Texico Conference Attacks World Church Affirmation Sabbath

The Texico Conference, which covers New Mexico and west Texas, has issued a statement, approved by its executive committee, attacking the World Church Affirmation Sabbath, a lay group that supports the world SDA Church and its decision, voted in General Conference Session in San Antonio, to reject female ordination.

The Texico Conference states that:

“We first became acquainted with the WCAS in recent months when it was discovered that certain members within the Texico Conference were allied with individuals associated with the WCAS and had held a weekend of meetings at one of our churches. It was further determined that they had established an online presence that was titled “Texico World Church Affirmation Sabbath” without seeking authorization to use the name of our Conference in reference to their organization.”

Odd that few of the NAD conferences and unions will submit to world church governance—most of those that do not ordain women are voting to block discipline of those that do—yet believe themselves empowered to micromanage everything that happens at every church within their territory.

The Texico Conference is very much in favor of organizational structure and chain of command (until, apparently, the chain of command reaches the General Conference Session):

“The WCAS, itself, is in violation of the policies, procedures and practices of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. To pledge loyalty to the General Conference without also respecting the actions of all the duly-elected committees including those of the North American Division, the Southwestern Union and the Texico Conference is to disregard the long-recognized official organizational structure that describes the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.”

Hilariously, the Texico Conference condemns the WCAS for the sin of politicking:

“Among the Ten Principles on which the WCAS was founded is the concept of political activity that would attempt to influence outcomes at church board meetings and conference/union constituency meetings. This type of activity is contrary to the principles of Seventh-day Adventist Church governance and is expressly prohibited by the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual. When individuals involve themselves in such radical activity it encourages members to conspire against God’s appointed leaders and demonstrates their lack of trust in God to lead His Church through the power of the Holy Spirit.”

What makes this so funny is that Leftists, both inside the SDA Church and in the larger society, agitate for the transformation of our church (and our larger society and its other institutions) far more assiduously and effectively than do conservatives. In fact, far more zealously and single-mindedly than conservatives can even imagine.

This extreme lopsidedness of ideological agitation has led to the law (variously denominated as Robert Conquest’s second law and John O’Sullivan’s first law) that any institution that is not explicitly (and I would add vigilant and militantly) conservative eventually becomes Leftist. Obviously, churches are subject to this principle; in fact, Conquest’s prime example was the Church of England. Conquest’s second law explains why the SDA Church in North America is governed by a pastoral and administrative class that is militantly pro-female ordination, even though female ordination (1) is anti-biblical, (2) would be grossly inconsistent with the church’s historic biblical hermeneutic, and (3) will lead to the complete liberalization of the Church.

The Texico Conference has voted:

  1. That no Texico Conference church, school or property shall be used to host a meeting, either public or private, relating to the World Church Affirmation Sabbath.

  2. That no Texico Conference pulpit or facility shall be used to promote the World Church Affirmation Sabbath activities or agenda.'

  3. That there are to be no safe zones for any organization that attempts to create division or dissension among our members.

This situation brings to mind the case of Jones County, Mississippi, during the Civil War. Mississippi was part of a confederacy that was rebelling against the United States. But when the people of Jones County decided that they weren’t interested in sending any more of their money to support the rebellion, nor any more of their sons to die fighting for it, the State of Mississippi moved to suppress Jones County, sending troops to the county to restore order—or disorder. Jackson felt it had the right to rebel against Washington, but no Mississippi county had the right to rebel against Jackson.

The NAD and its constituent entities are like Mississippi: they believe they can rebel against the world church, but everyone below them had better observe the proper chain of command. There will be “no safe zones” for those who won’t. You have been warned.