By Colleen Tinker
What is a conference president (or a pastor) supposed to do if he opposes the Adventist organization’s policies?
The General Conference thinks it knows—intractable leaders must have no voice and no vote. Technicalities plague the implementation of this discipline, however, and once again, the underlying concern of compliance with the women’s ordination policy has been deferred.
The Seventh-day Adventist organization has been unable to come to terms with the question of women’s ordination. For over two decades, Adventists, especially in North America and in the Trans-European Division, have been attempting to change Adventist policy to allow for women to receive full ordination and to hold the positions of senior pastor and conference presidents.
This question has come up at General Conference sessions and also at Annual Councils repeatedly, and each time women’s ordination has been voted down. The vote against women being ordained as pastors is swayed by the large numbers of delegates representing African and South American countries where local cultures would not easily accept women being pastors over men.
In general, the North American Division and the Trans-European Division highly favor women’s ordination and have even suggested this vote be determined by individual divisions instead of by a worldwide policy issued at the general conference level. This suggestion, however, has been rejected consistently; pastoral ordination must be consistent around the world.
Within Adventism, women may be “commissioned” but not “ordained”. Commissioned pastors may conduct communion and, if they are local elders, they may administer marriage vows and declarations. Ordained pastors, a position limited to men, have no restrictions on rites and ceremonies they may conduct, including baptisms, presiding over member discipline, ordaining elders, deacons, and deaconesses, organizing churches, and serving as conference presidents.
At the 2015 General Conference session, the vote to allow women to be ordained again failed to pass. In the face of their persistent inability to effect any change in vote despite how many years pass and how many studies are done, several conferences in the United States have independently decided to practice equality between men and women with regard to ordination and job descriptions. Even prior to the 2015 vote, the Southeastern California Conference, for example—the home of Loma Linda and La Sierra Universities—has ceased ordaining its male pastors, choosing instead to “commission” all its pastors and to allow women to hold and perform every duty that men may. In fact, in 2013 Southeastern made a bold statement by electing Sandra Roberts to the office of conference president—a position which the general conference fails to acknowledge because female conference presidents are against policy.
This independence is seen by the general conference as rebellion and failure to comply with policy. Yet in the case of the Southeastern California Conference, for example, discipline could yield a further distancing from leadership. For pragmatic reasons alone, Adventist leaders would not want to lose the support of this wealthy conference.
At the Annual Council in 2016—the annual business meeting of the Seventh-day Adventist organization attended by the Executive Committee and invitees from around the world—this unresolved problem of women’s ordination was addressed indirectly. Because of the independent actions of conferences such as Southeastern California, the Annual Council implemented a new statement, Phase 1 of a document entitled, “Procedures for Reconciliation and Adherence in Church Governance” which called for each divisions to adhere to the principles of the world church—including strict compliance with general conference policy concerning women’s ordination.
The statement was not limited to addressing how individual unions and divisions would address ordination, however, but also addressed the “unity” each church division was expected to practice as it administered all policies. The intention was for non-compliant unions to correct their direction in a process of reconciliation by 2017.
Phase 2
It was evident almost immediately, however, that the non-compliant unions were not going to change their decisions to ordain women and to give equal job descriptions and pay to women pastors. When this year’s Annual Council convened last Friday, October 6, a second document, Phase II of “Procedures for Reconciliation and Adherence in Church Governance” was ready to present to the world delegates. Instead of giving the document to the delegates in advance, so they could know its contents when the meeting began, they passed it out and read it aloud at the afternoon session on Monday of this week. This document has gone from attempting to have conversations with unions which have been independently ordaining women and has outlined the consequences for those who persist.
Instead of dealing with the problem primarily at the organizational level, Phase 2 of the document addressed what would happen to the individuals who endorse out-of-compliance practices. If ratified, the document proposes that members of the Executive Committee, which includes representatives from every world division and union and conference, would have to sign a statement of compliance with the General Conference policies when they register to attend the 2018 Annual Council. Moreover, if individuals have been in positions of encouraging people under their authority to act outside of policy, they have to renounce their non-compliance and state their future agreement with official policy.
