony of speaking against statements made by the division president as a newly-elected executive secretary, I was honoured to be able to add my voices to those of the other delegates in supporting women’s ordination. While it is wonderful that female pastors can now do almost everything male pastors can, what that really means is that we are ultimately saying that women are almost as good as men – almost, but not quite. In the end, this is not a discussion about theology or culture, it is about how we treat other people (and fellow children of God).
Or rather, that is what I tried to say. Thinking back to the discrimination I witnessed during my youth in South Africa, I was momentarily overcome by the emotion of the moment, and I’m afraid that I barely made myself intelligible.
With the discussion concluded, the final vote was cast. To the great relief of myself and many others, the motion passed with a large majority.
The executive committee of the Netherlands Union Conference now has the difficult task of deciding when they will begin to ordain women, but the Dutch church has made its fundamental stand. No matter what, the Netherlands Union Conference has decided that female pastors should be treated equally to male pastors, and can safely say that today I am proud to be part of a church in which so many different voices can come together in respectful, heartfelt discussion and accomplish such great things in God’s name.
Tom de Bruin has been a pastor in the Netherlands for five years, and has recently submitted his PhD thesis to Leiden University on the topic of the Great Controversy as perceived by Christians in the first three centuries AD. He has just been elected as executive secretary of the Netherlands Union Conference. De Bruin notes, "This is a personal piece, not an official communication of the Netherlands Union Conference. Most of this I wrote when I was just a local pastor with a dream."
I also appreciate that there is, in the Netherlands Union, a clear commitment to work with the Church in the study of the Theology of Ordination, including Women's Ordination. I appreciate that the Netherlands Union does not intend to implement ordination of women until the current process has culminated at the General Conference Session in 2015.
However, what I pointed out to the Session delegates on 11 November, is that I think the decision would have benefited by two things: Firstly, the action would have been improved by recognizing in its language that the Union has already, through the Trans-European Division, asked the General Conference for permission to ordain women and that, as a division family, we are waiting for their answer, which will come in 2015, and that, therefore, it looks somewhat odd to now decide to do in the future what you have already asked for permission to do, before you have received the answer from the General Conference. Secondly, I think it is in principle, inadvisable to word an action now about what you will do in three years, since nobody knows exactly what the result will be of the study of the Theology of Ordination. The Church may, for example, change its policy language and use different and more biblical terminology about the induction of pastors, which the action of the Netherlands Union Session would want to recognise. In addition, there are members in the church in the Netherlands who are not yet clear on Women's Ordination, and the study process that is now in progress would in my view help them. With this action being taken now, these people are not given time to understand what may come from the world-church study process, but you tell them in advance what the outcome will be and what they are to think.
Having said that, I want to underline that the Trans-European Division is deeply committed to working for the unity of the Church, while doing all we can to empower men and women in their spiritual and administrative leadership in our church. The Holy Spirit is guiding us through the ministry of Ellen White, who said: ‘Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed ... They should be set apart to this work by prayer and the laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church.’ (Review and Herald, 9 July, 1895, p. 434)
I continue to pray that God will lead His Church to full clarity on the matter of "Ordination" and that we will be given the wisdom to handle the current situation in a true Christian Spirit, in patience, humility, with a concern also for the interests of others, and a commitment to do what is right”, concluded Wiklander.
For more information about the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the Netherlands, please visit www.adventist.nl [tedNEWS]