NAD Year end meetings takes an initial position:

[Gregory Matthews]

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2013/10/31/fraternity-welcomes-woman

[CyberGuy]

There was really nothing the GC or Ted Wilson could do about this. Sandy Roberts was a duly elected president of SECC. Like it or not SECC is the largest conference in the world with two major universities and one major medical center.

Loma Linda university and La Sierra University and Loma Linda Medical center within its borders. It is not wise to anger such a large and important sector of the church over an issue that is not a doctrinal issue but only a policy difference of opinion.

Ted Wilson would have been wise not to have spoken and threatened not to recognize Sandra Roberts or allow her to vote. Now there is egg on Ted Wilsons face. He has lost a lot of polictical influence this past year over being so openly hostile to women as leaders in the church and ordained pastors.

[Gregory Matthews]

I have said before:

When this is finally decided and if the decision is to ordain females, historians may state that President Wilson did more to allow women to be ordained than any other person could have done.

Why would I say this? It was his actions that caused supporters of female ordination to believe: 1) There would never be a better time. 2) The time had come in which it would be possible to bring it about.

Yet, there is another side to President Wilson: It was while he was co-chair of the ACM committee that the decision was made to allow SDA females into the governmental chaplaincies.

[ClubV12]

"Sandy Roberts was a duly elected president of SECC."

No, she was not.

"Duly elected", is a term used by those in open defiance of the General Conference.

From Ordinationtruth.com

"It is being reported that NAD officers and the union officers from the NAD met on October 30 and confirmed that Sandy Roberts will be given the same registration packet and badge as everyone else and will participate in the NAD Year End Meetings the same as every other elected president of a local conference.

If this is true, and if it actually comes to pass that Ms. Roberts will be a voting participant in this YEM, the North American Division will be openly aligning itself with the insubordination of the Southeastern California Conference that elected a woman in a position the world church only authorizes men to fill. If indeed this comes to pass it will mean that the NAD stands in open violation of its own Working Policy."

[ClubV12]

"Light was given by His Spirit that there must be order and thorough discipline in the church—that organization was essential. System and order are manifest in all the works of God throughout the universe. Order is the law of heaven, and it should be the law of God’s people on the earth." TM 26 (1902).

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, she was duly elected President of the SECC.

What some fail to recognize is that a Constitution and Bylaws has more authority than does the Working Policy. She was legally elected in accord with the applicable Constitution and Bylaws.

The Pacific Union and the Southeastern California Conference have been legally organized under applicable law. As such, they are bound to operate under their Constitution and Bylaws. If a General Conference, meeting in session, votes that a local Conference and Union should do something that violates their Constitution and Bylaws, those documents must be changed. Until they are changed the vote of the General Conference does not rule.

[CyberGuy]

"Light was given by His Spirit that there must be order and thorough discipline in the church—that organization was essential. System and order are manifest in all the works of God throughout the universe. Order is the law of heaven, and it should be the law of God’s people on the earth." TM 26 (1902).

The SDA church is one of the few churches where the constituents meet to vote on doctrinal changes and on their own constitution. They meet and discuss the changes and the pros and cons given and they vote on it. Great care is given that the constitution does not contradict itself in one area that says the opposite in the other.

The GC bylaws gives the power to ordain to the Unions so Columbia and Pacific Union in the NAD voted to change their constitutions to allow Ordination to occur irrespective of the Gender of the person. Two other Unions North Pacific Union and Lake Union voted to bring The same issue to their constituencies after the 2015 GC Session. Regardless of how the GC Session votes it is expected these two unions will also ordain women as well.

The Unions choose Delegates to represent the Union. Top officials are automatically chosen and random pastors both male and female are chosen to be delegates.

The GC bylaws allows the Unions to choose their own delegates.

So The GC had no choose but to allow Sandy Roberts to vote as a duly choose delegate of Pacific Union or be in violation of its own constitution.

[ClubV12]

Thats the spirit,,, of something.

When in doubt about the law, consult with the lawyers first, Jesus second. Get to the bottom of the exact wording. Don't stop till you've written a sufficient number of laws to close every possible loop hole. I suspect that will take in access of 600, 613 maybe. Was that chicken egg laid ON the Sabbath or after?

