Flies in the ointment and how to deal with pro-woman ordination defeatists

Koot van Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD) Visiting Professor, Department of Liberal Education, Kyungpook National University, Sangju Campus, South Korea, Conjoint lecturer of Avondale College, Australia.

[Limitation and cautious perspective to this suggestion: The views expressed here is not that of this Division, nor the owners of this site, nor pastor Kwon or any of his associates, nor any pastors or conferences in this division. It is solely the view of this researcher]

Women ordination was the issue of the Annual Council of the General Conference in July of 2015 and for the third time the plea by the activists were rejected overwhelmingly.

The Editor of Adventist Today, a journal that is all but Adventist by name and cover, J. Newman suggested on Jon Paulien’s site that the issue is purely pragmatic and not theological. It isn’t. Woman ordination is fundamental to the whole scriptures. Regardless whether EGW was listed in a list of ordained pastors together she was never ordained herself. Israel was the only nation that did not participate in woman ordination and gay ministries.

So how do we deal with the rejectionists of the Annual Council decision of no for woman ordination? Already we hear of the Netherlands and Maddison Conference et al that will continue to ordain woman. Dealing with the issue is not to slumber. Learn from the prophet Isaiah, an ex-history professor in the court of the Kings who wrote the book of Kings by reading extensively in the records of the History of the Kings, much of which he wrote himself, to compile the book of Kings explaining king by king why they are weighed as fit or unfit for God’s work. This may be a solution.

I.                   What can be done is for the General Conference to sponsor two or three doctoral candidates to be mobile and migrate and move around in these rejectionist conferences gathering academic data regarding the participants in the pro-woman ordination issues:

1.     Are the pastors divorced and remarried?

2.     What is their stance on gay-ministry?

3.     Do they preach overtly preterism and idealism and clearly shelf historicism?

4.     Are they critical of the SDA lifestyle regarding eating habits, Spirit of Prophecy and actions of non-alcohol and non-smoking?

5.     Do they baptize members without proper Bible Studies?

6.     How long are they Adventists?

7.     Isaiah did blacklist the kings of Israel and Judah. The blacklisting was not merely based on his feelings but on an academic evaluation of objective data saying “are not the other actions of this individual very clearly known in the data books of the kings of Israel?”

This is the approach that we need to follow as well. A superficial hoping for a change in future will not be appropriate but will be an ostrich approach of head in the sand and hope for the best. In this way not only will current members be able to inform themselves why certain pastors reject clear biblical and theological stances of the church but also future generations will be able to go back and evaluate for themselves objectively.

II.                A revamp of the BRI team may be necessary. A MOU of acceptance of the no vote for the theological issue of Woman Ordination is critical for BRI and can affect the other teachings of the Adventist church as well. Consideration in this area is cautiously advised with proper discretion and proper public, published evidence.

III.             A revamp of the seminaries are also necessary. If professors refuse to sign the MOU of acceptance of this theological decided issue it may be a problem in future. The church did study the issue of the woman ordination in various countries by people inside the organizational and inside academic structure [Conference employees] but also by academic members outside and on the periphery. Some activists at Andrews University and other University in this regard needs to be looked at more closely as far as their publications and lectures and preaching is concerned whether they have other skew stances also. Are they also rejecting clear data in other Adventist issues and teach the students that stance? Are they breeding a generation of snakes rather than a generation of gatekeepers of truth? Caution is also advised here and diplomatic soft approaches can be done by academic analysis by doctoral candidates who analyze the situation carefully with full data. Areas that may need attention are Loma Linda, Andrews University (albeit just some professors), Sahmyook University (albeit just some professors), Netherlands, Maddison Conference and the General Conference will be able to list more educational institutions. There may be European seminaries that this writer is not aware of. Although this researcher is a conjoint lecturer of Avondale College, he is not physically in Australia to judge whether this college also needs an academic investigation on the stance of Adventism.

IV.            Historiography demands that the church should take an active role in recording the status quo albeit sometimes painful so that future generations can make a candid and proper decision for themselves weighing more data than meets the eye at current. Many members frown and cannot understand why members of the Adventist Church reject the clear teachings of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy on this issue and why the NAD chooses to be rebellious and push the admonishment of the other Divisions aside as not important. It is notorious for the North America Division to downplay the issue as practical and not theological and refuse to enter academically into the debate.

Dear God

We want to follow the biblical and academic approach that prof. Isaiah did when he wrote the book of Isaiah and the books of Kings. It is a shame that so much money was wasted on an issue that is biblically very clear. We pray that it will never happen again. Help us, the remnant  in our actions of unbelief and waywardness in this solemn hour of the history of the world. Amen