Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => Womens Ordination & Related Issues => Topic started by: Irishtiger on May 04, 2012, 12:22:28 PM
-
View the press release here:
http://scc.adventist.org/assets/388198
-
At its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, May 1, 2012, the Southern California Conference Executive Committee, for the first time since discussion about the ordination of women became active in the church, unanimously ...
Yet the survey at http://scc.adventist.org/assets/388199 which the above document refers to states that 26% of the 19 of 31 Executive Committee members that responded were opposed to women's ordination. Could someone please explain to me how 26% opposed turned into unanimous in favor of?
More confusing is how the survey says that 53 % of those committee members believe the final decisions should be made at a GC Session, 37% believe that we should wait until a GC Session approves it, and 61% believe it's a theological issue.
Did some simply not show up to the meeting to vote? Did some abstain? How else could they have ended up with a "unanimous" vote?
Furthermore, the large portion who never responded to the survey, did they tend to be opposed or in favor? How would that affect the numbers?
-
The SCC Executive Committee took this action after:
...
• acknowledging strong support from more than 80% of conference clergy: the executive committee and the region committees.
Yet the survey at http://scc.adventist.org/assets/388198 says:
Three surveys were conducted for the Southern California Conference in March and April of 2012 to assess the views of key constituents on the possible ordination of women serving in pastoral ministry.
• 71 of 145 pastors responded (49%)
Could someone explain to me how 49% pastors who responded suddenly morphs into 80% of the entire conference clergy?
If this is a righteous cause, why can't the women's ordination crowd just stick with solid, indisputable facts? Why do they have to resort to distortions?
-
View the press release here:
http://scc.adventist.org/assets/388198
Welcome to AdventTalk, Irishtiger!
-
"Irishtiger" suggests a fighting Celtic Christian. Welcome, and join our discussions!
-
Could someone explain to me how 49% pastors who responded suddenly morphs into 80% of the entire conference clergy?
Perhaps (?) the Conference has some clergy who are not pastors of congregations.
Some may be admilnistrators.
Some may teach.
Some may be hospital chaplains.
I think that I may have the answer to your question. The Conference news item reads:
acknowledging strong support from more than 80% of conference
clergy: the executive committee and the region committees.
The cited figure include more than the clergy. It included the Executive Committee, some of which are not clergy, and the region committees, whatever that means, many of whom may be assumed to not be clergy.
Well, here is the actual answer, without speculation:
Three surveys were conducted for the
Southern California Conference in March and
April of 2012 to assess the views of key
constituents on the possible ordination of
women serving in pastoral ministry.
l? 71 of 145 pastors responded (49%)
l? 19 of 31 executive committee members (61%)
l? 23 of 76 lay members of the Region Committees
(30%)
If this is a righteous cause, why can't the women's ordination crowd just stick with solid, indisputable facts? Why do they have to resort to distortions?
I will suggest that they did not resort to distortions. I acknowledge that the actual figures cited do not add up to 80%. But, I think it gives us some light on your question.
-
Gregory,
Do you have any thoughts on how 26% of the responding conference committee members being opposed could morph into a unanimous vote in favor of? The problem becomes worse when one considers that 37% thought we should wait until a GC Session approves it, and 53% thought the GC Session should have the final say.
So if the over 80% figure was intended to include conference committee members and region committee lay members, which is possible, then we have 252 total people that were sent a survey, and of those 252, 113 responded. That's 44.8%. And based on the responses of that 44.8% they can say that they have "strong support" from over 80%? I don't think so.
"What should a division do that wishes to ordain women?" "Go ahead with it & report to next GC Session"
That is the slide from the survey summary that should really disturb Seventh-day Adventists everywhere. Rebellion against SoP counsel is in the works. Here we already have two GC Session votes against women's ordination, and sizable numbers of respondents from Southern California have the audacity to say the division ought to ordain women anyway.
I wonder what Dan Jackson would say if a local church disciplined a pastor or conference committee member or administrator for rebellion against properly constituted church authority if any of these individuals dared rebel against the authority of the GC Session.
When an individual is censured, they lose their local church offices. What about church offices beyond the local church? What happens to those offices?
-
1) Bob, I can not respond to the per-cent figures. I gave you some partial answers, but I do not beleive that my response is a total response.
