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