The controversial decision to allow female elders in the Seventh-day Adventist Church was never voted at a General Conference Session by the representative body of delegates.
Historical Timeline
At Spring Council in 1975 (April 3) it was voted that we as a church “recognize the primacy of the married woman’s role in the home and family, as repeatedly emphasized in the Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy” (1974 Fall Council action, page 13, paragraph 5).
It was also stated at this 1975 council that some women “without family responsibilities may fill potential (elder) leadership roles. It was accompanied by this warning “that the greatest discretion and caution be exercised in the ordaining of women to the office of local elder”…. “seeking counsel from the Union and Division before proceeding.”
Nine years later—in 1984— Annual Council voted that any action to “ordain a woman as a local church elder must not be taken unless a clear consensus exists.” “The matter should be considered at a specially called business meeting. Every church member should be given the opportunity to vote on this issue…”. “Whatever the decision of the church, it should result in unifying the members and not be the source of divisiveness or alienation. The Body of Christ, the Church, must not be tarnished in any way.” This was voted because electing female elders starting in 1975 was causing increasing confusion and concern in the church. The GC Excomm should have had the wisdom to say “The last nine years have demonstrated that we made a mistake in allowing female elders, and we need to reverse that decision in order to preserve unity and theological fidelity in the Church.” They lacked the self-awareness and courage to fix the problem.
Ever since 1984, female ordination proponents have used the controversial female elder decision to leverage female pastors (which is of course not biblical), using every trick in the book to force the Seventh-day Adventist Church to allow female ministers (ordained). The rest of the church, uncomfortable with the idea of woman elders and where it was leading us, voted three times to reject the ordination of female pastors. “No!” “No!” “No!”
2022
Now, they are are trying to sneak language into the Church Manual that authorizes female elders, under the guise of ‘being consistent.” Here’s the ruse:
Observations
There has NEVER been provision in the Church Manual for female elders. Zero.
By adding this language on page 59, liberals in the church seek to override the need for caution that was voted (1975) regarding female elders. This change (if enacted) will enshrine female elders in the church manual, which WO proponents will then use to leverage even more WO rebellion. They will claim “The Church Manual allows for female elders, so we need female pastors to be consistent.”
Notice that line 33 allows a female elder to also be qualified to the deaconate. WO proponents will use this page 59 change to build a gender-less deaconate.
Notice line 16 “their ordination” instead of him or his. This reflects the agender agenda (tongue twister) that characterizes the hard left in both the world and the Seventh-day Adventist church.
This proposed change to the church manual on page 59 is promoted by saying it will create “consistency”. What they don’t say is that the only consistency that matters is between us and the Word of God. They wish to be consistent with culture, the majority of Seventh-day Adventists desire to be consistent with the Bible.
Dear Seventh-day Adventist delegates. Reject these changes to the Church Manual. Even better, do the Seventh-day Adventist Church a favor, and rescind female elders altogether. That will make us consistent with the Word of God.
****
