Unlike the landslide CUC vote, I expect that the PUC vote will be be a very close one either way, and I wouldnt venture a guess on it.
I understand there are two separate items to be voted on here. 1-changing the by laws. 2-authorizing ordination without regard to gender. I understand that the first item requires a 2/3 majority vote, while the second item requires a simple 51% majority. Can anyone shed further light on this?
At their March meeting, the Pacific Union executive committee voted to table until May 9 a motion that would immediately approve the ordination of ministers without regard to gender. They also set up an Ordination Study Committee to outline the steps necessary to make gender-neutral ordinations a reality as soon as possible.
Today at the La Sierra University Alumni Center, that committee delivered their report to the full executive committee. The committee replaced the original motion with a new one and voted overwhelmingly to call a special constituency meeting, tentatively scheduled for August 19.
The Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee will approve or disapprove candidates for ordination without regard to gender, effective when the Union Bylaws are amended.
Those two words can potentially make a huge difference in what can be allowed in the union.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, changing the practice of women's ordination could be only the beginning.
In contradistinction, the CUC vote was narrowly confined to the issue of WO.
On August 19, delegates from the Pacific Union Conference will convene in Woodland Hills, California to vote on changes to the Pacific Union Conference Bylaws.* If approved, the proposed changes will enable the union to enact a previously-approved measure to ordain ministers without regard to gender when a local conference requests such approval. The Pacific Union Conference stands to be the second union in the North American Division to authorize ordination without regard to gender, following the Columbia Union Conference. Outside of the North American Division, the North German Union Conference voted in April of this year "to ordain female pastors as their male colleagues."
It would be nice if all the women pastors I've heard or observed were actually Spirit-filled...
It would be nice if all the women pastors I've heard or observed were actually Spirit-filled...Careful now..... Heh-heh.
The GC Session is the entity that recognizes the PUC. If the PUC refuses to recognize the authority of the GC Session, why would the GC Session have to continue to recognize the PUC?
Wouldn't the same be true of the CUC?The GC Session is the entity that recognizes the PUC. If the PUC refuses to recognize the authority of the GC Session, why would the GC Session have to continue to recognize the PUC?
Those two words can potentially make a huge difference in what can be allowed in the union.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, changing the practice of women's ordination could be only the beginning.
In contradistinction, the CUC vote was narrowly confined to the issue of WO.
In their full implication, the change of these words is as important as the difference between love and sin, light and dark, saved or lost. Think about it. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10. There can be no half-hardheartedness. There is no such thing as half-loyalty. To stray on one point is to betray one's entire purpose. We are either united or we are not. Unit can only take place when believers are of one mind and one accord, agreed in truth and practice. "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3.
None would dare tell JEHOVAH that they will be obey Him in most things but in some they will choose to do as they please. And if we wouldn't do this to God, then how dare we do this to His remnant church and corporately choose to say "We shall do as we will" on these certain points, casting away all the light given to us a people, and primarily the Sanctuary Message. Woe unto the conferences, unions, and bodies of believers who dare do this at this hour for they are openly rebelling against the King of the Universe.
http://www.aubsda.org/assets/396424
The above website is a SDA denominational response to a number of question in regard to the PUC meeting today (August 19, 2012) that addresses questions and comments that have been raised here and in other places.
The GC Session is the entity that recognizes the PUC. If the PUC refuses to recognize the authority of the GC Session, why would the GC Session have to continue to recognize the PUC?
Those two words can potentially make a huge difference in what can be allowed in the union.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, changing the practice of women's ordination could be only the beginning.
In contradistinction, the CUC vote was narrowly confined to the issue of WO.
In their full implication, the change of these words is as important as the difference between love and sin, light and dark, saved or lost. Think about it. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10. There can be no half-hardheartedness. There is no such thing as half-loyalty. To stray on one point is to betray one's entire purpose. We are either united or we are not. Unit can only take place when believers are of one mind and one accord, agreed in truth and practice. "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3.
None would dare tell JEHOVAH that they will be obey Him in most things but in some they will choose to do as they please. And if we wouldn't do this to God, then how dare we do this to His remnant church and corporately choose to say "We shall do as we will" on these certain points, casting away all the light given to us a people, and primarily the Sanctuary Message. Woe unto the conferences, unions, and bodies of believers who dare do this at this hour for they are openly rebelling against the King of the Universe.
