Denne artikkelen er en del av et mer utfyllende og strukturert svar som tilbakeviser en holdning om at Syvendedags Adventistkirken offisielt beveger seg i retningen for ordinerte kvinnelige ledere. Klikk her for å få oversikten over debatten. Klikk her for å lese den siste artikkelen i PDF format.

Mario Veloso, ThD, Former GC Associate Secretary, som var direkte involvert i alt som foregikk på GC hovedforsamling i 1990, forklarer hendelsesrekkefølgen:

IS THE CHURCH MANUAL GENDER INCLUSIVE ABOUT CHURCH ELDERS?

Mario Veloso, ThD

Former GC Associate Secretary

The answer to the title question could be very simple: Yes or no.  But normally such kind of an answer only originates a new discussion and more partisanship reactions. Therefore let me go through this matter historically, in the sense of telling the story, and policy clearing, in the sense of quoting the actual documents produced by the internal General Conference Committees, GC Executive Committees and GC session actions, which, in themselves, are emotionless and nonpartisan.

Let me first clarify the internal process that any Church Manual matter goes through on its way to the General Conference Session and into its proper place in the Church Manual. There is a new revised edition of the Manual after every GC session. Among several GC standing committees, there is one named Church Manual Committee. It is presided by one of the GC General Vice Presidents and administered by one of the Associate Secretaries. I did this job, as secretary, from 1990 to 2000 under several committee chairmen: Calvin B. Rock, Jan Paulsen and Lowell C. Cooper. This committee meets when there are enough items in the agenda to process them. Normally the secretary receives those items from Divisions, from other GC standing committees, from the GC President, from the CM committee chairman and from GC Administrative Committee (ADCOM). Sometimes from referrals made by the Annual Council, or even by GC Session. The secretary meets with the chairman and passes to him all the information related to every item in the agenda and they agree on a date to call the committee. In the meeting a full discussion occurs until a decision is made. Then those decisions go to GC ADCOM for consideration. If that body approved the CM manual proposal, it goes to an Annual Council meeting which has representation from all Unions of the worldwide church. Those Church Manual items approved by the Annual Council are incorporated in the agenda for the next GC Session. No new material, no modification of any kind, no new editing whatsoever can be introduced in the Church Manual without an action taken by all the referred GC committees and nothing goes from GC committees, not even from Annual Council, strait to Church Manual for publication, because any item in any one of those stages is only in the process for approval, not yet approved—Every item, even the smallest editing, to be incorporated and published in the Church Manual must be approved by a GC Session.

What the Church Manual itself says about changes in its content? In 1946 the General Conference in Session took the following action: “All changes or revisions of policy that are to be made in the Manual shall be authorized by the General Conference session.”[1] Later on, the 2000 General Conference session introduced a major format change in the Church Manual. Some chapters were divided in two sections—the main content “of worldwide value and applicable to every church,”[2] and some notes “explanatory in nature.”[3] While keeping the same principle adopted in 1946, as it has been the case of every revised printing of the Manual, the session made a distinction between the content and the notes: “Changes in or revisions of the Church Manual, the Notes excepted, can be made only by action of a General Conference session in which delegates of the world body of believers are assembled and have a voice in making revisions.”[4]  In chapter one of the Church Manual the authority of the General Conference session is confirmed: “The content of the Church Manual is the expression of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s understanding of Christian life and church governance and discipline based on biblical principles. It expresses the authority of a duly assembled General Conference session. ‘God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conferences, shall have authority.’—Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 261.”[5] The basis for this understanding comes from the Bible,[6] an action taken by the 1877 General Conference session, quoted and adopted, which says: “Resolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will of the body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction, and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception…”[7] and references taken from Ellen G. White’s declarations of 1875[8] and 1909 which are quoted and adopted. The last one says: “But, when, in ta General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body.”[9]

Now that the process for every item to be included in the Church Manual is clear, and changes in the Church Manual cannot be introduced in its content without an action of a GC session, we may ask, has this been always faithfully respected by the GC? The answer is yes.  Another question, has the General Conference taken license to abbreviate the process via editing or another way to introduce changes in the Manual in the past at least once? The answer is an unequivocal no. It never did. To confirm it, let me tell you a case that I know personally, which as far as I know was the only one of its kind. In 1990 a short time after the Fifty-Fifth GC constituency meeting, held at Indianapolis, Indiana, where I was elected GC Associate Secretary, something happened. Upon my arrival to the GC office, Ralph Thompson, the GC Secretary, described to me the full assignment of my office, it included the Church Manual Committee, which is under the responsibility of GC Secretariat. About a year later it came to my attention that the revised edition of the 1990 Church Manual had several omissions of what had been voted by two GC sessions—1985 and 1990.[10] At that time the preparation for printing and the printing itself, of the Church Manual, was the responsibility of the Review and Herald Publishing Association.