2) Rebellion: Your are certain that rebellion is in the air. Others believe that for one reason or another there is no rebellion and all are operating within their authority. Frankly, neither you nor I has the authority to make that decision. I can understand why there is disagreement. I understand the points that each is making. My personal position is that on some levels the decisions are made on a level that has the authority to make them.
3) So,the bottom line is that the next move is up to denominational admilnistration. IF there is rebellion, let the denomination enforce it.
4) Personally I believe that the denomination is very close to the point where it will be unable stop the trend that we see taking place. I do not think it is quite there yet, but almost. From that perspective, I belive that denominational leadership understands that it must move very carefully. If, in my opinion, it does not move very carefully, it will accelerate a process that is just beginning and is probably unwanted by many. I am not predicting what that process will be. I see several that could be accelerated by unwise moves on the part of denominational administration.
-
2) Rebellion: Your are certain that rebellion is in the air. Others believe that for one reason or another there is no rebellion and all are operating within their authority. Frankly, neither you nor I has the authority to make that decision.
But you and I can both read, and we don't need anyone to give us permission to read, and 9T 260-261 plainly says what it says about the authority of a GC Session vote. Those behind the present agitation and those taking part in it can pretend that they aren't promoting rebellion against a GC Session vote all they want, but pretending doesn't make it so.
"No stronger delusion can deceive the human mind than that which makes them believe that they are right, and that God accepts their works, when they are sinning against Him" (1T 406-407).
3) So,the bottom line is that the next move is up to denominational admilnistration.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Local churches could also take action by disciplining those who are promoting and/or participating in rebellion, and/or failing to recognize properly constituted church authority.
Another possibility is for God to step in. But that doesn't always end real pretty. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram ended up more than 6 feet under, and not a few unrepentant princes ended up at a higher temperature than the incense inside the censers they were waving. Much better would it be if local churches instituted church discipline.
-
2) Rebellion: Your are certain that rebellion is in the air. Others believe that for one reason or another there is no rebellion and all are operating within their authority. Frankly, neither you nor I has the authority to make that decision.
But you and I can both read, and we don't need anyone to give us permission to read, and 9T 260-261 plainly says what it says about the authority of a GC Session vote. Those behind the present agitation and those taking part in it can pretend that they aren't promoting rebellion against a GC Session vote all they want, but pretending doesn't make it so.
"No stronger delusion can deceive the human mind than that which makes them believe that they are right, and that God accepts their works, when they are sinning against Him" (1T 406-407).
3) So,the bottom line is that the next move is up to denominational admilnistration.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Local churches could also take action by disciplining those who are promoting and/or participating in rebellion, and/or failing to recognize properly constituted church authority.
Another possibility is for God to step in. But that doesn't always end real pretty. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram ended up more than 6 feet under, and not a few unrepentant princes ended up at a higher temperature than the incense inside the censers they were waving. Much better would it be if local churches instituted church discipline.
We have discussed some of this before. Fact is that Ellen White has made statements that contradict each other on this point.
-
We have discussed some of this before. Fact is that Ellen White has made statements that contradict each other on this point.
Johann, if Ellen White ever said something different regarding a GC Session vote, then by all means quote it. But until you provide such a quote saying that a GC Session vote has no authority, then we simply must go with 9T 260-261 which says that a GC Session vote does have authority.
Providing a quote about the GC president or the GC committee won't be good enough to back up your contention that Ellen White contradicted herself. You have to provide a quote about a GC Session vote, since that is specifically what is being discussed here, and that is what your comment above addresses.
-
Yes, Johann, please do provide us with quotes to back up your assertion.
We have discussed some of this before. Fact is that Ellen White has made statements that contradict each other on this point.
Johann, if Ellen White ever said something different regarding a GC Session vote, then by all means quote it. But until you provide such a quote saying that a GC Session vote has no authority, then we simply must go with 9T 260-261 which says that a GC Session vote does have authority.
Providing a quote about the GC president or the GC committee won't be good enough to back up your contention that Ellen White contradicted herself. You have to provide a quote about a GC Session vote, since that is specifically what is being discussed here, and that is what your comment above addresses.
-
Perhaps, perhaps not. Local churches could also take action by disciplining those who are promoting and/or participating in rebellion, and/or failing to recognize properly constituted church authority.
This is not a matter that is subject to the local congregation to decide to discipline. That authority resides at a higher level.