Quote"All the policies, purposes and procedures of this Union shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the North American Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists."
Vote is to change to:
"In general, the policies, purposes and procedures of this Union will be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the North American Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists."
Those two words can potentially make a huge difference in what can be allowed in the union.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, changing the practice of women's ordination could be only the beginning.
In contradistinction, the CUC vote was narrowly confined to the issue of WO.
In their full implication, the change of these words is as important as the difference between love and sin, light and dark, saved or lost. Think about it. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10. There can be no half-hardheartedness. There is no such thing as half-loyalty. To stray on one point is to betray one's entire purpose. We are either united or we are not. Unit can only take place when believers are of one mind and one accord, agreed in truth and practice. "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3.
None would dare tell JEHOVAH that they will be obey Him in most things but in some they will choose to do as they please. And if we wouldn't do this to God, then how dare we do this to His remnant church and corporately choose to say "We shall do as we will" on these certain points, casting away all the light given to us a people, and primarily the Sanctuary Message. Woe unto the conferences, unions, and bodies of believers who dare do this at this hour for they are openly rebelling against the King of the Universe.
Quote"All the policies, purposes and procedures of this Union shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the North American Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists."
Vote is to change to:
"In general, the policies, purposes and procedures of this Union will be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the North American Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists."
Those two words can potentially make a huge difference in what can be allowed in the union.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, changing the practice of women's ordination could be only the beginning.
In contradistinction, the CUC vote was narrowly confined to the issue of WO.
In their full implication, the change of these words is as important as the difference between love and sin, light and dark, saved or lost. Think about it. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10. There can be no half-hardheartedness. There is no such thing as half-loyalty. To stray on one point is to betray one's entire purpose. We are either united or we are not. Unit can only take place when believers are of one mind and one accord, agreed in truth and practice. "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3.
None would dare tell JEHOVAH that they will be obey Him in most things but in some they will choose to do as they please. And if we wouldn't do this to God, then how dare we do this to His remnant church and corporately choose to say "We shall do as we will" on these certain points, casting away all the light given to us a people, and primarily the Sanctuary Message. Woe unto the conferences, unions, and bodies of believers who dare do this at this hour for they are openly rebelling against the King of the Universe.
O.K. this is a prime example of what I was refering to on another thread.
Suddenly we see this impassioned loyality and total obedience to the GC policies.
Yet, I would wager that most of the conservatives that are now so strong in insisting the GC votes are next to the voice of God, have, in times passed not been all that supportive of the GC at all.
Just take the vote on marriage policies passed by the GC in session, in the year 2000, in Toronto.
I can't even remember the details but I do remember the fury expressed against the vote.
It was some of the same people (not on this forum) who voiced rather "rebellious" thoughts about the vote, that now advocate total obedience "in all things" not "in general" to the GC policies.
Conservatives usually don't show that much support for the General Conference, so it's interesting that in this issue they are ready to make it the "voice of God" in all policies.
On the other side -- there is A LOT of things going on in this beloved denomination, that is out of line with our established beliefs, and that has long ago wonder far afield from total obedience to GOD. This is definitely not "the beginning>'
I do agree we need to follow God all the time.
Wow! Any job openings for Elder Castillo? Lol! I'm not sure he'll be welcome back in Silver Spring after today. Like he said, he may be coming back to CA a lot sooner than later after that speech.
The GC Session is the entity that recognizes the PUC. If the PUC refuses to recognize the authority of the GC Session, why would the GC Session have to continue to recognize the PUC?
Because a lot of financial support comes from the Pacific Union Conferance
Because one of Adventists most prestigeous hosipitals and universities are within the PUC
In every generation the issues of that time have been put forth as apocalyptic at best. The issue of ordination of women is now apocalyptic to some. In time very recent people died for practice and belief differing from that of Christendom, Islam, etc. is this the great divide that will end it all? It would be incredibly arrogant ant self-centered to assume so. Yes, I have close friends who believe that today's vote means we have reached the point where the church falls apart and all hell breaks loose on mankind. This was thought for any of thousands of small changes in Christianity over the past 2,000 years. What incredible arrogance would bring us to assume that our small dispute is the greatest in all the history of Christianity?