What to do with those changes? I took them to the Church Manual Committee and then to GC-ADCOM. Nobody hesitated. That edition had to be discontinued. ADCOM sent the matter to Annual Council which in its session of October 13, 1991 took the following action:

300-91G MISSING ITEMS IN 1990 CHURCH MANUAL EDITION

“Mario Veloso presented a document showing items voted mainly by the 1985 General Conference Session which do not appear in the 1990 edition of the Church Manual. It was

VOTED, 1. To officially inform the world Church by way of the Annual Council that certain items previously voted by a General Conference Session for inclusion in the Church Manual are missing from the current 1990 edition due to technical errors.

2. To provide divisions with the corrected material to enable them to incorporate the corrections in their printings of the Church Manual.
3. To place the corrections in all future printings of the 1990 Church Manual.”

The implementation of this decision demanded two actions from GC-ADCOM—One, Sept 7, 1993, to recall the incorrect copy and allow those who bought it to get the correct one with no additional cost,[11] and the other, September 13, 1993, to provide the finances for the printing of the corrected Church Manual and the way to communicate this decision to the church in North America.[12] As we see, the General Conference never allowed any changes in the Church Manual other than those approved by a GC Session. The case just referred to shows the willingness of the GC administration to keep this principle at any cost.

Now we need to consider a very important item related to the possibility of the Church Manual use of gender inclusive language related to local church elders. On July 10, 1990, the same GC Session of the Fifty-Fifth constituency meeting just referred, held at Indianapolis, Indiana, took the following rather simple directive: “137-90G, Voted to authorize the Church Manual Committee to use inclusive language in all gender references where appropriate.”[13] This was not an open action to make changes in all Church Manual references to gender. Charles D. Watson, at that time secretary of the Church Manual Committee, introducing the item to the 1990 GC session said: “There would be a few cases in which it would not be appropriate and we would like to recognize that.”[14] That why the content of the directive includes two limitations—one, the directive in place is addressed only to the Church Manual Committee, not to the readers of the Manual or anybody else personally or comparatively; two, the referred committee is authorized only to incorporate inclusive language “where appropriate.” It means, where it does not change the intent of the text. To change that intent, is necessary a GC session specific action that changes it. That is why the church manual committee never applied this directive to elders and pastors references. Such specific GC Session action, so far, was never voted into the Church Manual.

One point for clarification–there are some who think that a change approved by the July 12, 1990 GC session does it. The day before July 11, at 9:30 in the morning took place a lengthy discussion on the ordination of women as pastor. It seemed that everyone wanted to say something. The action not to ordain, passed by a large margin of votes. Then, on the 12^th at 2:00 p.m. sharp, even though attendance was very scarce, Calvin Rock called the meeting to order and church manual items were introduced. Among them, a very much expected item —a revision to  marriage ceremony.[15] A change was introduced to read as follows: “In the marriage ceremony the charge, vows, and declaration of marriage are given only by an ordained minister except in those areas where division committees have taken action to approve that selected licensed or commissioned ministers who have been ordained as local elders may perform the marriage ceremony. (See p. 119). Either an ordained minister, licensed or commissioned minister, or a local elder may officiate in delivering the sermonette, offering the prayer, or in giving the blessing.”[16] Previous reading was this: “In the marriage ceremony the charge, vows, and declaration of marriage are given only by an ordained minister. Either an ordained minister, licensed minister, or a local elder may officiate in delivering the sermonette, offering the prayer, or in giving the blessing.”[17] The addition is in italics. The change is not big. It is in the concept that in divisions where approval has been made for “selected” licensed ministers or commissioned ministers to be elected as elders, they could also performed the marriage ceremony. “Selected”, not every one of them could performed the marriage ceremony—only those who have been elected church elders. By the way, the license ministry, according to the church manual, is reserved “to give young men an opportunity to demonstrate their call to the ministry, especially in the area of soul-winning, prospective candidates are granted ministerial licenses by the conference/mission/field.”[18] And commissioned ministers are never mentioned again in the entire Church Manual. No gender inclusive language. So the Church Manual does not have gender inclusive language related to church elders.

