NAD Votes Report from Theology of Ordination Study Committee

[ClubV12]

God is always in charge is the obvious answer. WHAT does that mean is the obvious question!

He was in charge when Cain slew his brother. When Moses committed murder, likewise when David did as well. When Israel was granted a King.

Free will, God allows man to make choices and as a result He adjusts HIS original, perfect plan, in accordance with mans chosen path. Since both sides of this "argument" for W.O. seek the Holy Spirit and are convinced they are right, lets not "blame" God for the outcome. I'm not sure He is responsible for any of this mess WE have gotten ourselves into as a corporate body of believers.

He will do the best He can with the rubble we leave behind when the smoke clears. NAD demands W.O., they get to do that. He didn't stop them, we don't know that He authorized them either!

[Green Cochoa]

I don't think you've missed anything Gregory. Seems pretty obvious most were against WO, but yet it passed.

Ahem. I've been so accustomed to teaching students at a higher level that I've forgotten how to do such things as teach people how to read a table.

I won't try. I'll just give it to you simply:

35 people are listed as supporters of WO

14 people are listed as opponents of WO

29 people are unclassified as they are unknowns

Of those listed in my table, about 71% support WO, leaving about 29% to oppose it.

Is this clearer now?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

Green: I am not going to argue math with you. As I understood your table, you were saying that 35 out of 78 favored female ordination. That is a bit less than 50%.

If I misunderstood your table? O.K.

I don't think you've missed anything Gregory. Seems pretty obvious most were against WO, but yet it passed.

God is certainly leading his people. I am feeling very positive about the meeting and vote.

[ClubV12]

Strange that, determining that God is leading because the opinion you hold currently looks like a winner. So, if you loose, God wasn't leading after all or what? How does that work? Because a lot of people are positive God is leading the opposite direction!

Two armies, on the battlefield, both praying for victory. Maybe, there prayers aren't going any higher than the tent they are in? Maybe, God is punishing BOTH sides! Maybe there in this mess becasue they failed to listen to God way before it came to this and now they are simply enjoying the fruits of their OWN labor? Maybe, God doesn't have anything to do with it or this!

He didn't cause Davids four sons to die, David did that by his own actions as a Father. All God did was let the consequences of Davids actions play out to their inevitable conclusion.

[Woody]

First and foremost - we as a church need to follow the Bible and the Bible only.

Once we let extremism prevail we end up with these endless discussions instead of letting God

ordain His people to DO His work.

[pierrepaul]

Maybe, God doesn't have anything to do with it or this!

That is probably the most likely explanation. The Bible is essentially silent on this point and therefore the most logical conclusion is that the issue is one of trivial import, that God doesn't really care one way or the other and that this is all much ado about nothing, especially since there is no compelling need for a single, uniform, worldwide position on such a trivial matter. The General Conference would do well to apply the old maxim unitatem in necessariis, in non necessariis libertatem, in omnibus caritatem.

[ClubV12]

Personally I believe God is silent on this because the Church has entered into arguing and defiance of authority and people demanding their way or the highway. So He has withdrawn from the "children" and will let them play in the street if they want.

I see this principle played out in Davids life. In OUR Church I see it played out numerous times in the 1800's and early 1900's. Sister White OFTEN refused to comment or be drawn into discussions that were important, BUT, because the brethren wouldn't stop arguing she didn't have anything more to say. For a time she had no comment on: Nature of the Holy Spirit. Nature of Christ. 144,000. Many other important subjects she would NOT be drawn into an argument over.

We still argue over all of the above...

The "daily" in Daniel is a good example. She told people to STOP even using HER testimony one way or the other to support their position. People STILL do it today! She told James White and Uriah Smith to stop arguing over Daniel 11. I recently heard a sermon by Stephen Bohr "arguing" over which man Sister White supported. Doing EXACTLY what she asked those men to do, STOP arguing about it, let it go. Nope, we still do it.

The Daily and Daniel 11 are important topics, NO topic is important enough to argue over and threaten the harmony of the Church.

