Sunday, December 8, 2019, the Executive Committee (EC) of the Dutch Union of Churches Conference met. Women’s ordination (WO) was on the agenda.
On December 18th the EC sent a letter to the local churches, reporting on officer changes, implementation of actions taken at the regular constituency meeting of 2017 and on women's ordination. The letter was posted on an undisclosed delegate's Facebook page.
The president’s letter stresses that the EC didn’t vote a decision on WO. He writes, “In concrete terms, this means that the EC complies with the policy provisions of the Church organization unless otherwise decided in the future.” This statement brings clarity to the current situation. Meanwhile, some retirees continue to fuel the fire, attempting to lead the advocates of women’s ordination to think that they have ‘administrative, academic and theological freedom’ regarding the practice of WO, LGBTQ questions, and so on.
Some History, First
Readers should understand that the escalation of the WO issue was partly a Dutch Disease. It was the former Dutch Union president Wim Altink, together with Dan Jackson (NAD president) and Bertil Wiklander (former TED president) who, with their variance motion, planted a bomb under the structure of the World Church at Annual Council 2011. At GC 2010 they were among those who requested the women’s ordination question be revisited. Their request led to the creation of the Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC). Even so, they chose not to wait for the outcome of that study, but to push women’s ordination forward on many fronts.
This same Wim Altink returned from AC 2012, where a great majority of the world’s union leaders pled against independent actions. He opened the way for a hostile motion to be anonymously advanced and stirred emotions so that the majority of the Dutch delegates at the Union's Session a few weeks later thought that they had the independent authority to vote for WO. That motion was edited by the (illegal) session’s back-room, policy committee. When the item returned to the floor, it came completely with ambiguous wording.
The wording was (in Dutch), ‘as quickly as possible, but ultimately six months after the next session of the GC (2015) …'. The explanation of the chair of the policy committee was that the delegates must understand, 'as quickly as possible and not later than six months after GC session 2015'.
I pointed the assembly to the ambiguous wording, but the parliamentarian ruled that amending the hostile motion would be 'hostile'. Since the Union was not accustomed to gather under fixed rules of order, and I had fought that arbitrary situation for five years already, I decided to leave the session venue that day and leave the Union EC to its own devices. It busied itself muzzling delegates and laboring to secure a mandate for itself.
The next day, realizing that the situation had developed under his watch, Bertil Wiklander attempted to do damage control. Wim Altink acknowledged publicly that he knew that the Dutch Union would put itself in an awkward position with the World Church if the EC implemented the action before GC 2015. He stated that the intention was to wait until after GC 2015. Possibly, he didn’t reckon with the hard-liners in the board—those fully prepared to do whatever it takes to achieve their goals of independency. That Wim Altink was out of control would soon become clear.
The EC decided in May 2013 (six months later) to implement the action, arguing that its hands were bound by 'the constituency, the highest authority of the Dutch church'. I appealed the EC’s decisions and protested that the appeals committee consisted of the same men who were instrumental to the 2012 session action. Bertil Wiklander wrote me an email to say that he would call Wim Altink to give account, but that never happened. Soon Wiklander resigned. The Union secretary personally told me, ‘we know that we promised to wait but we took the wording of the motion literally.’
In other words, the whole sequence of action was premeditated.
Incorporating the Church for Equality
The next step came in 2014. The EC decided to incorporate the Union. This would change its legal status under Dutch Law and undermine the separation between Church and State. Were this change accomplished, the church organization would be compelled to abide by state regulations concerning gender equality.
By then, after several years working in policy in the Dutch government and having come to know Adventist Working Policy almost by heart, I was probably one of very few who understood these stealthy movements. I began to grasp the urgent challenges we would face and to better understand what Heaven had been preparing me for the past seven years.
After many communications with the union’s secretary, I dug into the Groningen University Law Library to document the facts. I made a final attempt to convince the delegates and the EC that it would be a disaster for the Church to change its legal status. I shared my material with a Church Law professor, and he confirmed my conclusions. Fifteen prominent delegates saw the danger too and decided to sign that paper and we begged the EC not to take our word for it but to contact the professor.
He told them that incorporating the Church would be the end to the church-status of the SDA Church in the Netherlands, and that it would also affect the special status of the pastors¾they would become regular laborers, without special tax benefits. Equality seemed enticing but would have very negative repercussions. Nevertheless, the union’s secretary continued to work towards having delegates change the constitution.
Then God intervened. The delegates to the session gave a no show; there was no quorum to start the meeting. Some suggested to ignore quorum, but the TED secretary convinced them that to proceed without a quorum would make the revision of the constitution forever questionable under Dutch law. That would add to the volatile situation in this union.
In 2016 the EC tried it again, but because it failed to send notice of the session on time, they compromised the constitution again. That meeting was canceled too.