 

Before ending this article, one related question must be considered. If there is no authorization in the Church Manual to ordain women elders in local churches, because there has been no GC Session approval for it, why are there some areas of the world church that feel authorized to ordained women elders and other areas not? The answer comes from two General Conference Committee actions—one taken in 1975,[19] another, picking up the previous one, was taken by the 1984[20] annual council. In summary the action content is as follows: 1. To reaffirm the Spring Meeting action of 1975. 2. “To advise each division that it is free to make provision as it may deem necessary for the election and ordination of women as local church elders.” 3. To suggest  guidelines for the selection and ordination of women as church elders: a. the concept should be first accepted at the local church level, b. if a church would be planning to implement the concept it ought to look for advice from the conference committee which will discuss the matter after the conference administration had sought advice from the union administration; c. the vote must not be taken by the local church unless “a clear consensus” exists in the church that a women elder is “desired,” and “essential,” for the spiritual wellbeing of the church; d. a clear majority of the total voting members of the church should be in favor, not only the majority of the few in attendance to a business meeting; e. the decision taken should unify the member, not become the cause of divisiveness and alienation.

 

Everything seems to be so clear and so simple, but the action generated two main reactions: First, some divisions began to force the implementation in their territory, from the higher organization down to the local church instead of going from the local church to the higher organization, as the GC guidelines requested, that way defeating the very intention of the GC action—to make it a unifying element for the church. The division became more extensive than just present in local churches, it also happened between divisions. Second, most of the world divisions did not implement the GC action, because they felt that it was not biblically based and because it was not properly approved by a GC session. Technically, since it was only approved by an annual council, it was at the most a motion in process, unfinished and unbounding. To my knowledge, no open discussion about this irregularity has been ever made by any annual council, neither by a GC session. Why? Nobody is able to answer this question unless that body would be willing to get into the unchristian business of judging motives. But, such a confusing situation cannot be let go, either, for the same reason.

 

Now, we may clearly answer the question of the beginning—no. There is no gender inclusive language in the Church Manuel content related to local church elders or pastors. For one simple reason: Never a GC session took an action to change the male language for this office which has been in the Church Manual since its inception. Whatever language seemingly gender inclusive present now in the Manual, should be attributed to some editor that erroneously applied the July 10, 1990 GC session directive on gender inclusiveness, which does not refer to church elders as it does not refer to pastor either.

[1] General Conference No. 8, p. 197 (June 14, 19460, quoted in Church Manual Revised 2000, p. xxi.

[2] Ibid, p. xxi

[3] Ibid, p. xxi

[4] Ibid, p. xxi

[5] Ibid, p. 2

[6] Acts 20:17-28; Heb. 13:17; 1 Peter 5:1-3  quoted at the beginning of chapter one of the Church Manual.

[7] Review revision of the and Herald, vol. 50, No. 14, p. 106. Quoted and adopted by the 2000 General Conference session revision of the Church Manual, pp. 1-2.

[8] “The church of Christ is in constant peril. Satan is seeking to destroy the people of God, and one man’s mind, one man’ judgment, is not sufficient to be trusted. Christ would have His followers brought together in church capacity, observing order, having rules and discipline, and all subject one to another, esteeming others better than themselves.” –Testimonies vol. 3, p. 445. Quoted and adopted by the 2000 General Conference session revision of the Church Manual, pp. 1-2.

[9] E. G. White, Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 260. Quoted and adopted by the 2000 General Conference session revision of the Church Manual, pp. 1-2.

 

[10] See Church Manual, Revised 1990, pp. 1-4

[11]  230-93G RECALL AND REPLACEMENT OF ALL INCORRECT 1990 REVISED CHURCH MANUALS

VOTED, 1. To recall and destroy all incorrect 1990 Revised Church Manuals, including those that have been sold and those that are on the shelves of the Adventist Book Centers and the Review and Herald Publishing Association.

2. To allow church members to return their incorrect copies to the local Adventist

Book Center or the Review and Herald Publishing Association and receive the corrected 1990

Revised Church Manual at no additional cost.

 

[12]  230-93G RECALL AND REPLACEMENT OF ALL INCORRECT 1990 REVISED CHURCH MANUALS

VOTED, To adjust the action taken by the General Conference Administrative Committee on September 7, 1993, as follows:

1. To request the Review and Herald Publishing Association to recall from the

Adventist Book Centers all incorrect 1990 Revised Church Manuals, and to replace them with corrected manuals, with expenses to be borne by the General Conference.

2. To request that the Review and Herald Publishing Association communicate the situation and the steps taken to meet it to the North American Division union and conference administrators.
3. To allow church members to return their incorrect copies of the Church

Manual to the local Adventist Book Center or the Review and Herald Publishing Association and receive the corrected 1990 Revised Church Manual at no additional cost.

[13] Adventist Review, July 12, 1990, p. 17.

[14] Adventist Review, July 12, 1990, p. 16.

[15] Adventist Review, July 17, 1990, p.14

[16] Church Manual, Revised 1990, p. 59.

[17] Church Manual, Revised 1986, p. 59.

[18] Church Manual,  Revised 2005, p.147.

[19] General Conference minutes, GCC 75-153, Role of women in the church.

[20] General Conference minutes, 272 84GN