In every generation the issues of that time have been put forth as apocalyptic at best. The issue of ordination of women is now apocalyptic to some. In time very recent people died for practice and belief differing from that of Christendom, Islam, etc. is this the great divide that will end it all? It would be incredibly arrogant ant self-centered to assume so. Yes, I have close friends who believe that today's vote means we have reached the point where the church falls apart and all hell breaks loose on mankind. This was thought for any of thousands of small changes in Christianity over the past 2,000 years. What incredible arrogance would bring us to assume that our small dispute is the greatest in all the history of Christianity?
In every generation the issues of that time have been put forth as apocalyptic at best. The issue of ordination of women is now apocalyptic to some. In time very recent people died for practice and belief differing from that of Christendom, Islam, etc. is this the great divide that will end it all? It would be incredibly arrogant ant self-centered to assume so. Yes, I have close friends who believe that today's vote means we have reached the point where the church falls apart and all hell breaks loose on mankind. This was thought for any of thousands of small changes in Christianity over the past 2,000 years. What incredible arrogance would bring us to assume that our small dispute is the greatest in all the history of Christianity?
Mankind is very good at making minor points THE TEST.
We've had all kinds of issues set before the people as "the test".
But there is a TEST that has been prophesied, and it's not about women vs men.
It's about WORSHIPING the Creator God, the One Who made heaven and earth and everything in them and rested on the seventh day. It's about having the faith of Jesus and keeping God's commandments, including (and especially) the fourth.
A far more important criteria for ordination should be "does this person believe the fundamental, pillar truths found in scripture, upon which this church was built, and do they show that they have a relationship with Christ."
That should be the criteria, not "are you male".
If people would simply follow God's commandments a great many of the GC policies would be unnecessary. People would submit one to another in love, not seeking to rule over others, and if all pastors met the criteria of believing there would be a unity far greater than anyone will ever get by barring women from the ministry.
I also believe that timing might be bad for PUC. German Union just acquiesced to the wishes of the Division to wait and there is an unconfirmed report that Pennsylvania has withdrawn support for the CUC wo decision.
Does anybody have the link to the video discussion at the PUC?
Also the one for the Loma Linda discussion the day before the PUC Special Session?
If God Doesn't change and women are not to teach men, then how could EGW give counsel to the leaders that she did? How can we use her in any of the church writtings? The GC and members should demand not a word she wrote ever be published again and what is now published should be destroyed. This is what comes to my mind when I here all the arguement against WO. Do you hear what you are saying?!?!?! Would you have followed Hitler's orders to kill the Jews?!?!?!?!?
I agree that Unions should not be dissolved. It would the cowards way out, and show a complete lack of administrative and managerial capacity for finding solutions to problems. It is the way the the Inquisition dealt with things. "If you can't be in full agreement with me, then I cannot, and will not tolerate your existence. Your body will be dissolved on the scaffold of unity that all might see and tremble at the fierce wrath of God and His church, and think twice before they incur said wrath and bring the spiritual body of Christ crashing down on them to destroy them from off the earth." It has been put to me that the GC is like a parent, and the CUC and PUC like recalcitrant children. So would you advocate that parents dissolve their recalcitrant children? End their existence? I wouldn't think so.The GC Session is the entity that recognizes the PUC. If the PUC refuses to recognize the authority of the GC Session, why would the GC Session have to continue to recognize the PUC?
Because a lot of financial support comes from the Pacific Union Conferance
Because one of Adventists most prestigeous hosipitals and universities are within the PUC
If money talks and can buy a union out of discipline, then no union should ever be dissolved, no matter how much or how little money they have. And leaders who want to play political games and cater to the money should be removed from office.
The university is a GC institution, not a union institution.
If God Doesn't change and women are not to teach men, then how could EGW give counsel to the leaders that she did? How can we use her in any of the church writtings? The GC and members should demand not a word she wrote ever be published again and what is now published should be destroyed. This is what comes to my mind when I here all the arguement against WO. Do you hear what you are saying?!?!?! Would you have followed Hitler's orders to kill the Jews?!?!?!?!?
I agree that Unions should not be dissolved.The GC Session is the entity that recognizes the PUC. If the PUC refuses to recognize the authority of the GC Session, why would the GC Session have to continue to recognize the PUC?