The document says in part:
Not only denominational entities, but also individual members of the General Conference Executive Committee are accountable to the General Conference Executive Committee in following procedures and actions by the Executive Committee, the General Conference in session, and the General Conference Working Policy.
Working Policy is therefore the combined decisions of global leadership regarding how entities live and work together. It is the willing submission one to another in love as the “family code of conduct.” Compliance with Working Policy is a standard of conduct for Seventh-day Adventist leaders.
It is obvious that in matters of conscience that members are not to be forced against their will, however, the principles provided in the Spirit of Prophecy indicate that when the world church in session makes a decision it should be respected and human opinion should be submitted to the world church’s decision.
Further, the document divides non-compliance into three categories. There is non-compliance with the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, non-compliance with “Voted actions of the General Conference in session. Voted policies and actions of the General Conference Executive Committee that are designed for global implementation through divisions, unions, conferences, and missions, which, if not implemented, would adversely impact Church unity,” and non-compliance with policies that are local in nature and are not voted on by the General Conference.
In other words, women’s ordination comes under Category 2. It is a world-wide policy voted by the General Conference.
Delegates who persist in violating the General Conference policy denying ordination to women, who continue to endorse the practice in their unions, conferences, and churches, would be unable to sign the document that permits them to participate in the 2018 Annual Council. Such people would be prohibited from speaking or from voting. They would functionally be excluded from the committee, and their votes would be lost.
The document they would be expected to sign states in part,
I agree to respect church structure and abide by the General Conference Working Policy which has been voted by worldwide representation.
If my organization or entity has voted or has been engaged in actions, and/or unilateral activities or has released statements or pronouncements which are not in harmony with General Conference Session actions, …I will use my influence as a member of the General Conference Executive Committee to reverse and reject those actions recognizing that normal and accepted administrative Church procedures are to be followed regarding any adjustments to policy or voted actions.
Document Sent Back
Ultimately, it was suggested during the discussion that there is a constitutional problem with the document as it was worded, and the delegates, after nearly six hours in session, voted to send it back to the committee that wrote it for revisions. Thus, Phase 2 of this problem will not be able to be addressed again until Annual Council in 2018.
In essence, the delegates have bought more time. Theoretically, it is possible that they could find constitutional reasons to table such a document until the next General Conference session in 2020. If such a delay were to occur, it is possible that a new general conference president could be elected, and this entire issue might be dealt with differently.
Membership Update
David Trim from the department of archives and statistics presented a membership update that was also revealing. As of June 30, 2017, the Adventist organization has 20,343,814 baptized members world-wide. Significantly, however, at the same time that “a person is baptized into the Adventist Church every 23 seconds” (3,000 per day for the last two years), 39 percent, or two out of every five members leave.
Trim emphasized, however, the consistent mantra explaining the attrition: “Let me remind you that members do not usually leave because of theological differences but because they go through a crisis in life or experience conflict in the church community,” he said. “They might feel unmissed, uncared for, unimportant, and after a few years, they just slip through the cracks.”
After Trim presented his membership statistics, Executive Secretary G. T. Ng attempted to reassure the delegates that “there is no such thing as plain sailing; there are ups and downs.” He proceeded to discuss seven crises that have occurred through Adventist history which the organization has survived: the Marion rebellion, the Canright defection, the 1888 theological crisis, the 1901 organizational crisis, the Kellogg crisis, the Conradi defection, and the Ford crisis.
The Marion rebellion occurred in 1865 when the leaders of the Iowa Conference defected and expressed doubts over Ellen White’s prophetic ministry and the core doctrines of the investigative judgment.
In 1887 Dudley Canright and his wife terminated their relationship with the Seventh-day Adventist organization, and the next year he published his still-widely-read book, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced. The Adventist organization, Ng admitted, is “still suffering” from the influence of this 22-year veteran of Adventist ministry and evangelism who worked closely with James and Ellen White but who left because of his growing disbelief in Ellen White’s authority and leadership.
