Adventist
History 1940-Present
Overview
of Trends in General Periodization
1940-1960ff.
“Grasshopper Complex”
The
period between 1940 to 1960 and later was known for Adventists to suffer the
syndrome known of Israel when they met the Canaanites on their way after the
Exodus in 1450 BCE. They thought the Canaanites are like giants and they are
like grasshoppers. It is a psychological minority complex in the presence of
what appear to the senses an outnumbered, super qualitative competitor.
“During the late 1940’s, a division of opinion became prominent among Adventist evangelists as to the wisdom of identifying their meetings with Seventh-day Adventists. Fearful that prejudice would keep most people away, Seventh-day Adventist evangelists had traditionally avoided a denominational label, arguing that their messages were “for the people of every denomination”. J. L. Schuler for example used the label “American Bible Institute”(Schwarz Lightbearers page 581)
Attempts
to Address the Grasshopper Syndrome
M.
K. Eckenroth used the open label method and had success (Schwarz 1979: 581).
Fordyce Detamore disagreed and followed still the closed label method. In 1950
J. L. Schuler felt that it was wise in advertising to mention that it was run
by Seventh-day Adventists. A similar position was argued by L. E. Froom
(Schwarz 1979: 582). President R. R. Figuhr asked evangelists in 1958 to
experiment with new methods for projecting their message to the world.
Paradigm
shift in Public Evangelism: the “Spearhead Campaign”
Around
1958 the spearhead campaign was tried and local church members first launched
an intensive drive to enroll people for the Adventist Bible Correspondence
Course. When a group materialized they called an evangelist to nurture them.
1958-1965
The Grasshopper Complex and the Origin of Doctrinal “Trimmings” in or to make
Adventists appear more “ecumenical”
The
origin of ecumenism and the World Council of Churches processes of that time
created a spirit of denominations who all sought to work together and W. Martin
wrote a book on separating the sheep and the goats. Adventists were considered
a “sect” and this leprosy announcement had the church leaders like R. Figuhr
and L. E. Froom uncomfortable.
J.
Zurcher described in his book the process of how Adventists then went ahead and
tried to hide certain doctrinal statements from the eyes of the Ecumenical
Public so that Adventism can be considered also a church in the “Reformed
Tradition” and thus no longer a sect. The Dean of Emmanuel Missionary College
and L. E. Froom worked together on this. It was in 1958 that Froom wrote an
article in Ministry hailing this “trimming” of offensive phrases a victory for
an era of “new theology” in Adventism. Especially on the human nature of Christ
certain statements were altered in publication so as to not give a wrong
impression to the “Religious Canaanites out there”.
The
Questions on Doctrine Problem of the 1950’s
Doctoral
dissertations have been written on this, also by Julius Nam and many others. What
one needs to ask as a matter of pure and truth methodology, is whether it is
appropriate to be selective in setting up an image of Adventism for the sake of
the Environment, even if that is not exactly true if all data are considered?
This
was the fundamental problem in the 1950s-1960. (see Schwarz 1979 pp. 542-546)
You
could emphasize that Christ was not like us since He has a human nature like
Adam before the fall since He was sinless. In order to successfully do so one
has to under-emphasize or even leave out statements to the contrary explaining
that Christ was in all points as we are except no sin. Statements in Desire of
Ages saying explicitly that He took human nature in its fallen state, thus
after the fall and not before. This is what L. E. Froom and others of that time
did.
Origin
of the modern “liberal Trojan Horse in Adventism”
The
result of these look-like “Reformed Theology” of Adventism led to other
consequences that left serious events in the way of the future.
If
you say that Christ is just like Adam and not like us fallen, then Christ is
what we are not.
He
does not have original sin, we do. And some started to preach that.
Because
we have original sin we can never keep the law of God 100%.
If
we say we can, we are saving ourselves and then we are legalists.
We
can never be perfect since Christ only is our Perfection. Only at the Second
Coming can we be perfect. In this way they had to overlook biblical statements
that read that Henoch and Job were perfect. Also the demand by Christ that humans
need to be perfect as He is perfect. They will hardly every preach about these
texts.