Because a lot of financial support comes from the Pacific Union Conferance
Because one of Adventists most prestigeous hosipitals and universities are within the PUC
If money talks and can buy a union out of discipline, then no union should ever be dissolved, no matter how much or how little money they have. And leaders who want to play political games and cater to the money should be removed from office.
The university is a GC institution, not a union institution.
I agree that Unions should not be dissolved.The GC Session is the entity that recognizes the PUC. If the PUC refuses to recognize the authority of the GC Session, why would the GC Session have to continue to recognize the PUC?
Because a lot of financial support comes from the Pacific Union Conferance
Because one of Adventists most prestigeous hosipitals and universities are within the PUC
If money talks and can buy a union out of discipline, then no union should ever be dissolved, no matter how much or how little money they have. And leaders who want to play political games and cater to the money should be removed from office.
The university is a GC institution, not a union institution.
To avoid misunderstanding, let me add that I wasn't saying that the unions should not be dissolved.
I think conferences and/or unions have been dissolved in the past. I seem to recall some sort of situation like that in Africa, but I don't remember the details. I was saying that if money talks to that extent, unions that don't have that kind of money should never be dissolved either, because it wouldn't be fair to dissolve some rebellious unions and not others simply because some have money and some don't.
If CUC refuses to come into line, and no other course works, I support our church leadership if they decide to dissolve CUC.
B 95 15 Dissolution of Union Missions and Expulsion of Union Conferences/Union Missions ...
...
5. If a General Conference Session concurs with a recommendation to expel and votes to expel a union conference/union mission from the world sisterhood of unions, the division shall exercise direct responsibility for the conferences and/or missions/fields affected by the expulsion and shall, through its executive committee, take an action to attach them directly to the division until a new organization can be established or a rearrangement of territorial boundaries effected. Disloyal conferences/missions/fields shall be dealt with in harmony with the principles set out under B 75 10.
6. In the event of the dissolution of a union mission and/or the expulsion of a union conference/union mission from the world sisterhood of unions, audits of the financial records of the union conference/union mission shall be conducted. All assets remaining after all claims have been satisfied shall be transferred to a legal entity authorized by the division, or dealt with as specified in the union conference constitution and bylaws/union mission operating policy.
B 75 Adjustments in Organizational Status
...
When the decision to adjust an organization’s status becomes effective the organization shall immediately comply with the operational terms and relationships pertaining to its revised status. If the decision to adjust status involves dissolution of the organization concerned, the assets of the organization shall be distributed in harmony with applicable organizational documents (such as Articles or Bylaws).
If the GC actually goes to the extreme measure of dissolving any of these Unions, what happens to all the assets within these respective Unions from the Union offices, down to the Conferences within these Unions, and also all of the local churches within these Unions?
Quote from: GC 2005-2006 Working PolicyB 95 15 Dissolution of Union Missions and Expulsion of Union Conferences/Union Missions ...
...
5. If a General Conference Session concurs with a recommendation to expel and votes to expel a union conference/union mission from the world sisterhood of unions, the division shall exercise direct responsibility for the conferences and/or missions/fields affected by the expulsion and shall, through its executive committee, take an action to attach them directly to the division until a new organization can be established or a rearrangement of territorial boundaries effected. Disloyal conferences/missions/fields shall be dealt with in harmony with the principles set out under B 75 10.
6. In the event of the dissolution of a union mission and/or the expulsion of a union conference/union mission from the world sisterhood of unions, audits of the financial records of the union conference/union mission shall be conducted. All assets remaining after all claims have been satisfied shall be transferred to a legal entity authorized by the division, or dealt with as specified in the union conference constitution and bylaws/union mission operating policy.Quote from: GC 2005-2006 Working PolicyB 75 Adjustments in Organizational Status
...
When the decision to adjust an organization’s status becomes effective the organization shall immediately comply with the operational terms and relationships pertaining to its revised status. If the decision to adjust status involves dissolution of the organization concerned, the assets of the organization shall be distributed in harmony with applicable organizational documents (such as Articles or Bylaws).
What about the physical assets, as in Union Office, Union Institutions, Local Church Buildings within that Union, etc.???
Also, what by-laws are being referenced in B 75? Union Bylaws or GC Bylaws?Quote from: GC 2005-2006 Working PolicyB 95 15 Dissolution of Union Missions and Expulsion of Union Conferences/Union Missions ...