The bottom line is: It is not a clear as Bob would like to make it sound that rebellion is taking place.
The bottom line is that the governing documents of the denominaitonal organizations are not in perfect harmony.
Yesterday, I was reviewing a current General Conference publication that made an explicit statement on another subject. I was immediately reminded of the Constitution of a lower level denominational organization. In that Constitution there is a provision the states the exact opposite of the statement that I read in the General Conference publication. [NOTE: This had nothing to do with females in ministry and their ordination.] I personaly know that this Constitutional provision has been in effect for many years. During that time, the General Conference has not objected. I personally know that the provision I reference existed in some Constitutions 35 years ago. Organizations are allowed to varry somewhat from the overall policy.
-
We have discussed some of this before. Fact is that Ellen White has made statements that contradict each other on this point.
Johann, if Ellen White ever said something different regarding a GC Session vote, then by all means quote it. But until you provide such a quote saying that a GC Session vote has no authority, then we simply must go with 9T 260-261 which says that a GC Session vote does have authority.
Providing a quote about the GC president or the GC committee won't be good enough to back up your contention that Ellen White contradicted herself. You have to provide a quote about a GC Session vote, since that is specifically what is being discussed here, and that is what your comment above addresses.
I was having in mind something you wrote in the past, Bob, and due to haste I did not express it right. So i apologize and withdraw my statement.
-
Courtney Ray
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 committee voted separately on the main motion, including the preamble. The preamble and main motion were approved by a vote of 42-2. The process, which includes calling a special constituency session, was approved unanimously.
Voted (preamble):
Whereas Scripture is clear that the end-time Church is blessed precisely because men and women preach God’s message (Joel 2:28-29 and Fundamental Belief 17);
Whereas we are commanded to “act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8);
Whereas “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for all are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28);
Whereas “differences between male and female must not be divisive among us” and “we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation” (Fundamental Belief 14);
Whereas the Seventh-day Adventist Church is co-founded by a woman, Ellen G. White, who remains an authoritative and guiding voice;
Whereas the Pacific Union is enriched by Spirit-filled women who are responding to God’s call in our schools, churches and conferences;
Whereas the Seventh-day Adventist Church assigns Unions the final decision-making authority and responsibility with respect to ordination (NAD Working Policy L45 05 3, Spring Council 2012 116-12G Report);
Whereas the Pacific Union Conference voted its full commitment to Women’s Ordination, August 30, 1995 (reaffirmed May 12, 2010 and March 15, 2012);
Therefore, [main action]
The Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee will approve or disapprove candidates for ordination without regard to gender, effective when the Union Bylaws are amended.
The Process
Voted, approval for the following process:
Because the Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee is committed to following denominational procedures and processes, and to facilitate the involvement of the entire Union constituency, a special constituency session will be called to consider amendments to the Pacific Union Conference Bylaws to clearly authorize the ordination of ministers without regard to gender.
The Pacific Union Conference Bylaws Committee will examine the Union bylaws and suggest amendments to clearly authorize the ordination of ministers without regard to gender.
The Pacific Union Conference will provide an informational packet for the delegates, pertinent to the issues to be discussed in the special constituency session.
Both the study committee and the executive committee made it clear that they are committed to following established church processes and procedures. Their recommendations and actions were guided in large part by a summary of church structure prepared earlier this year by the General Conference and distributed at GC spring meetings. The full name of the document is The General Conference and Its Divisions — a Description of Roles and Relationships in Light of Organizational Structure Development, Current Governance Documents, and Practices. That documents makes clear that:
Authority and responsibility in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not centralized in a hierarchical structure. Instead authority and responsibility is distributed throughout the Seventh-day Adventist Church structure ….
The distribution of authority and responsibility in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is illustrated by the following examples of how and where final decision-making authority and responsibility are located ….
The document goes on the explain that the “final authority and responsibility” for deciding who will be a church member is located at the local church; the “final authority and responsibility” for the employment/assigning of pastors and other workers resides at the local conference; and the “final authority and responsibility” for deciding who will be ordained is officially located at the unions.
The committee also considered that the same paragraphs that declare ordination decision are to be made by the unions, not by the divisions or the General Conference, include this counsel:
It is to be understood that the exercise of authority and responsibility is done within the context of the belief, values, and policies of the entire church. No entity is authorized to exercise its authority and responsibility in a manner that is contrary to the interests of the whole church and its activities in fulfilling its mission.