...that didn't work out well for the Jews, it won't work out well for this Church either. The G.C. made a simple request, wait for the committee to finish it's study.

Jesus won't accept offerings and service based on the "law", it must come from the heart.

This thread is the saddest one I've seen to date on this subject. It is abundantly clear to me now that those involved in this rebellion are very sincere, and sincerely mistaken. Unable to see the greater, much more important aspects of the character and law of God. Moving forward as if they are actually doing Gods will!! It's sad, it's frightening, they have traded faith for law. My heart breaks,,, I take no joy in drawing warmth for this coldness.

[CyberGuy]

Thats the spirit,,, of something.

When in doubt about the law, consult with the lawyers first, Jesus second. Get to the bottom of the exact wording. Don't stop till you've written a sufficient number of laws to close every possible loop hole. I suspect that will take in access of 600, 613 maybe. Was that chicken egg laid ON the Sabbath or after?

...that didn't work out well for the Jews, it won't work out well for this Church either. The G.C. made a simple request, wait for the committee to finish it's study.

Jesus won't accept offerings and service based on the "law", it must come from the heart.

There is enough talk. They have been talking for 130 years. For your information the GC in session voted to ordain women pastors in 1881. The GC executive committee made up of five men voted to table that vote. So technically women have already been voted to be ordained by the GC in session

[ClubV12]

"For your information the GC in session voted to ordain women pastors in 1881."

No, they didn't. Once again you post outrageous and misleading claims. The above statement is a lie, straight up. The issue was proposed to the G.C. for discussion. As many issues are. This issue was never included in the G.C. discussions, it never even got close to a vote as a result.

The NAD will have to be restructured, reorganized, I don't see any other option. They have refused for years to come under the authority of the General Conference. This must be done if a "World Church" is to survive.

[Neil D]

Thats the spirit,,, of something.

When in doubt about the law, consult with the lawyers first, Jesus second. Get to the bottom of the exact wording. Don't stop till you've written a sufficient number of laws to close every possible loop hole. I suspect that will take in access of 600, 613 maybe. Was that chicken egg laid ON the Sabbath or after?

...that didn't work out well for the Jews, it won't work out well for this Church either. The G.C. made a simple request, wait for the committee to finish it's study.

Jesus won't accept offerings and service based on the "law", it must come from the heart.

This thread is the saddest one I've seen to date on this subject. It is abundantly clear to me now that those involved in this rebellion are very sincere, and sincerely mistaken. Unable to see the greater, much more important aspects of the character and law of God. Moving forward as if they are actually doing Gods will!! It's sad, it's frightening, they have traded faith for law. My heart breaks,,, I take no joy in drawing warmth for this coldness.

this is what disbelief looks like in a post....

Deny, deny, deny......

You call this adoption "rebellion"....What I call this is lack of trust....we don't take this lightly...We look at biblcial texts and make our assessment...We submit our assessment to God and ask Him to guide us..We ask Him to correct us if we are wrong...finally, after waiting over 100 years, we decided to act...again, asking God to guide....

Your prejudice is apparent in your disbelief...your actions have shown your heart...and you have lost credibility among us because you refuse to embrace God's work....You don't believe that God actually works within the world...you believe that Satan is this world's Master...I don't doubt that there are two powers working within this world...I do believe that One will prevail...

Just my thoughts....

[CyberGuy]

The NAD will have to be restructured, reorganized, I don't see any other option. They have refused for years to come under the authority of the General Conference. This must be done if a "World Church" is to survive.

You are right the NAD needs to be a full division Separate from the GC. Right now the NAD offices is in the same building as the GC. They really need to be separate and have separate buildings and locations like other divisions in the world Church. Divisions leaders need to be elected by their only union delegates and NOT by the world church. What right have the world church to do with the running of church business within the division.

In any case the Unions officials are elected by their conference delegates NOT the world church. Union Delegates should elect their own representatives to fight for them at the GC.

[Tom Wetmore]

"For your information the GC in session voted to ordain women pastors in 1881."