...
5. If a General Conference Session concurs with a recommendation to expel and votes to expel a union conference/union mission from the world sisterhood of unions, the division shall exercise direct responsibility for the conferences and/or missions/fields affected by the expulsion and shall, through its executive committee, take an action to attach them directly to the division until a new organization can be established or a rearrangement of territorial boundaries effected. Disloyal conferences/missions/fields shall be dealt with in harmony with the principles set out under B 75 10.
6. In the event of the dissolution of a union mission and/or the expulsion of a union conference/union mission from the world sisterhood of unions, audits of the financial records of the union conference/union mission shall be conducted. All assets remaining after all claims have been satisfied shall be transferred to a legal entity authorized by the division, or dealt with as specified in the union conference constitution and bylaws/union mission operating policy.Quote from: GC 2005-2006 Working PolicyB 75 Adjustments in Organizational Status
...
When the decision to adjust an organization’s status becomes effective the organization shall immediately comply with the operational terms and relationships pertaining to its revised status. If the decision to adjust status involves dissolution of the organization concerned, the assets of the organization shall be distributed in harmony with applicable organizational documents (such as Articles or Bylaws).
Physical assets belong to the CHURCH.
They would stay with the instititutional church -- coming under the jurisdiction of the next higher level of church authority.
Remembering one church that was "dissolved", it was in an outlying community and the people had a combined church and medical clinic that the members had put a lot of money into, but when the church was dissolved EVERYTHING went to the conference and was basically "lost", as the conference sold everything and supposedly put the money in a "trust fund", but when a new group asked for financial assistance to start a church in that community once again, there was no money. A lot of hard feelings... not good -- not good at all.
Such radical ideas are destructive.
There's no need for such radical moves.
All they have to do is say -- the motion and vote is OUT OF ORDER.
Any person ordained against the vote of the GC policy are not recognized by the church at large as ordained ministers and therefore are not entitled to whatever special privileges ordained ministers have.
A special constituency meeting was held Sunday afternoon, August 19, 2012, in Southern California. On the agenda were two votes: 1) to change the bylaws of the Pacific Union, allowing the union to be out of sync with General Conference regulations; 2) to approve ordination to the pastoral ministry without regard to gender.
The bylaws vote needed a two-thirds margin to pass. This vote failed by one percent, consequently making an ordination vote irrelevant.
The executive committee continued the meeting to “discuss and vote on the ordination issue.” Though without teeth, the union voted 79 percent to 21 percent to recommend women’s ordination. This ordination vote did pass its 51 percent margin, yet the union still cannot ordain women due to the failed bylaw vote. To do so would put the union out of compliance with its own bylaws which still state:
“All the policies, purposes and procedures of this Union shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the North American Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.”
In conclusion, the union president Ricardo Graham stated, “I do not think this is a ‘win’ … but we have expressed our opinion through our vote.”
The response from the General Conference officers is as follows:
The 17 million members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are united through the Holy Spirit in a common commitment to Christ and the truths of His Word, an urgent end-time mission, and a divinely inspired church organization. A threat to any one of these places at risk the unity of the church. It is for this reason that the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church affirms the Pacific Union’s action not to change their Constitution and remain in harmony with the world church. This represents a step in a positive direction. The General Conference leadership is seriously concerned, though, with the Pacific Union’s subsequent action to preempt the collective decisions of the world church regarding ordination. Unilateral actions contrary to the voted decisions of the global church seriously threaten the unity of the church.
The world church recognizes the vital role that women play in the life, ministry and leadership of the church and encourages their active involvement. Because the General Conference Administrative Committee has already voted and commenced the most comprehensive study in our history on the subject of ordination, which will include the study of the ordination of women, the action of the Pacific Union to grant Ministerial Ordination “without respect to gender” preempts the process voted for the current study of ordination theology and practices by committing the Pacific Union Conference to a particular outcome before the study-and-discussion process is completed. It also expresses a lack of trust in the integrity of the general process accepted and voted by General Conference administrators and personnel, division officers, and pastors and lay members from all the world divisions who serve on the General Conference Executive Committee, which includes the presidents of the 125 unions representing the world church, regarding how we approach common challenges.
