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 λόγος · ε τις πισκοπῆς ρέγεται, καλο ργου πιθυμε. 2 δε ον τν πίσκοπον νεπίλημπτον εναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς νδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον, φιλόξενον, διδακτικόν, 3 μ πάροινον, μ πλήκτην, λλ πιεικ, μαχον, φιλάργυρον,

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



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

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 authority2the 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 worldwideministerial 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 polityhow 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.”








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

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.