The
emphasis is the utter inability of the person to save himself and the total
dependence on Christ for his salvation. A very strong Reformed Theological
approach.
Other
doctrines came to be questioned. The Investigative Judgment is not necessary as
a later phase of Atonement since they took the few verses of Hebrews saying
that “once and for all” His sacrifice was enough. They want to argue that
everything was done on the cross in 31 CE and that there is nothing for Christ
to do any longer for the salvation of man. Again a strong Reformed position
both in Lutheranism and Calvinism.
Christological
Approach Emphasized
Towards
the end of the 1970’s scholars and church members began to realize that if they
uplift the Christ Approach in every doctrine, then it “calms down” the
lobbyists of the Fordites. Reformed trained scholars in Adventism like Edward
Heppenstall and Hans LaRondelle did just that. They basically put Adventist
Theological narrative in a Reformed garb and throughout their career presented
this in a strong Christological approach. It is not wrong to do it for the
Scriptures (both Old and New Testament) speaks of Christ. But it is wrong when
the writer of the book, like Revelation, did not have this fixed focus only, to
brush aside other important aspects and superimpose a Christ only approach.
The
hermeneutical principle is that the focus of the writer is more important than
the focus of the reader and that if the reader thinks he/she is entitled or
authorized to superimpose their own ideas over that of the writer, then they
are creating a new theology or they are like Origen who was allegorizing
everything in the Bible.
Transformational
Eschatology
Partly
dr. LaRondelle was involved in creating the axiom that Jesus took data that
David applied to himself in the Psalms and adapted it for Himself. He “transformed”
what was referring to David to make it refer to Himself. Many times one finds
this phrase in LaRondelle in his book on Deliverance
in the Psalms.
Here
is the problem. Did the Holy Spirit not write the Psalms together with David?
Did He not pack into the suitcase of David the Jesus statements and did Jesus
not just took out of the suitcase that He and the Holy Spirit packed in around
1040 BC with David writing? Is LaRondelle not making Jesus now a plagiarist who
“steal” David’s work and claim it for Himself? What do you think?
.
When
Jon Paulien, who was a student of LaRondelle, saw this axiom in LaRondelle, he
thought that it gave him the freedom to extend this transformation further. He
then suggested that the whole Old Testament grew in theology. That eschatology
was hardly understood in early history and that Moses was involved in a gradual
developmental understanding of eschatology, wrongly allocating heaven to
Palestine’s Israel at first, thus a transformational eschatology that would
evolved to what it is in the New Testament and with us today. This is J.
Paulien’s position in End-Times. LaRondelle
was the product of G. Vos and the Ridderbos father and son theological
methodology from the Free University of Amsterdam. The
history of the Trojan Horse of Liberalism in the Dutch Reform, German
(Lutheran) and South African Calvinist denominations are adequately described
in books, youtube videos and articles by Freddie Muller. The Free University of
Amsterdam started as a result of a reaction against the onslaught of Higher
Critical thinking in the theological schools. It was an attempt to escape
modernism of a Rudolph Bultmann kind. Even
though the Free University of Amsterdam was the best option for Hans LaRondelle
to study at in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, his promoter of his
dissertation, Systematic Theologican G. Berkhouwer, was actively participating
in Vatican II, the ecumenical council of the Catholic Church around 1965. 72
professors of non-Catholic churches participated and Berkhouwer was one. Andrews
University starting with the paradigm shift to “show to the denominations” In
1958 the Autumn Council accepted the Lake Union’s proposal and the transfer of
the seminary to Berrien Springs Michigan began (Schwarz 1979: 491). In
1959-1960 the school operated on a divided campus between Takoma Park and
Berrien Springs. W. G. G. Murdoch started a new paradigm in Adventist