God is NOT in this because the kids still want to fight. It's a slap in the face at this point to say, "He supports my side". "Oh no He doesn't, He supports MY side". Triple dog dare!!!

WE, as a Church, will reap a dreadful reward from this regardless of the outcome.

[phkrause]

Strange that, determining that God is leading because the opinion you hold currently looks like a winner. So, if you loose, God wasn't leading after all or what? How does that work? Because a lot of people are positive God is leading the opposite direction!

Two armies, on the battlefield, both praying for victory. Maybe, there prayers aren't going any higher than the tent they are in? Maybe, God is punishing BOTH sides! Maybe there in this mess becasue they failed to listen to God way before it came to this and now they are simply enjoying the fruits of their OWN labor? Maybe, God doesn't have anything to do with it or this!

Not sure if this is a reply to me or not, since it seems more and more repliers don't want to actually reply to the post that they are replying to! But I'll make a comment to your post. I don't reply or look at this issue to win or lose. If this is all that your interested in than I only see sadness for this issue. I think I've mentioned over and over again that which ever way it goes, that is fine with me. If WO is voted in, than great, but if it goes the other way, fine. It should not be a win or lose situation to anybody. It should be a "praise the Lord" issue no matter which way it goes, period!!

[ClubV12]

My post was prompted by Woodys comment that it appears that God is leading. The assumption being that God is leading the W.O. group to "victory".

But I could be wrong in my assumption. The post stands as written and I concur PK, I will accept the decision as gracefully as possible. The whole thing is such a mess, I really don't know if God is in this, or what side He's on or what!

[Bravus]

The notion that 'God is not involved' has its own theological implications...

[ClubV12]

It's not a well known theological point, but it is well founded. It is written, in Patriarchs and Prophets, "The Lord will punish sin with sin." Our Lord limits the power of the evil doer, as we see in the example of Job. As God withdraws, to some degree, carefully measured, His protection, the evil doer is allowed more power to do that evil work. As he did to Job, but God limited that power to preserve Jobs life.

In the case of David, God removed His protection ONLY enough to allow the consequences of Davids own sin's to come to fruition. In effect, "He punished sin, with sin". As a result Davids sons died as a direct result of the working out of the consequences of both the fathers irresponsibility in raising them, as well as their own destructive actions.

God did not make Moses kill the Egyption, Moses did that and the consequences were that he had to flee for his life. God then worked with what He was left to work with, Moses in the wilderness. God specializes in taking a really bad "natural" situation and turning it into a blessing. But Moses paid a heavy price, in THIS life for his sins. Forgiveness does not mean you "get out of jail free", Gods natural laws are allowed to remain and work to what level He ordains is proper and just.

Not knowing the mind of God I can't make any suggestion as to what all this stuff with LGBT, W.O. and many other issues mean. I AM keenly aware that we can and may have shot ourselves in the foot and we may pay a price for doing so!

[Tom Wetmore]

There is some confusion created by your chart, Green. This topic is specifically about the Ordination study Committee of the North American Division. There were only 14 members on it. The list that you have is a partial list of the Ordination Study Committee appointed by the General Conference. There are 100 on that committee. It has not completed, and will not do so, until late next year. It has not even begun to review the 13 Division study committees reports. NAD is just the first one to be completed for submission to that larger GC Committee

I would also serious question you speculation regarding those of which you do not know a clear position on WO. To be fair you can't really count them as being pro or con. You have put your "?" down as either for or against.

People more knowledgable about the GC group consider the split of pro and con pretty close to 50/50.

[Green Cochoa]

There is some confusion created by your chart, Green. This topic is specifically about the Ordination study Committee of the North American Division. There were only 14 members on it. The list that you have is a partial list of the Ordination Study Committee appointed by the General Conference. There are 100 on that committee. It has not completed, and will not do so, until late next year. It has not even begun to review the 13 Division study committees reports. NAD is just the first one to be completed for submission to that larger GC Committee

I would also serious question you speculation regarding those of which you do not know a clear position on WO. To be fair you can't really count them as being pro or con. You have put your "?" down as either for or against.