No, they didn't. Once again you post outrageous and misleading claims. The above statement is a lie, straight up. The issue was proposed to the G.C. for discussion. As many issues are. This issue was never included in the G.C. discussions, it never even got close to a vote as a result.

The NAD will have to be restructured, reorganized, I don't see any other option. They have refused for years to come under the authority of the General Conference. This must be done if a "World Church" is to survive.

I am sorry but you are wrong. I have personally read the original minutes several times. The GC in Session did vote a resolution in 1881 that in their view it was appropriate to ordain women. That was referred to the GC Committee (basically the GC officers at that time) for followup. There has been no written record discovered of exactly what the GC Committee did about it after that. However, something very important did happen just a couple years after that resolution was voted that is consistent with it. Those men to whom that resolution was referred in fact did issue ordained ministerial credentials to a woman - Ellen G. White. And the GC officers continued to do so each year until the day she died, for about 30 years.

After EGW died the thought of any other women being ordained, or even being pastors and church leaders slowly slipped into oblivion as the many women in those positions died too and were forgotten until the 1970's.

[Tom Wetmore]

"Sandy Roberts was a duly elected president of SECC."

No, she was not.

"Duly elected", is a term used by those in open defiance of the General Conference.

From Ordinationtruth.com

"It is being reported that NAD officers and the union officers from the NAD met on October 30 and confirmed that Sandy Roberts will be given the same registration packet and badge as everyone else and will participate in the NAD Year End Meetings the same as every other elected president of a local conference.

If this is true, and if it actually comes to pass that Ms. Roberts will be a voting participant in this YEM, the North American Division will be openly aligning itself with the insubordination of the Southeastern California Conference that elected a woman in a position the world church only authorizes men to fill. If indeed this comes to pass it will mean that the NAD stands in open violation of its own Working Policy."

Correction. The GC policy for the model Bylaw language for Conference Presidents does not say that only a man can be president. It says to be qualified for the office, the president is to be an ordained minister. The SECC has not adopted that model bylaw language. At such time as ordination of women is approved, both ordained men and women would qualify under the model language.

[Tom Wetmore]

Thats the spirit,,, of something.

When in doubt about the law, consult with the lawyers first, Jesus second. Get to the bottom of the exact wording. Don't stop till you've written a sufficient number of laws to close every possible loop hole. I suspect that will take in access of 600, 613 maybe. Was that chicken egg laid ON the Sabbath or after?

...that didn't work out well for the Jews, it won't work out well for this Church either. The G.C. made a simple request, wait for the committee to finish it's study.

Jesus won't accept offerings and service based on the "law", it must come from the heart.

This thread is the saddest one I've seen to date on this subject. It is abundantly clear to me now that those involved in this rebellion are very sincere, and sincerely mistaken. Unable to see the greater, much more important aspects of the character and law of God. Moving forward as if they are actually doing Gods will!! It's sad, it's frightening, they have traded faith for law. My heart breaks,,, I take no joy in drawing warmth for this coldness.

Club, I think you have flip flopped. You were strongly advocating that on this issue that Church law must be followed. But now you seem to be saying the exact opposite. Or am I misunderstanding this post?

[ClubV12]

I'm sorry, you are wrong Tom. The G.C. never voted to ordain women, nor was Ellen White ever ordained.

She never Pastored a Church, never baptized anyone, never ordained anyone.

Your position goes against the White Estate, and myself.

You have an opinion, I have an opinion. We could list a pile of documents supporting either side, and still, people will believe what they want to believe. These issues have been rehashed many times over, there will never be a definitive answer for anyone.

The SPIRIT of the law Tom, THAT is the problem!!! Lawyers will ALWAYS find a loop hole. The NAD has found one and digging furiously. The SPIRIT of the laws intention is that the NAD will work in harmony with the G.C.

They have not, they have ignored the G.C. and disallowed the appointed committee to fulfill it's mission.

NAD changed the wording in their documents to reflect a position where either men or women could be ordained. The G.C. told them to change it back. They did. Then they changed it again! The "wording battle" has been going on for many years. NAD is clearly in violation of ignoring the authority of the G.C. Has been for years....