Theological training at Andrews. By 1964 everyone was convinced that all pastors
should be trained here (Schwarz 1979: 491). That
all curriculum updates and development was to impress the other denominations,
is mentioned in one sentence at the end of the doctoral programs added to
Andrews University saying “because of the increased recognition the seminary
faculty had won in non-Adventist scholastic circles” (Schwarz 1979: 493). Again
the “grasshopper complex terminology” acknowledged by the church historian. Seeds
of unbiblical notions: woman elder and pastor ordination request First
of all, it is not wrong to say that the Bible does not support in any text the
ordination of a woman elder or woman pastor. Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 3:1 Original Text 1 Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος · εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ. 2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον
ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον, φιλόξενον, διδακτικόν, 3 μὴ πάροινον, μὴ πλήκτην, ἀλλὰ ἐπιεικῆ, ἄμαχον, ἀφιλάργυρον, Transliterated Text for
Phonics Pistos
ho logos, ei tis episkptēs horegetai,
kalou ergou epithumei. dei
oun ton epistkopon anempilēmpton einai mias
hunaikos andra nēphalion, sōphrona kosmion,
philoxenon, didaktikon mē paroinon mē plēktēn alla epieikē amachon
haphilarguron
Translation A
faithful word, if whomever (masculine or feminine relative pronoun) desires to
be an elder, he/she desires a good work. Then
must the elder not drink be a husband of one wife … Grammatical Notes --Paul
does say the whomever is masculine or feminine in 1 Timothy 3:1. --Paul
clarify and limit the option of masculine or feminine in 1 Timothy 3:1 to be
only masculine in 1 Timothy 3:2. --Paul
does not say: “be a wife of one husband” or “be a person of one spouse”. --Since
the Holy Spirit as Editor of the Bible knew that in future of our times
requests will be made due to feministic trends that woman should be elder or
pastor, if that was legitimate the Holy Spirit would have said it clearly
through Paul. “By
the early 1970’s an increasing number of women were asking why they should be
automatically excluded from the full work of the gospel ministry. Church
leaders appointed a variety of study groups to survey this possibility. In
spite of favorable recommendations the church leadership decided in 1975 that
the worldwide body of Adventists was not yet ready to accept ordination of
women to the ministry. Several years earlier it had agreed to a limited number
of women serving on a trial basis as ordained local elders” (Schwarz 1979: 495). “In
September 1973 Dr. Josephine Benton, who had been ordained as the first
Adventist local elder the previous year [1972 the year Desmond Ford graduated
and joined the Avondale Staff in Australia] joined the pastoral staff of the
large Sligo Seventh-day Adventist church in Takoma Park. Subsequently, other
female local elders appeared at Walla Walla College and Atlantic Union College.
But as of March 1975 Dr. Benton was the only woman pastor in North America” (Schwarz
1979: 495). They
went against the straight counsel of Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1-2. They read into
the Bible what was not explicitly explained to do. Methodological
question: Can one change the Bible on the basis of culture developments? Is
Culture to be over the Bible or the Bible over Culture? Ask Daniel and his
friends. What is your view? .
“Shifting
ideas as to just what role women should play in the Adventist ministry
demonstrate the interaction between the church and the world in which it
operates. Just as the growing Women’s Liberation Movement of the 1960’s and 70’s
undoubtedly heightened Adventist women’s interest in a larger role in the group
that traditionally has directed the work of the church, so the economic
distress of the 1930’s had reinforced the image of the strictly supportive and
subordinate role of Adventists women. …These concerns grew increasingly complex
in the post-World War I period. 1966-1978
Robert Pierson Presidency and the Gerhard Hasel Project General
Conference Presidents John
Byington, 1863-1865; James White, 1865-1867, 1869-1871, 1874-1880; J.