Member’s Manifesto
The 2015 General Conference Session opened many eyes. The blatant violation of church policy, along with manipulation and deliberate misinformation given to the people, had an effect. After much prayer I began drafting a member’s manifesto. By this time, I was exhausted. I didn’t really know what to do next. Prayers of many members didn’t seem to help.
I told the Lord, ‘If You want me to do something, You’ll have to send someone to help me, because I am not certain what to do next.’ The next day a young brother, Daniel Klop, called me, saying, ‘Ingrid let’s do it together this time.’ Two other brothers, Colvin Overdiep and my husband Benito completed the leader’s team, to ensure thoughtful communication with the EC. We publicly called for a member’s meeting to talk about the situation on August 30th.
Eighty-two members came from all over the country, and unanimously we decided to create a Member’s Manifesto to request a special meeting to hold the EC accountable. The old constitution provided for 500 members to demand a special meeting. Eventually, within 1,5 month more than 800 members gave their signature¾almost 1/3 of attending church members in the Union, and we could send in the request by registered mail on October 11th .
We had determined from the beginning to do this with all godly courtesy and to be transparent towards the EC and the local church boards. Right away on September 2, 2015 the secretary of the EC received an email with an advance notification of the manifesto. That is what the 82 members demanded at the meeting - "we want to communicate with the union as transparently as possible; we want to do it in God's way, so that it is blessed, as we are and will remain each other's brothers and sisters”. This courtesy was maintained throughout the whole process. We sought to avoid all politics and manipulation, but to be wise as serpents and blameless as doves.
The 82 members who acted as ambassadors to gather the signatures were not met with the same courtesy. They encountered much opposition and coercion. We were not surprised. We knew the sheep were sleeping with the wolves. We resolved to depend on the God who never sleeps.
The EC tried to deny the request, arguing that because the constitution does not specify a time limit, they could refuse indefinitely to schedule the meeting. We argued that the Model Constitution in the Working policy specifies 90 days as reasonable.
The EC managed to stall the meeting for 237 days, until June 5, 2016. The members begged EC, TED and GC for independent parliamentary guidance because the same men were in office who had been instrumental at the session of 2012 action. The request was not heard; TED administration stood aloof; GC did not respond.
The Member’s Session
The leaders of the Member’s movement presented a thoughtful, courteous statement, and their first motion was that the Dutch Union must be in harmony with voted Church Policy. The recently replaced union’s secretary tried to amend the wording to "as much as possible", but that amendment failed. The parliamentarians could not believe it. They counted the secret ballots four times before they admitted that the initial motion had achieved a majority.
After that, the EC officials hijacked the meeting altogether. It was a total disgrace. The GC Rules of Order were violated on 21 points, and this under the supervision of TED officers. After the session I wrote my report on the 21 violations.
Apparently, those at higher levels concluded that the Dutch members are not easy to handle when dishonest men violate their rights. The next two sessions (2017 new EC and 2018 new Constitution and Bylaws) Karnik Doukmetzian was dispatched to us from the General Conference as parliamentarian. It proved necessary for he repeatedly had to intervene to secure proper process.
Great is our God and greatly to be praised! But God wants action first. He wants Gideons, feeble at heart, but acting while praying and crying.
Clarity Now
The current administration was appointed in 2017. Pray for them. The pressure on them is enormous.
The passage in the letter of Dec 18th reads (translated from Dutch):
"Finally, the subject of the issue of Women's ordination in the position of pastor was addressed. This is a difficult issue for the EC, with which it struggles. In April 2017, the former EC issued a temporary stop to ordination services for women in pastoral ministry. The current administrators starting their position in June 2017, prolonged that decision with two years, on request from the Trans-European Division, to further the dialogue [Ed. At division level].
At the EC meeting of December 8th, no decision was taken on [Ed. To restart] ordination services for women in the position of pastoral ministry. Some aspects around this issue have become clear, though. First, there is the fact that according to the policy of the Church organization, the EC has no formal mandate to decide on ordaining women to the position of pastoral ministry. Second, the fact was established that the delegates in the constituency meeting of May 2018 decided explicitly that the Dutch Union of Churches Conference shall be governed in harmony with the policy of the world church organization. This was broadly discussed during that session. [Ed. and regulated in the new constitution] There is also the fact [Ed. Thirdly] that even if the EC would want to take such a decision, it will not be a decision on whether or not to ordain women to pastoral ministry; the choice of the EC would then be that the Dutch church would be in violation to the policy of the World Church and of its own Constitution. You may understand that such a decision needs an argument that must be indisputable and to explore such arguments takes time. Therefore, the EC declared to take time the coming period to further explore the aspects of ordaining women to pastoral ministry.