Obviously the distribution of authority found in the Seventh-day Adventist Church can result in tension between world-wide policy and the “final authority and responsibility” which has been assigned to the congregations, conferences and unions. The GC document has much to say about balancing those centers of authority, especially in the final Conclusions and Recommendations:
The following paragraphs and sentences are chosen from the Conclusion to the GC Spring Document. The full document will be made available in the next few days.
The distribution of authority and responsibility in the Church along with the recognition that “authority rests in membership” presents significant challenges in finding a balance between centralized authority (actions of the global church) and the more localized authority (actions of the constituency) in churches, conferences and unions.
At the same time the church has worked to preserve unity, the effect of church growth has enlarged the understanding of diversity and its rightful place in a worldwide community. To expect that every entity in the world church will look and function exactly like every other entity of its type may in itself become an impediment to mission. The development of structural designs in the history of the church indicates that unity must be built on a stronger foundation than uniformity.
There must be room to recognize the need for a legitimacy of local adaptation of policies and procedures that facilitate mission while not diminishing the worldwide identity, harmony and unity of the Church.
The relationship among the entities of the church is more than a matter of law and policy. Therefore attempts to codify that relationship will always be inadequate. The primary strength of the Church comes not from its structure but from its collective desire to live out a commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Such a commitment embraces a call to community.
Pacific Union executive committee members made it clear during discussions this week that they are committed to taking seriously the “final” authority and responsibility that the Seventh-day Adventist church has assigned to unions. And they made it clear that their call for a special constituency session is not to be interpreted as a way to delay the ordination of all whom God has called to ministry. It is rather, the result of a commitment to follow church procedures and to make sure the final action, whatever it is, is backed by the full authority that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has assigned to the Pacific Union Conference.
-
Whereas the Seventh-day Adventist Church assigns Unions the final decision-making authority and responsibility with respect to ordination (NAD Working Policy L45 05 3, Spring Council 2012 116-12G Report);
* * * *
The Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee will approve or disapprove candidates for ordination without regard to gender, effective when the Union Bylaws are amended.
* * * * *
Because the Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee is committed to following denominational procedures and processes, and to facilitate the involvement of the entire Union constituency, a special constituency session will be called to consider amendments to the Pacific Union Conference Bylaws to clearly authorize the ordination of ministers without regard to gender.
The Pacific Union Conference Bylaws Committee will examine the Union bylaws and suggest amendments to clearly authorize the ordination of ministers without regard to gender.
* * * * * *
The document goes on the explain that the “final authority and responsibility” for deciding who will be a church member is located at the local church; the “final authority and responsibility” for the employment/assigning of pastors and other workers resides at the local conference; and the “final authority and responsibility” for deciding who will be ordained is officially located at the unions.
The committee also considered that the same paragraphs that declare ordination decision are to be made by the unions, . . . .
See my post dated May 8:
1) The above is a clear stataement as to why some believe that "rebellion" is not the issue.
2) As I said in my May 8 post, things are moving very fast. Denominational leadershilp needs to be very careful as to how they respond.
-
Perhaps, perhaps not. Local churches could also take action by disciplining those who are promoting and/or participating in rebellion, and/or failing to recognize properly constituted church authority.
This is not a matter that is subject to the local congregation to decide to discipline. That authority resides at a higher level.
Are you saying that while local churches may discipline erring members, they are forbidden to discipline members who just happen to hold office higher than the local church? If that is what you are saying, please substantiate your contention.
The bottom line is: It is not a clear as Bob would like to make it sound that rebellion is taking place.
The bottom line is that the governing documents of the denominaitonal organizations are not in perfect harmony.
The bottom line is that 9T 260-261 says what it says.
Are you saying that the governing documents of a conference or union take precedence over the SoP, and that those documents prohibit a local church from disciplining members who blatantly and intentionally violate 9T 260-261? If so, substantiate your contention.
You seem to be begging the question. The issue is rebellion against properly constituted church authority. You seem to be assuming that a GC Session is not a properly constituted church authority, and that thus conference and union and NAD officials are free to thumb their noses at a GC Session vote if their governing documents permit.
