I have heard from a reliable source, that you can't get a job in the theology dept. at Andrews unless you are pro-ordination. Has anyone else heard that?

You can't get a job teaching theology at the Seminary unless you are properly credentialed. Are you aware that there is a very small number of biblical scholars in the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Keep in mind that a mere pastor, administrator, or evangelist is not qualified to teach theology at the Seminary level.

I understand the qualifications, but that wasn't my question.

That isn't surprising at all. I watched, over the years, as ATS members became increasingly proWO as the older faithful men began to die off. Thus, there is now a troubling wall of groupthink that surrounds the seminary..
It doesn't take any courage to meld into this "groupthink." In fact, it is evidence of moral weakness.

The members of Adventist Theological Society are hard-core conservatives. And yes, a large majority of them support women's ordination.

They support it because it became "cool" in NAD Adventist theological circles to support it..

Jerry Moon and Damsteegt do not support it.

Wht proof can you offer that ATS is composed of hardcore conservatives?And that A MAJORITY support WO??

A majority do support it. "Hard-core conservative" is a subjective observation by one of the more liberal posters here (PB). `nough said.

Sounds like a great "litmus test." It sounds logical in that Brantley says all there support WO except one, but I really don't know if that's true.

"The statement does not say exactly what is wrong with the ecclesiology set out in the two papers, or what needs further discussion."

the seminary statement is saying it has serious misgivings over the secretariat's portrayal of "the nature and authority of the church"...the seminary is expressing alarm over the fact that according to the secretariat, annual council is now on par with the authority of a sitting GC session, and the authority of annual council supercedes the authority of unions, which were originally created to be firewalls of protection against an aggressive and domineering GC...the secretariat's vision for the church is a top-down model that not all may have thought was the intent behind the 1901 egw-endorsed restructuring plan...

the call for a so-called year of grace is likely in response to loma linda's religion department indicating solidarity with andrews seminary...if agreed to, this year of grace will not lead to "repentance" on the part of pro-WO unions, but will no doubt be consumed with fleshing out who really has final authority on questions of ordination: unions or annual council...there will also no doubt be an investigation into which constitution unions are bound to in the event of litigation: their own, or the GC's...

clearly, lines are already being drawn in the sand...andrews and loma linda likely have the upper hand in terms of support within NAD, and other money generating divisions...

That's what you say. The faculty statement does not say what the faculty members disagree with.

the seminary's statement reads in part:

"We have serious concerns about the recent document 'A Study of Church Governance and Unity' released by the General Conference and its portrayal of the nature and authority of the church."

i think its concerns center on what it says they center on, which is the secretariat's portrayal of the nature and authority of the church...what else could it be saying...

Now the GC has extended a year of GRACE?

Did they confer with the Papacy about this? I think 48 hours is enough "grace" for this issue.

Yes, I heard about it at 5:15 AM this morning. There may be more to the story.

WO =s more students which may be connected to job security?

Zackly.

No surprise. There all liberals.

2Peter chapter 2 is a good read in this context.

I applaud the Seminary for continuing the Protestant Reformation in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. We should all join together in opposition to the spirit of the Papacy that has found voice in the GC during Ted Wilson's rule. There is neither a biblical text nor precedent in Scripture or Seventh-day Adventist Church history that can be cited to support that a bare majority of Christians may trample the personal conscience of a significant and large minority of Christians. But we can find many precedents in support of that oppressive governance in the shameful history of the Catholic Church.

Are you saying that Elder Wilson has brought these influences into our church or just that they have come in under his watch? I personally have always felt that he was trying to combat these non-Biblical teachings.

Ted Wilson is a reactionary, a throwback, who is opposed to historical trends in the Seventh-day Adventist Church:

1. There is the historical trend in favor of advancements in education, knowledge, and understanding. Of all of the Seminary professors, only one is opposed to women's ordination, and he is not a biblical scholar but a church historian. There are only three Seventh-day Adventist biblical scholars in the world who are opposed to women's ordination. You can find more historians who think that the Holocaust is a hoax. The issue of women's ordination very much separates intelligent, educated members of the Church from the intellectually slow and prejudiced members of the Church. Elder Wilson is very much in the latter camp.

2. There is the historical trend in favor of equality. Opponents of women's ordination use the same method for interpreting the Bible as that used by the Southern segregationists who advocated slavery. The Church was slow, even slower than the rest of society, in acknowledging the equality and human dignity of African-Americans. Racism continues to permeate throughout the Church. Thousands of Church members will vote for Donald Trump. A doctrinal framework of misogyny has been erected by those opposed to women's ordination. Elder Wilson is very much in the camp of those who continue to resist equality.

3. There is the historical trend in favor of mission as opposed to church purification. Proponents of women's ordination support evangelism and total member involvement, including the involvement of ordained women pastors. In contrast, opponents of women's ordination seek to cripple the effectiveness of women pastors. Opponents of women's ordination believe that if we could turn back the clock, to prevent women in China from becoming ordained as pastors is much preferred over the thousands of souls who would be baptized by ordained women pastors. Elder Wilson is very much on the side of church purification.

These historical trends can otherwise be called the process of sanctification.

"Ted Wilson is a reactionary, a throwback, who is opposed to historical trends in the Seventh-day Adventist Church."

Of what church are you a member?