[Tom Wetmore]

As I said in the other thread, James White never pastored a church either. He was not ordained by the Adventist Church either, in the sense of having undergone some ceremonial laying on of hands. He had been ordained as a minister in the Christian Connexion in 1843. (Not sure how they did it, if the obligatory hands on heads happened since there is no written record of it.) He did a lot of preaching, but so did Ellen.

As for the pure technicality that Bill Fagal (one person in the White Estate and someone who is very much opposed to WO) makes in the much publicized explanation is that she never was ordained by the human ceremony of the laying on of hands. But she herself explains that she was ordained by the Lord himself in Portland to be His messenger. More than 40 years later, was it even necessary to go through the ritual before the highest Church authority recognized her as qualified to be credentialed to a lower position in the Church?!?! The credentials are a self-evident declaration of a recognized fact. Nothing more need to be done or said. And the records confirm that the credential is valid. No amount of spin doctoring changes the historical facts.

As for what the GC asked NAD to change, it was NOT that either men or women could be ordained. You are confused. The policy they were asked to change was in the qualification to be a conference president that indicated the person (no gender identified) must be ordained. The Division had inserted the word "commissioned". So it read the president should be "commissioned or ordained". Again no gender identified, and as Dan Jackson correctly pointed out, there are men who hold the commissioned minister credential, so this was not just about women.

[ClubV12]

That is an accurate assesment of the situation(s) Tom, for the most part, I agree. With the exception that I still have faith in the White Estates position as being accurate and truthful. I believe their opinion is based on a wide variety of evidence, carefully weighed and is not the opinion of one "biased" man, as you suggest.

Ellen White was certainly ordained of God, no one disputed that who was in a position to know the facts. The paperwork was for the convience of various States, Countries and circumstances where a license was required to legally represent the Church. A situation people still face today in some areas. The law wants proof of your position at times.

A friend of mine just recently encountered such a problem in South America, took a long time to resolve it because the paper work wasn't clear.

You covered the NAD word dispute reasonably well. The intent of the NAD is clear, they have been, for years, trying to circumvent the G.C. on the issue of W.O. by making subtle changes to the wording to allow for that. Credentialed men is a smoke screen, in my opinion, which differs from yours.

[Tom Wetmore]

I believe that men were issued commissioned minister credentials before women were. There was a time when many administrative workers held that credential since it was the default credential issued after working for at least 5 years. (Under 5 years it was a missionary credential) I know because I had that credential for quite few years. They then created an administrative credential for those not engaged in ministerial related administrative positions, such as lawyers, IT professionals, or accountants. So that is the credential I now hold. Administrative workers without pastoral training or experience that hold departmental positions that would typically be held by a minister or that have clearly spiritual/ministry functions may receive the commissioned minister credential. That includes both men and women. And pastors that are not on the ordination track are issued commissioned minister credentials. Those have been typically women, but not exclusively. So no, it is not a smoke screen.

[ClubV12]

I see your point on that and I concur. My opinion is that NAD took the steps they have taken, over the years, to get around the G.C. requirements of ordination to promote their view that women should be ordained. Some how, some way, they would find a way to make that happen, regardless of the G.C. I hate saying that, it sounds so harsh. But the evidence tends to support that view. Using the well placed argument of men being credentialed was "convient". It was reasonable, logical and I would add one more word, "sinister". A key component of the hidden agenda to promote W.O.

Well played counselor!

Gotta hit the sack, catcha later...

[Tom Wetmore]

One thing I must say, Club. The spirit or motivation or attitude you claim that is represented by those advocating WO and working toward change is categorically wrong. You have consistently painted them as if they are defiant scheming rebels bent on thwarting the authority of the GC and going their own way. That is simply wrong. You really have no way of assessing their motives since you are not there shoulder to shoulder working with them.