Further, the action is contrary to General Conference Working Policy and sets aside the 1990 and 1995 decisions of the General Conference in Session respecting the practice of ordination. The action taken by the Pacific Union Conference represents a serious threat to the unity of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church, and thus, at its next meeting in October 2012, as indicated in another recent public statement by General Conference officers and division presidents, the General Conference Executive Committee will carefully review the situation and determine how to respond. In the spirit of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the officers of the General Conference appeal to all entities, organizations, and individuals, including the Pacific Union Conference, to refrain from independent and unilateral decisions and from implementing any such actions.
It is our prayer that the “oneness” Jesus prayed for in His great intercessory prayer in John 17, and that which the disciples experienced in Acts 2, will be manifest in His church today. We pray that the result of this “oneness” will be lives transformed by His grace, united in His love, and empowered by His Spirit to proclaim His last-day message in all of its fullness to a perishing planet, hastening the glorious return of our Lord.
Ted N. C. Wilson, President
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
G. T. Ng, Secretary
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
Robert E. Lemon, Treasurer
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
If the GC actually goes to the extreme measure of dissolving any of these Unions, what happens to all the assets within these respective Unions from the Union offices, down to the Conferences within these Unions, and also all of the local churches within these Unions?
One wonders if that will ever happen. We have often heard that most of the money in our church comes from California, and therefore California rules the Church - to a degree.
One wonders - now we have passed a membership of 17 million while there are about 1 million in North America. This means that there are 16 million in other parts of the world. Now people elsewhere are asking: Why are our headquarters still in USA, and all but two presidents have been American. Jan Paulsen is one of those two.
The answer seems to be that it is because the money rules. The high standards of the church and its institutions is paid for by the church in America which might influence votes at the GC session.
If the present administration dismisses a Pacific Union there might be less funds left, and that could affect several of our institution as well as funds for evangelism. With less funds from America that might also influence members elsewhere to elect a non-US president at the next GC. We already have a strong representation of members from Africa and Asia in the Administration of of our GC.
Where is the influence of the Holy Spirit then? How will the Lord rule in His church?
Physical assets belong to the CHURCH.
They would stay with the instititutional church -- coming under the jurisdiction of the next higher level of church authority.
Remembering one church that was "dissolved", it was in an outlying community and the people had a combined church and medical clinic that the members had put a lot of money into, but when the church was dissolved EVERYTHING went to the conference and was basically "lost", as the conference sold everything and supposedly put the money in a "trust fund", but when a new group asked for financial assistance to start a church in that community once again, there was no money. A lot of hard feelings... not good -- not good at all.
If that church was dissolved because of declining membership rather than apostasy, there is another way to keep the assets more local: Merge with another congregation. Then it is that other church's leadership that would have control over the assets. If they are more prone to work with the few that remain at the other location, it should work out better.
"Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told."
"Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right."
Quote"Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told."
"Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right."
Author unknown.
Whom does this describe?
A special constituency meeting was held Sunday afternoon, August 19, 2012, in Southern California. On the agenda were two votes: 1) to change the bylaws of the Pacific Union, allowing the union to be out of sync with General Conference regulations; 2) to approve ordination to the pastoral ministry without regard to gender.Here is the web site link that contains this and other links:
The bylaws vote needed a two-thirds margin to pass. This vote failed by one percent, consequently making an ordination vote irrelevant.
The executive committee continued the meeting to "discuss and vote on the ordination issue." Though without teeth, the union voted 79 percent to 21 percent to recommend women's ordination. This ordination vote did pass its 51 percent margin, yet the union still cannot ordain women due to the failed bylaw vote. To do so would put the union out of compliance with its own bylaws which still state:
"All the policies, purposes and procedures of this Union shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the North American Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists."
In conclusion, the union president Ricardo Graham stated, "I do not think this is a 'win'... but we have expressed our opinion through our vote."
The Church is not supposed to be run like a heirarchy -- from top down.
When EGW said "God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing, is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church," she showed that the authority was with the PEOPLE, not with the heirarchy.
What's happening isn't "private opinion" like it or not -- it is the voices of the churches wanting to be heard.
Probably to solve the issue according to the voice of the church, they should allow every union to have a constituency meeting like the Columbia Union and the Pacific Union had, and ENCOURAGE people to vote on the issue. This would show the true "mind and judgement" of the church, it would also show whether or not there is a cultural/ethnical bias .