I've heard this argument before. I believe there are also "historical trends" toward theistic evolution, lower / no.church standards, etc.; and I believe in the early centuries there were "historical trends" toward Sunday worship, a sacrificial view of communion, exclusion of the laity from participation in the church's public worship, and other things. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Reformation was a rejection of "historical trends" based on a desire to go back to pure Christianity. Frankly, you sound like you'd be a lot more comfortable in the Catholic Church, with its emphasis on the church's evolving understanding of God's will.

I am comfortable that a vote of GC delegates against theistic evolution, lower church standards, Sunday sacredness, transubstantiation, etc., would be such a large super-majority that we could comfortably declare it to be a consensus.

Who is the "only one" opposed to WO?

Dr. Damsteegt.

The Seminary lists 57 faculty members on their website. Are you telling me Damsteegt is the only one in opposition to WO? All the rest support WO?

If so, our SDA Church is worse off than I ever imagined!

With all these wonderful "historical trends," what need have we for God, the Bible or religion. And history is accomplishing the process of sanctification for us?? It sounds like "history" has replaced God in your heart and your thinking.

My comment did not opine on the cause of these historical trends, but I believe that God is a proximate cause of our sanctification.

I believe Phil is blinded by his baises. We wouldn't even be talking about this issue if the hearing-impaired progressives had not repeatedly pressed their feminist agenda into the radar screen of the Adventist Church--in spite of three consecutive "No" answers.

Wow! This is looking more hopeful all the time.
Maybe all the rebellious are bundling themselves up?
Of course I wish they'd repent most, but if they aren't interested in doing that, I wish they'd just get out so those who have a heart to stay true to God, aren't dragged down by these worldlings.

This has to a greater or lesser degree infiltrated all our schools. Where would you send them?

I am fortunate not to have this discision to make but for those who do, it must be an agonizing one. If you choose a secular school, there is another equally onerous set concerns about what is taught. There is no good answer IMO.

Our son wanted to go to an SDA day academy and we finally allowed it his sophomore year. He lasted one quarter. He got tired of so many of the Adventist girls actually "propositioning" him on a constant basis. He asked if he could just get his GED which he did. Then he went on to a secular college and graduated. Today he is a conservative Adventist who studies his Bible and EGW writings and attends a conservative church.
I think many Adventists do not realize how wicked some young people are in our academies and colleges. I think if we knew what really goes on in Adventist academies and colleges, we would demand they close their doors.

Some people send their daughters there....

What I find amazing is how the playing out of the crises and discord within the church is mirroring the crises and discord in the world at large. Just as it appears the US is nearing a breaking point in its political system, so the same appears true in the church's system of governance. I suppose all those who value truth recognize that this is a truly desperate time, as much of what Ellen White counseled us to do has been ignored, particularly in the "First World," and that a great portion of our youth have been effectively swept into the prevailing lawlessness of the age. Unfortunately, as we watered down our baptismal process many of those unconverted youth have remained in membership.

Is this statement personally signed by those who agree with it? IOW, can we see which faculty are behind this document?

I would like to have someone explain how the faculty votes on these statements. Is there a faculty meeting? any chance for debate and presentations? or just a circulated email? I'm guessing its more like the circulated email, and they circulate it to the lliberals until they think they have a numerical majority.

Exactly. Can anyone explain how these decisions are made? Who is "the faculty?" Shouldn't they have enough courage of conviction to actually sign their names? Did they sign anything so that we could read for ourselves who these people are?

It should be remembered that the seminary (a majority--not all) also tried to affect the outcome of the General Conference Session vote on women's ordination last year. We see how that worked out. Giving the pro-WO bias that exists in the seminary, I regard their protestations regarding the GC Secretariat documents as irrelevant.

The quickest way to Irrelevance? Go to Andrews and turn left.

"Turn left" into Lake Michigan?

So now the seminary profs are not only against the historical SDA ordination policy begun in the very first years of our church's existence but are now disputing the biblical authority of an organization to discipline it's own membership? Are these guys going mad? Does this new hermeneutic require the organization to destroy it's unity over a "non-salvational". church policy? Have none of them noticed what happened to all the other mainstream denominations who opened the doors for WO on the same basis? Do none of them recognize Christ's notation that a kingdom divided cannot stand? Do they simply want to shut the doors to all those other truth seekers (Muslims. Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, Mormons, JW's, ad infinitum) that still hold a male only pastoral belief? One of the most predominent evidences of the last days is lawlessness and not just regarding the Sabbath. For the GC to allow lawlessness to continue unabated in the name of unity is a death wish. What exactly is wrong with the church's approach to requiring world wide unity when a majority of it's members voted just that???

The Adventist Seminary has been infiltrated by liberals/progressives and other secular influences for many decades, starting back in the 60's or earlier. This type of "going mad" is not surprising.

Doc, not long ago Samuel Bacchiocchi lead a group of seminarians in opposing WO. The current appeal to "scholars" carefully avoid any references to past "scholars" which interpreted Scripture differently. I heard (second hand) that HMS Richards once stated that starting an Adventist "Seminary" was a very bad idea. Don't know if he actuallysaid that but it seems quite true to the results of history that show where "higher" theological training has eventually taken all of the Christian world. I'm not against theological training unless it becomes the standard of true biblical understanding. I liked Birder's quote from Tyndale about thetheologian and the plowboy. Very appropriate for today's situation.