Shannon Kelly | The Student Movement
After hours of debate at the 2017 General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Annual Council, the vote was made to send a document entitled “Procedures for Reconciliation and Adherence in Church Governance: Phase II” back to the Unity in Mission Oversight Committee, from which it originated, where it will receive further review and “refinement”. Until the next Council, dialogue regarding unity, women’s ordination, and discipline for “non-compliance” will continue.
Women’s ordination causes heated controversy in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Although ordination as Christians practice it has no biblical foundation and was created long ago by what would eventually become the Roman Catholic Church, it is a tradition still tightly clung to. The issue exploded at the 2015 General Conference (GC) session in San Antonio, Texas, when the GC voted against ordaining women into ministry throughout the Seventh-day Adventist World Church. The Columbia Union and Pacific Union of the North American Division (NAD) of Seventh-day Adventists had already been ordaining females as they do men, and they continue doing so in spite of the GC vote. This roused indignation from many GC officials, including General Conference President Ted Wilson. Viewing this “non-compliance” as a threat to World Church unity and a violation of policy, these Unions were threatened with punishment for their perceived “rebellion.” The GC produced a document called “A Study of Church Governance and Unity” that ultimately stresses the importance of Church governance and compliance to policy, replete with quotes from scripture, the General Conference Working Policy, and Adventist Church co-founder, Ellen G. White.
The 2016 Annual Council voted on a “Phase I” document, introducing a process that “sought to initiate standard procedures for maintaining church unity in matters involving non-compliance,” as reported by Adventist News Network. “Phase II” was presented at the most recent session.
The document of Phase II opens with the Executive Committee declaring their commitment to “continue the discussion, listen sensitively, and seek further resolutions,” as “the continued forbearance and discussion process will provide additional time to find solutions.” The rest stresses the importance of strictly adhering to policy, using examples from Bible stories supplemented with select quotes from Ellen White. “Throughout scripture, organization has been a priority for God’s people,” the document reads.
The document urges church members to encourage their elected leaders to “comply with the General Conference Working Policy B 15 15.” This states: “Officers/Administrators to Work in Harmony with Policy—Officers and administrators are expected to work in harmony with the General Conference Working Policy. Those who show inability or unwillingness to administer their work in harmony with policy should not be continued in executive leadership by their respective constituencies or governing boards/committees.” Furthermore, “executive committees and/or constituencies” are encouraged to “remove and replace” leaders who do not comply with GC policy.
The document also includes a statement that General Conference Executive Committee members are to sign swearing to adhere to and enforce GC policy in their respective positions, among other terms. Should any GC Executive Committee member be found non-compliant with the statement, they will forfeit their “privileges of voice, vote, and subcommittee participation” until they agree to bend to the General Conference policy.
Although the controversy is largely portrayed to be simply over ordaining women, the real foundation of the problem is something bigger. “I think that the ordination thing is a sub-category of something greater, and that’s the issue of authority,” says Dr. Stanley Patterson, Chair of the Department of Christian Ministry and professor at the Andrews University Theological Seminary. The issue of authority, and a vast misunderstanding of how authority in the Adventist Church is meant to function.
Dr. Patterson explains that unlike the top-down papal hierarchy, the Adventist church was organized in a bottom-up ladder of authority, vesting power in the people, not one high-up leader. Dividing into Unions, Union conferences, and local churches serves to prevent a hierarchy. Adventist Church members elect representatives who have influence at the Conference level, and these Union Presidents answer to their constituencies, not the General Conference President. This means that a GC President has authority only within the General Conference office. When they step down into a Union, they carry influence, but not authority. “It would be like Andrea Luxton [President of Andrews University] leaving Andrews University and going down to Southern and thinking that she’s also the boss there,” Dr. Patterson explains. “She has no authority at Southern… she carries no authority outside of Andrews University. Ted Wilson carries no authority outside of the General Conference office.” This means that Elder Wilson could request Unions not to ordain women, but those Unions have the right to respectfully disregard such counsel when their people are in favor of ordaining women. In actuality, the Unions in question are not rebelling. Rather, they are carrying out their duty of answering to their people. However, the GC President has assumed authority where he only rightfully has influence. And assuming authority lead to assuming rebellion. “Rebellion can only happen if you stand against duly constituted authority,” Dr. Patterson states. “The Unions simply exercised the right they had and the peoples’ vote, and the Union president is bound to follow the counsel of the people.” “I think the core issue is that people need to know that it’s the people who hold the power in the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” Dr. Patterson continues. “But they have to know that they have that authority if they’re going to be able to use it to solve this problem. The reality is, these two Unions who voted to do women’s ordination did it because they rediscovered the power of the constituency.”
“It’s challenging,” says MDiv student, Tanner Martin. “How do you respect leaders while still holding them accountable? It is a bit of a paradox, there’s a bit of a tension there… and we’re definitely seeing that going on right now.”
Though action will not be voted upon until later, it does not mean that punishment for the Columbia and Pacific Unions will not be pursued. “I love my church, but my heart aches for it,” Dr. Patterson says sadly.
Comments