The 1888 Theological Crisis occurred at the General Conference session in Minneapolis, Minnesota. General Conference president Butler and secretary Uriah Smith, the acknowledged Adventist theologians, were on one side; A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, the editors of Signs of the Times, were on the other. Jones and Waggoner presented the divisive doctrine of “righteousness by faith”, and Butler and Smith hotly opposed them. Ellen White endorsed Jones and Waggoner.
The delegates at the conference were split, and Ellen White described the flaring tempers and “rebellion” as the “most incomprehensible tug of war we have ever had among our people.”
Incidentally, Ellen White had a vision in which her angel convinced her the Lord wanted her to stay and attempt to mediate at the conference. Further, while many Adventists believe that the “righteousness by faith” message was the real gospel, it still endorsed the great controversy worldview, Ellen White’s prophetic authority, the material nature of man, and the seventh-day Sabbath. In fact, E. J. Waggoner wrote, “God has wrought out salvation for every man, and has given it to him; but the majority spurn it and throw it away. The judgment will reveal the fact that full salvation was given to every man and that the lost have deliberately thrown away their birthright possession.”
In other words, at the heart of the 1888 Message is universalism: a belief that all people are born saved and are lost when they choose to reject what has already by done. This belief is opposite of what Scripture teaches, that all humanity is born spiritually dead and must believe and trust in the Lord Jesus and receive His new birth and the sealing of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Eph. 2:1–3-; Rom. 3:9–12, Jn. 3:3–6).
More Adventist Crises
The 1901 organizational crisis occurred in the then-headquarters of Adventism, Battle Creek. In 1894 Ellen White had declared that the General Conference leadership “was no longer ‘the voice of God’.” She believed the “concentration of power in the hands of a few” amounted to “kingly power”, and she said the “concentrations of institutions in Battle Creek” were not able to manage the international expansion that the organization was experiencing. She called for reorganization, and the union conferences and departments were developed.
In 1901 all of these new organizations were incorporated into the Adventist structure, and once again Ellen White endorsed the authority of the General Conference because it included representative voices. In fact, she had a vision showing her that “God’s angels have been walking up and down in [the] congregation” during the 1901 General Conference meetings.
The Kellogg crisis involved the Adventist John Harvey Kellogg who changed the face of Adventist breakfast foods with his flaked grain cereals. Near the end of the 19th century, Kellogg came into conflict with the Adventist organization because he wanted control of the institutions he had founded: the Battle Creek Sanitarium, the Battle Creek Food Company and a health institution in Mexico.
During this time of growing conflict with the Adventist organization, Kellogg wrote a book called The Living Temple. Ellen White denounced it as “pantheism”, the “alpha of all heresies.”
In fact, Kellogg argued in a seven-hour interview with two pastors from the Battle Creek church that he was not a pantheist. In that interview, Kellogg stated, “I don’t see anything ahead of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination but complete wreckage.” Kellogg was disfellowshipped at the end of that interview.
After Kellogg’s disfellowshipping, the Battle Creek Sanitarium separated from the Adventist organization, and about 200 ministers, medical workers, and teachers left Adventism.
The next crisis involved Louis Richard Conradi. Conradi was a German who emigrated to the United States and was educated at Battle Creek College. He joined Adventism in 1878, “became the first leader of the General European Conference in 1901,” and eventually became the president of the European Division. He was an Adventist leader until 1922 and was responsible for spreading Adventism in the Middle East, Africa, and South America.
Over the years, Conradi had many disagreements with Adventism and rejected Ellen White’s prophetic authority. He said her writings should not be used for doctrine. He was brought before two questioning groups, one in Germany and one in Omaha, Nebraska, who examined his beliefs. Ultimately, in 1932, Conradi “turned in his ministerial credential in Washington, DC, and separated himself from the Adventist Church and became a minister for the Seventh Day Baptists. He had worked for the Adventist organization for 52 years.
The last crisis Ng presented was the Ford crisis. Desmond Ford is an Australian who received his Bachelor’s degree from Avondale College in Australia, his Master’s degree from Andrews University, and two PhDs, one from Michigan State University and the other from the University of Manchester in the UK. He was a “career teacher” for Adventism and began teaching for Pacific Union College in 1977.