N. Andrews, 1867-1869; G. I. Butler, 1871-1874, 1880-1888; 0. A. Olsen, 1888-1897;
G. A. Irwin, 1897-1901; A. G. Daniells, 1901-1922; W. A. Spicer, 1922-1930;
C. H. Watson, 1930-1936; J. L. McElhany, 1936-1950; W.
H. Branson, 1950-1954; R. R. Figuhr, 1954-1966; R. H. Pierson, 1966- 1978;
N. C. Wilson, 1979- 17 [4] Neal
C. Wilson (5
July 1920 - 14 December 2010) 3 January
1979 6 July 1990 11 Years six months 18 [5] Robert
S. Folkenberg (1
January 1941 - 24 December 2015) 6
July 1990 1 March 1999 8 Years 8 months 19 [6] Jan
Paulsen[1] (5
January 1935 - ) 1 March 1999 23 June 2010 11
Years, 3 Months 20 Ted N.C. Wilson.jpg Ted N. C. Wilson[2][3] (10
May 1950 - ) 23 June 2010 present -
Pierson
was for 30 years in the Mission field in the Far East. He came back in 1966 and
was very shocked to see his church and what had happened to it. He became
president and started a reform movement and process of “weeding out the roots
of liberalism” at our institutions. He used Gerhard Hasel. A
number of famous professors of Andrews University had to move to La Sierra and
Loma Linda University and elsewhere due to their uncritical stance on Higher
Criticism. As
far as woman ordination push-drive is concerned, they tried again in 1968. A.Timm
wrote: “From a pastoral perspective, in 1968 the Northern European Division
forwarded a request from the Finland Union (which during World War II placed
some women into pastoral positions) to ordain women to the gospel ministry; but
that request was not followed up.” This was during the Pierson years which
started in 1966. The request would not be followed up. What
is liberalism in Adventism? It
is the attitude that Adventism is too narrow-minded. They are too critical of
other churches. They are secular focused. They are careless with the literal
interpretation of the Bible. They sometimes admitted they do not know the Bible
too well. Instead
of epistemological-textual approach to life they favor a humanistic-ontological
approach. Example
of the substitution of the epistemological textual approach by the
humanistic-ontological approach defined as “inner Spirit”. “Also
in 1988, Iris M. Yob argued for Adventist feminism in her book, The Church and
Feminism: An Exploration of Common Ground. Relying more on the inner witness of
the Spirit than on biblical debates, Yob suggested, Further study of the issues
as they appear in Scripture will continue to be important, no doubt, but the
inner witness to the value God places on them may have greater influence on the
women in the church than continuing disputes over the occasional difficult
passages. Women in the Adventist church are already coming to sense within
themselves the impact of the Gospel message that “proclaims liberty” to the
oppressed”. Source: Iris M. Yob, The Church and Feminism: An Exploration of
Common Ground (Englewook, CO: Winsen Publications, 1988), 49-50; op.cit by
A.Timm, “Seventh-day Adventists on Women’s Ordination: A brief historical
overview“ Theology of Ordination Study Committee. Columbia, MD. January 21-25,
2014. Downloaded from the internet on the 13th of June 2021 at
https://www.adventistarchives.org/seventh-day-adventists-on-womens-ordination-a-brief-historical-overview.pdf.
Notice
the cancellation of the Scriptural investigation and the insistence that some
kind of inner voice must lead the person, Bible scripture or not.
Opposition
to Woman Ordination grew since 1987 “Those
opposing women’s ordination were also active. In 1987 the independent
Adventists Affirm ministry came into existence, publishing in the spring of
that year the first issue of its periodical Affirm, with the subtitle A Publication
Affirming Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs. The title was changed in its second
issue to Adventists Affirm, but preserving the same subtitle. This unofficial
Adventist periodical became, since its first issue, an influential resource in
opposition to the pro-women’s ordination movement. Its first editorial board included
William Fagal (editor), Hedwing Jemison (treasurer), C. Mervyn Maxwell, C.
Raymond Holmes, and Samuele Bacchiocchi. In 1994 Adventists Affirm also began
to publish some of the most widely distributed anti-women’s ordination books.
Also in 1987 Samuele Bacchiocchi published his 295-page anti-women’s ordination
book titled, Women in the Church: A Biblical Study on the Role of Women in the
Church” (op. cit. Timm, page 6).