The EC also wants [Ed. Fourth] to further explain the role and the position of women ministers, as designed within the World Church organization. In concrete terms, this means that the EC complies with the policy provisions of the Church organization, unless otherwise decided in the future."
My Comments on the Passage
1. The basis for non-ordination is not only found in the World Church policy (working policy) and the Dutch church's Constitution, but also in the majority's decision of the 2016 Special Members' Manifesto Session, "to remain in complete harmony with the policies of the world church". The motion was attacked in a hostile manner and amended to "as much as possible in harmony ...". Even though after that session the EC cried victory to say that the 2012 session decision and the EC action of 2013 was established, that sound was off-key.
2. The passage correctly states that if it is decided to ordain women, the EC would we acting directly against our duly voted world church policy, as well as the legal basis of the Adventist Church in the Netherlands, the Dutch Civil Code. Such a decision would mean that the Dutch church was separating itself from the world church. Another reason to think carefully before taking such a step is that the foundation of the church is not theological only, but there is a judicial element. In the Netherlands, Church organizations are not obliged to adopt Articles of Association (i.e. Constitutions), but Dutch law requires that if they do, they must act according to the association rules.
3. The suggestion that more time is needed for explanation and detailed arguments is an empty promise, because the Dutch Union of Churches Conference is not authorized to take a positive or negative decision on the outcome of such an exploration. Moreover, during the past ten years, such an exploration has been carried out at the highest levels in our World Church (TOSC), and the results have been clear. On top of that, there are 23 to 24 valid actions on this matter at that highest level since 1973, rejecting women's ordination to pastoral ministry. These are valid decisions of the church, that need to be honored.
4. Every statement from "a Dutch reconnaissance envoy" would be an unnecessary waste of time, and a distraction from the reason of existence of the church in this world¾preaching the Biblical gospel in an unadulterated way so that people can still be saved for the eternal Kingdom of God, where there will be no distinction between male and female. A badge of honor is worthless there. Let us give everything for that purpose; and fight for it, because time is short. We must stop agitating church members for church positions on earth.
5. The Dutch union of churches is not governed by "influential retirees", and the World Church is governed by consensus decisions of duly chosen world representatives. Our Church has always been very careful not to foster local dictators and cult leaders. The majority have already spoken 24 times at the highest level, and in the Netherlands in 2016 and 2017 and 2018. Even with God, three times settle a dispute (Luke 4, Matthew 4). Enough is enough. Time to stop this madness.
6. "In concrete terms, this means that the EC complies with the policy provisions of the Church organization unless otherwise decided in the future." That is, unless otherwise decided by duly appointed delegates in a GC Session. Exactly! That's the way it should be. No minister, or self-respecting church leader, would want (to have) his / her authority to be undermined, the way this issue has dragged on for the past ten years.
God is Final Judge
The current administration continues to be on the receiving end; it is tarred and feathered by past and present forces pressing for women’s ordination. These are those who were behind the anonymous motion in 2012. These were openly spreading misinformation, calling Ted Wilson “pope” in official church publications, and even trying to incorporate the Dutch Church as a business entity in order to bypass the separation between Church and State in the Netherlands to achieve their ‘equality’. They didn’t succeed, for God has final say.
Today, I look back and see where God was there beside me. I was exhausted when God enlisted 800 brethren. All who dare resist a corrupted system will be maimed and crushed. But we can see now how God was with us every step of the way. It has cost us much. We had to make our foreheads iron and close our ears and feelings to the animosities against us and our families.
When I look back today and realize that despite all of that I was appointed delegate by my local Church in 2007, 2012, 2014, twice in 2016, and chosen in the CSR (Standing Committee Constitution and bylaws) in 2017 while not a delegate, delegate at large in 2018, I am simply amazed. Humanly speaking, all that is impossible. But this is what God’s children will feel when in Heaven we look back and realize that we were never walking alone.
God has His men and women at their post who will not flinch. I am humbled to have been one of those.
The last thing I want is to be put on a pedestal. My only reason is to have the readers perceive that battling justice takes much and almost all, but that God sends helpers when you are at the end of your wits.
Now I ask only one thing of you, my F7 brethren: please remember the Dutch brethren in your prayers? The women’s ordination conflict has required much of our energies. It may cost many their eternal life. Many who call themselves leaders should have received a for-cause removal letter long ago. Sometimes I wonder if those men and women study their Sabbath School lessons. The past quarter addressing leadership was timely. Lord, have mercy on our souls!
I know very well that I am a sinner saved by grace and was just an instrument in His hands.
“I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the LORD, keep not silence” (Isaiah 62:6 ).
Ingrid Wijngaarde is a member of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee in Netherlands Union of Churches Conference. She is a member of Groningen SDA Church, and a senior policy advisor for the Dutch government.