If governing documents are a higher authority than the Bible and SoP (God forbid that we should ever go down that road), then all a local church needs to do is adopt a constitution that states that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and then they can proceed to discipline their erring members who as conference or union or NAD officers are rebelling against that authority.
-
Because the Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee is committed to following denominational procedures and processes, ...
Lies. If they were committed to following denominational procedures and processes, they wouldn't be calling a constituency session to consider doing exactly opposite of what the 1990 and 1995 GC Sessions voted.
Authority and responsibility in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not centralized in a hierarchical structure.
Since when is a GC Session a hierarchy?
The document goes on the explain that the “final authority and responsibility” for deciding who will be a church member is located at the local church; ....
And thus conference and union officers, and local pastors, who rebel against properly constituted church authority such as a GC Session vote may be disfellowshiped by their local church. If that were to happen, would those officers and pastors automatically lose their jobs?
... the “final authority and responsibility” for the employment/assigning of pastors and other workers resides at the local conference; and the “final authority and responsibility” for deciding who will be ordained is officially located at the unions.
How far are we going to push the wording of what has been established policy for a long time? So Unions can decide to ordain practicing homosexuals or two-year-olds, and they have full authority to do so because some document's wording can be interpreted that way?
Was this document approved by a GC Session vote? If not, then must not the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes take precedence over any interpretation of this document's wording?
The distribution of authority and responsibility in the Church along with the recognition that “authority rests in membership” presents significant challenges in finding a balance between centralized authority (actions of the global church) and the more localized authority (actions of the constituency) in churches, conferences and unions.
They're playing games. In what way is a GC Session a "centralized authority"? Imagine every township in America sending a delegate to a grand convention in DC to decide some issue. And then folks would call that convention a "centralized authority"? It's anything but a centralized authority!
To expect that every entity in the world church will look and function exactly like every other entity of its type may in itself become an impediment to mission.
But this is precisely what was voted down by the 1995 GC Session. And like a spoiled child, the Pacific Union is upset that it didn't get its way, and is determined to do what it wants anyway.
The primary strength of the Church comes not from its structure but from its collective desire to live out a commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Then cease the movements toward rebellion, and support the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes! The Lord Jesus Christ is the one who inspired 9T 260-261.
It is rather, the result of a commitment to follow church procedures ....
Lies. Not once did this document raise the issue of the GC Session being the highest authority on earth under God, or 9T 260-261. Therefore, in reality, this document makes clear the Pacific Union committee's determination not to follow established church procedures, GC Session votes, and 9T 260-261.
-
2) As I said in my May 8 post, things are moving very fast. Denominational leadershilp needs to be very careful as to how they respond.
Dan Jackson already said he wasn't going to do anything, thus shirking his duty.
So perhaps the Adventist Church should just fragment to pieces, not have GC Sessions anymore, not have a GC any more. Then we'd be down to unions and conferences. And as soon as local churches figure out that they would be free to retain more tithe or all the tithe if they didn't have a conference to have to answer to, then conferences and unions could go by the wayside too.
Gregory, when the South went down this road in 1861 or so, and advocated states rights over the powers of federalism, many people, including Ellen White, had no problem labeling what was happening as "rebellion." Why be hesitant to call it like it is this time around?
Of course church leadership needs to be careful in its response. But it should also avoid the lackadaisical response the Union gave which worsened and prolonged the crisis that became the Civil War.
-
The magnitude of this decision of the Pacific Union Conference should not be underestimated.
This special meeting is going to cost the Union a very large sum of money. It is doubtful that it can be prevented from happeing.
The GC can send a representative, to include the President. That person can recommend that the proposal not happen. However, in my thinking, the proposal is likely to pass.
Events are moving fast. I may post as to why I think that they are moving fast, when I have time.
-
So perhaps the Adventist Church should just fragment to pieces, not have GC Sessions anymore, not have a GC any more. Then we'd be down to unions and conferences. And as soon as local churches figure out that they would be free to retain more tithe or all the tithe if they didn't have a conference to have to answer to, then conferences and unions could go by the wayside too.
1) Fragmentation: That is of major concern to leadership. As this is developing, there is concern that fragmentaion will occur regardless of the decision.
2) Tithe: That is already happening, but on the level of the individual giver rather than the Conference.
3) Union Conferences: There is a large block that believes that Union Conferences should not exist. This female ordination issues could affect this issue, but it could affect it either way.