Cohutta
Springs Meetings (1989) whether each region should decide for themselves? “Significant
for the ongoing discussion about women’s ordination was also the meetings of
the Commission on the Role of Women in the Church that took place in Cohutta
Springs, Georgia, July 12-18, 1989. After much discussion, two documents
emerged from those meetings. A group of 18 leaders (including the General
Conference president and secretary, as well as the presidents of the 10
divisions) developed the “Presidents’ Document,” which was adopted on July 16
by a vote of 56 to 11 with one abstention. The document concluded that (1) “a decision
to ordain women as pastors would not be welcomed or meet with approval in most
of the world church”; and (2) “the provisions of the Church Manual and the
General Conference Working Policy which allow only for ordination to the gospel
ministry on a world-wide (universal) basis have strong support by the
divisions.” 67 So, the document excluded ordinations
intended to be limited to a specific geographical area. By
their turn, the 17 women who attended the Cohutta Springs sessions of the
Commission on the Role of Women in the Church formed an ad hoc committee to
give further study to the subject. A set of “Women Commissioners’
Recommendations” was submitted to the commission, which voted to refer the
recommendations to the General Conference officers for further study. Aiming
“to affirm and address the wide-ranging talents of women,” the document
appealed for equal job opportunities; better training and education for pastor’s
spouses; more respect and recognition; and more effective female representatives
at all administrative levels of the church, including a General Conference
vice-president.” (op. cit. Timm pages 12-13). NAD
goes Rebellious/Renegate “A
number of arguments have been presented in support of these union actions. One
of the most influential was Gary Patterson’s text “General Conference in Violation of Its Own Policy,”
released on August 15, 2012. The author argues, for instance, that (1) the
General Conference Policy provides that “decisions regarding the ordination of
ministers are entrusted to the union conference”; (2) “the General Conference
has no authority over the union decisions
as long as these decisions are in harmony with the criteria established for ordination
by General Conference policy”; (3) of the fifteen criteria for ordination
listed in the GC Working Policy none refers in any way to gender; (4) the
previous action of the church in regard to women’s ordination (1975, 1985, 1990,
and 1995) were only denials and did not define policy; and, thus, (5) “the unions
are not out of policy on this matter of gender inclusiveness in the ordination
of ministers, the General Conference itself is out of policy.” 144 To some,
such reasoning seemed to justify the Columbia Union Conference decision to
ordain females to the gospel ministry right away. Aware of the General
Conference disapproval of the Columbia Union Conference action, on August 19,
2012, the Pacific Union Conference voted by 79% to 21% to “approve ordination to the
gospel ministry without regard to gender.”145 General Conference President Ted
Wilson attended the constituency meetings of both the Columbia Union Conference
(July 29) and the Pacific Union Conference (Aug. 19). At each meeting he asked
the delegates to wait for the outcome of the Theology of Ordination Study
Committee mentioned above. But the majority of the delegates felt that further
delay would not resolve the matter and that it was appropriate for the union
organization, which normally approves ordination anyway, to determine how it
would relate to the presence of women in ministry. On
August 19 the General Conference Officers released “A Response to the Actions
of the Pacific Union Conference Constituency Meeting on Sunday, August 19,
2012.” Resembling somewhat the response to Columbia Union Conference (released
on August 7), this new document warned, The
action of the Pacific Union to grant Ministerial Ordination “without respect to
gender” preempts the process voted for the current study of ordination theology
and practices by committing the Pacific Union Conference to a particular
outcome before the study-and-discussion process is completed. It also expresses
a lack of trust in the integrity of the general process accepted and voted by
General Conference administrators and personnel, division officers, and pastors
and lay members from all the world divisions who serve on the General
Conference Executive Committee, which includes the presidents of the 125 unions
representing the world church, regarding how we approach common challenges. Further,
the action is contrary to General Conference Working Policy and sets aside the
1990 and 1995 decisions of the General Conference in Session respecting the
practice of ordination. The action taken by the Pacific Union Conference
represents a serious threat to the unity of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist
Church, and thus, at its next meeting in October 2012, as indicated in another
recent public statement by General Conference officers and division presidents,
the General Conference Executive Committee will carefully review the situation
and determine how to respond.146 Some
members supported and even applauded what they saw as the courage of both the