I know and have worked for years with many of these people, on both sides of the issue. I have seen an entirely different atmosphere and spirit than what you portray. I have known Ted for years and his father before him. I also know and work with the NAD leadership. They all are sincerely trying to find a way through this conundrum. They consistently and frequently seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit during meetings where these issues have come up. They are all trying to do what they believe with all their heart soul and mind to be the right thing. Change is not easy. It is often strongly resisted. But change is very often necessary. Given these people credit for being honest and upright Christians doing what they believe is the best way forward.

[Tom Wetmore]

I see your point on that and I concur. My opinion is that NAD took the steps they have taken, over the years, to get around the G.C. requirements of ordination to promote their view that women should be ordained. Some how, some way, they would find a way to make that happen, regardless of the G.C. I hate saying that, it sounds so harsh. But the evidence tends to support that view. Using the well placed argument of men being credentialed was "convient". It was reasonable, logical and I would add one more word, "sinister". A key component of the hidden agenda to promote W.O.

Well played counselor!

Gotta hit the sack, catcha later...

And this post is exactly what I am talking about. You simply do not know what you are talking about. The commissioned minister credential was not created by NAD. It was created by the GC. This is not some newly concocted scheme to get around the GC.

Simple question for you. Do you know how to distinguish the GC Working Policy from the NAD Working Policy?

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

No, they didn't. Once again you post outrageous and misleading claims. The above statement is a lie, straight up. The issue was proposed to the G.C. for discussion.

On the major point, you are correct. The General Conference, meeting in session, did not vote to ordain women in 1881.

You were inappropriate, however, when you said:

Quote:

The above statement is a lie.

A dictionary definition of the word "lie" is:

Quote:

A false statement . . . deliberately presented as being true. . .

You would have been accurate if you had stated that the statement was false. But, you went beyond that. You used an English word that accused the person who made the inaccurate statement of intending to deceive. You may believe that he intended to deceive. But, to state that here in this forum is inappropriate.

If you were to make a claim that was clearly false, would you want us to claim that you intended to deceive? I do not think that would be fair to you.

As a matter of fact, I believe that you made a statement in your post that was in error. However, if I am correct, that error was so minor that I would embarrass myself to even point it out. So, I will not do so. I do not want to give the impression that I nit-pick.

But, in making a statement that has at its foundation that idea that someone intentionally attempted to deceive and made a statement that he knew to be false, you are saying something that is of major importance and it is not minor.

[Gregory Matthews]

Tom said, and more:

Quote:

One thing I must say, Club. The spirit or motivation or attitude you claim that is represented by those advocating WO and working toward change is categorically wrong. You have consistently painted them as if they are defiant scheming rebels bent on thwarting the authority of the GC and going their own way. That is simply wrong. You really have no way of assessing their motives since you are not there shoulder to shoulder working with them.

I agree.

There are honest, sincere people on both sides of this issue who want to do what God wants.

It is wrong for others to set themselves up as judges of motive.

People on both sides of this issue raise Biblical questions that are valid in that they must be answered. Note: I am not saying that their premise is correct.

There is much confusion in statements made here in regard to policy, procedures, actions of governing bodies and more.

[ClubV12]

Tom, Gregory, I disagree with your above opinions.

Many of those working toward change are fighting against the stated policies, the requests of the G.C., the appointed committee to study the issue, ignoring the orderly process for a resolution and showing manifested disgust with the leader of our people. The ACTIONS of NAD, over a period of years, demonstrate a pattern of such deliberate actions.

I am not making this judgment based on sincerity or motivation, the above actions are demonstrable and real. Some may call it "freedom fighting" but it is still "fighting". I call it open rebellion, and stand by my opinion without apology.

I believe many ARE sincere and their motivation based on religious fervor. Just like a suicide bomber...

I have offered my opinion and insights from the Spirit of Prophecy as to one possible reason WHY such actions have been taken. It remains my opinion that because basic principles of authority and respect for leadership have been set aside, the inevitable result of such behaviour is darkness and delusion. I have nothing to change or apologize for with my opinion.

Obviously some people are VERY disturbed by my opinion, that is between you and the Lord. I am just the messenger.

The issue stopped being about "ordination" a long time ago. The issue of rebellion has been and is being swept under the rug. Authority is the REAL issue at stake here.