In 1979 his research on the implications of Hebrews 9 (the chapter which explains how the new covenant has fulfilled and replaced the old covenant) as it relates to the Adventist doctrine of 1844 and the investigative judgment suddenly became public. The Association of Adventist Forums asked him to present his evidence. His talk exposed the unbiblical foundation of this core Adventist doctrine.
The General Conference questioned him, and the outcome was the infamous weekend at Glacier View Ranch in Colorado in 1980. At these meetings, Ford insisted that the investigative judgment has no scriptural basis.
“The Sanctuary Review Committee concluded that Ford’s view undercut the doctrine of the sanctuary as the Church understood it. As a result, Ford’s ministerial credentials were withdrawn and he lost his employment as a theology professor.” After Ford was dismissed in 1980, 180 Adventist ministers left with him over the next decade. In fact, the shock waves of Ford’s research continues to buffet the Adventist organization.
Notably missing from Ng’s review of Adventist crises were Walter Rae’s publication of The White Lie in 1981 by means of which the public became aware of Ellen White’s extensive plagiarism. Also glaring is the absence of the publication of Dale Ratzlaff’s books Sabbath In Christ (originally Sabbath in Crisis) in 1990 and The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists, 1996, which triggered a widespread awareness among Adventists of the gospel of the new covenant and of the fallacies of Ellen White’s “inspiration”.
Conclusions
It is not surprising that Adventism cannot resolve the question of women’s ordination. Because it is not founded on the biblical gospel of the Lord Jesus’ completed work of atonement through His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, there is no ground of truth by which to evaluate doctrine. Because Adventism does not teach that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, Adventists can interpret Scripture in the same ways they interpret Ellen White. After all, they claim she was inspired exactly as the Bible writers were inspired. Thus, the fact that she has internal contradictions gives them the liberty to interpret Scripture without believing the words mean what the words say.
The question of whether or not to ordain women becomes, in Adventism, an intellectual argument that depends far more on Ellen White’s instructions than on a biblical worldview. Ironically, however, all of Adventism follows Ellen White. Even those who claim they do not “read her” live with a worldview defined by her writings.
Within Adventism, there is no room for any woman to have true authority aside from Ellen White. In some very significant ways, Ellen’s position within Adventism is as sacred as is Mary’s within Catholicism—an exalted, romanticized goddess whose counsels bless and nurture her people. Also ironically, Adventism’s structure is on a feminist trajectory, with women tending to be the spiritual voice in their homes, and professional Adventist women working to be considered as good as any man.
The heavy-handed attempt to control the individual pastors and leaders who have endorsed women’s ordination is resented, and yet true Adventism would demand this kind of control.
In fact, the seven crises to which Ng referred in his talk reveal similar kinds of clamping down on Adventist leaders who dared to question the policies of the Adventist organization and the prophetic authority of Ellen White.
Adventism will go on, as Ng continued to reassure the delegates on Monday. It has continued to grow. Yet the unpleasant fact that 39% of members leave reveals that Adventism does not provide truth, peace, or lasting answers for people’s broken lives. Moreover, a great many people DO leave Adventism because of theological disagreements. Adventism’s persistence in declaring that doctrine is not a factor is simply uninformed.
Adventism does not teach the gospel of Jesus’ completed atonement and the assurance of believers’ salvation. Its growth is not the result of truth being preached but of people being beguiled by material solutions to their suffering.
The internal struggles of Adventism are not surprising. Without truth there are no solutions to people’s political and personal agenda clashes. Only the real Jesus and the gospel of His finished work can resolve the power struggles and the anxiety in hearts of those who remain in this organization that many of us once loved.
Sources
https://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2017-10-09/annual-council-votes-to-continue-dialogue-on-unity-and-reconciliation-process/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1888_Minneapolis_General_Conference
- April 20–26, 2024 - April 18, 2024
- We Got Mail - April 18, 2024
- April 13–19, 2024 - April 11, 2024