Columbia Union and the Pacific Union in bypassing the General Conference and
the worldwide church by approving ordination “without regard to gender.” Others
saw the votes as rebellion, with ecclesiological consequences far beyond the
ordination/no-ordination issue. In their thinking, if a union can bypass the
General Conference, why cannot a local conference/mission or even a local
church do the same to its own union? Still others pointed out that “without
regard to gender” is an inclusive expression used today in reference to men,
women, and intersexed individuals.147 By incorporating this expression into
their action, some wonder if these unions were promising in theory something
that in practice they will not carry on (namely the ordination of homosexuals)
or are they already contemplating such a possibility? The
documents and publications referred to in this paper reflect a discussion that
took over important segments of the church. This discussion has been taken also
to the pulpit by preachers like Dwight
K. Nelson (favoring women’s ordination)148 and Doug Batchelor (speaking against women’s ordination).149
Furthermore, on September 5, 2012, “the Pacific Union Conference Executive
Committee approved fourteen women and two men for ordination.” 150
Soon after, ordinations of women to the gospel ministry took place at both the
Pacific Union Conference and the Columbia Union Conference. The General
Conference responded to these moves at its 2012 Annual Council. On October 16,
after a sermon by Mark A. Finley on
“The Acts Model: Settling Differences in the Context of Mission” (see Appendix
3) and much prayer, the delegates voted the document, “Statement on Church
Polity, Procedures and Resolution of Disagreements in the Light of Recent Union
Actions on Ministerial Ordination.” Approved by 264 votes in favor and 25 opposed,151
the document reads as follows: Foundational
principles for Seventh-day Adventist Church structure and operations are rooted
in the Bible and draw heavily from the teachings of Jesus, the apostles and the
experience of the early Church. In the New Testament the people of God are
urged to demonstrate unity (John 15 and 17, Ephesians 4); to engage in
worldwide mission (Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 1:7-8, Acts 10-11); to acknowledge
differences/disagreements and to have a process for their resolution (Acts 6,
15, Galatians 3:26-29, Philippians 2); and to live as a transformed and
transforming community in a fractured and sin-burdened world (Ephesians 2-4). The
Seventh-day Adventist Church seeks to preserve its identity as a united global family
while addressing mission opportunities and challenges in widely differing
cultural, political and economic environments. The desire to hold two
objectives, global unity1, and global mission, in creative and dynamic balance
has led to an organizational structure that shares and delegates responsibility
for mission within a framework of participation in and respect for collective
decision-making processes. Within this organizational structure, decisions of a
General Conference Session represent the highest authority2—the voice
of the whole Church in respect to beliefs, procedures and relationships. It is
natural to expect that in response to diverse and ever-changing circumstances differences
will arise in determining the most appropriate ways of accomplishing mission while
also preserving Church structure and relationships. The articulation of
different viewpoints and the expression of disagreement are important ways by
which the Church gains new insights and more fully understands the global
impact of decisions. Speaking and listening, when done respectfully, are
essential to the operational health of the whole body and its continuing
effectiveness in mission. The process adopted by the Church for the
resolution of disagreements involves forums where all those affected by a
decision are represented in the exploration and adoption of decisions.The call,
by both individuals and organizations, for change in ministerial ordination practices
illustrates one expression of disagreement. This subject has been on the global
agenda of the Church at General Conference Sessions for several decades. Thus
far the General Conference Session (by actions in 19903 and 19954) has chosen
the pathway of uniform practice worldwide—ministerial ordination for males
only. A recurring question is whether or not the authority to grant ministerial
ordination without regard to gender could be granted to divisions without
making the provision mandatory everywhere. Several unions in various parts of
the world have voiced support for this kind of change in ministerial ordination
practices. Three union constituency sessions have authorized their executive committees
to approve ministerial ordination without regard to gender. Of these, two have recently
chosen to proceed according to the constituency decision.Decisions to pursue a
course of action not in harmony with the 1990 and 1995 General Conference
Session decisions (with respect to ministerial ordination) represent not only
an expression of dissent but also a demonstration of self-determination in a
matter previously decided by the collective Church. The General Conference
Executive Committee regards these actions as serious mistakes. They directly
challenge two world Church decisions on the matter of ordination. They create
doubts about the importance of collective decision-making as a basic feature of
denominational life. They weaken the fabric of Church life and operations by
giving opportunity for other entities to follow this example in order to
justify independence and autonomy in other matters rather than maintaining a mutual
commitment to collective decision-making. The world Church cannot legitimize
practices that clearly contradict the intent of General Conference Session
actions. This applies to ordination decisions as well as to other matters in
which a local organization may feel constrained not just to voice its disagreement
with the world Church but to proceed along a pathway that directly conflicts with
the expressed will of the worldwide Church. Accordingly, the world Church does
not recognize actions authorizing or implementing ministerial ordination without
regard to gender. This statement deals with Church structure and procedures. It
does not address the question of ministerial ordination practices per se. The
central issue is one of Church polity—how the Church
defines its organization, governance and operations. Historically, the
Seventh-day Adventist Church has developed on the principle of interdependence rather
than independence. A course of action contrary to the will of the whole places
the organization at risk. Discussion and debate about ministerial ordination
practice is a separate matter and is under global study and review. General
Conference Session decisions (1990 and 1995) did not authorize ministerial
ordination without regard to gender, either globally or regionally. Any change
in this practice requires action by a General Conference Session. Every Church
organization in the world has been given the opportunity of participating in the
current global study. This can be accomplished through interaction with the
respective division-appointed Biblical Research Committee. Division Biblical
Research Committees will interface with the General Conference-appointed
Theology of Ordination Study Committee. The study is to be completed by 2014
with a report from the Theology of Ordination Study Committee presented to the
General Conference Executive Committee at its 2014 Annual Council, which will
decide what to refer to the General Conference Session in 2015. The
role of women in ministry and leadership has been a long-standing question. It
is one that attracts strong yet differing convictions and can readily divide
families, congregations and constituencies. The process toward finding acceptable
solutions must not obscure the contribution that women have made and continue
to make in many areas of Church life and leadership. The
General Conference Executive Committee specifically affirms the important roles
that women fill in the life of the Church. Their giftedness and commitment is a
blessing to the whole Church and a necessary part of its work in mission. Further
Rebellious Action 1 Columbia Union 15 more Even
so, in November 2012 it was reported, “16 Female Pastors Approved for
Ordination” by the Columbia Union Conference; 153 and “Seven More Women
Approved for Ordination by Pacific Union Conference.”154 Further
Rebellious Action 2 Pacific added seven more By
adding “seven more” to the 14 approved two months earlier, the Pacific Union total
came to 21 female pastors. These decisions were followed by several women’s
ordination ceremonies at those two union conferences.
Further
Rebellious 3 Actions: Electing a Women President against GC policy in
Southeastern California Conference By adding
“seven more” to the 14 approved two months earlier, the Pacific Union total
came to 21 female pastors. These decisions were followed by several women’s
ordination ceremonies at those two union conferences.155Another controversial
step was taken by the constituency of the Southeastern California Conference
(part of the Pacific Union Conference) on October 27, 2013, when they elected
Sandra E. Roberts as president of that conference.156 According to the General
Conference Working Policy, “a conference/mission/field president shall be an
ordained minister.”
Sources: Tony
Ogouma, Bohoussou Yao, Kossi-Ekao Amouzou, Ndombeth Emeryc Abib, “A Brief
History of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in South Africa: 1869-1920” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social
Science Volume 21/6 Ver. X (June 2017). Downloaded
from the internet on the 13 of June 2021 at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340502620_A_Brief_History_of_the_Seventh-Day_Adventist_Church_in_South_Africa_1869-1920 With
the spirit of “wokenism” many scholars in Adventism also try to minimize the
role of colonial Adventism or Adventist efforts in colonial times by focusing on
the racial aspects, issues, comments etc. in order to minimize, even cancel
their role as non-important. This trend has all the roots of deviation from the
truth of reality and truth itself unless it tries to come forward with new
information and data supplementing the already existing legacy of positive
achievements. The untold story of the groups not in the limelight of colonial
lamps, is important and should be found and brought to the light. The focus
should not be a war of words in order to diminish and cause a self-appearance
after extinction of the previous. Marxism works this way, Christianity not.