People more knowledgable about the GC group consider the split of pro and con pretty close to 50/50.

Tom,

Thank you for your input. It may very well be, then, that I am confused. I hope I am not, because if what you say is true, I have all the more objection to the manner in which the GC committee has been set up. Those people appear to be mostly all from the NAD. Where are the members from Africa, from South America, and from Asia represented on that committee?

Also, how fair or representative is it of the NAD to have just 14 committee members on such a committee as this? Is it one from each union? How many unions are in the NAD?

Finally, if there were but 14, where are they listed? I would like to see their names.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

Green: I am not going to argue math with you. As I understood your table, you were saying that 35 out of 78 favored female ordination. That is a bit less than 50%.

If I misunderstood your table? O.K.

I don't think you've missed anything Gregory. Seems pretty obvious most were against WO, but yet it passed.

I think we are confusing the NAD report with the real TOSC committee. Green posted a lexicon of the TOSC committee. Two completely different groups.

[Bravus]

Thank you for your input. It may very well be, then, that I am confused. I hope I am not, because if what you say is true, I have all the more objection to the manner in which the GC committee has been set up. Those people appear to be mostly all from the NAD. Where are the members from Africa, from South America, and from Asia represented on that committee?

Also, how fair or representative is it of the NAD to have just 14 committee members on such a committee as this? Is it one from each union? How many unions are in the NAD?

Finally, if there were but 14, where are they listed? I would like to see their names.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

As I understand it, this is a study group of eminent scholars who will consider the evidence and make a report. They are not an executive group that will make decisions, so it's not about representation and voting blocs, it's about finding the best available people, and having a group of a manageable size for discussions.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

Thank you for your input. It may very well be, then, that I am confused. I hope I am not, because if what you say is true, I have all the more objection to the manner in which the GC committee has been set up. Those people appear to be mostly all from the NAD. Where are the members from Africa, from South America, and from Asia represented on that committee?

Also, how fair or representative is it of the NAD to have just 14 committee members on such a committee as this? Is it one from each union? How many unions are in the NAD?

Finally, if there were but 14, where are they listed? I would like to see their names.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

As I understand it, this is a study group of eminent scholars who will consider the evidence and make a report. They are not an executive group that will make decisions, so it's not about representation and voting blocs, it's about finding the best available people, and having a group of a manageable size for discussions.

Exactly Bravus, and on top of that, they are a group of good people. And as I've mentioned to everyone a number of times, there is no clear cut message in the Bible or the SOP on this issue. Jesus himself never talks to this.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green: Here are the 14 names.

Quote:

Gordon Bietz, D.Min., Chairman

President of Southern Adventist University

Kyoshin Ahn, Ph.D.

Associate Secretary, North American Division

Dedrick Blue, D.Min.

Senior Pastor, Northeastern Conference

JoAnn Davidson, Ph.D.

Professor, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary

Kendra Haloviak-Valentine, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, La Sierra University

Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson, Ph.D.

Professor, La Sierra University

Dwight Nelson, D.Min.

Pastor, Michigan Conference

Leslie N. Pollard, Ph.D., D.Min

President, Oakwood University

Edwin Reynolds, Ph.D.

Professor, Southern Adventist University

Stephen Richardson, Ph.D.

Ministerial Director, Allegheny East Conference

Russell Seay, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Oakwood University

Tara Vincross, M.Div.

Pastor, Pennsylvania Conference

Clinton Wahlen, Ph.D.

Associate Director, Biblical Research Institute

Ivan Williams, D.Min.

Director, Ministerial Department, North American Division

These names have been posted on the Internet several times.

[Gregory Matthews]

Here is the response of the NAD to the Ordination Committee report:

Quote:

On November 4, 2013, the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists reviewed and voted to accept the report of the Division’s Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC). The report was requested by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists at its 2011 Annual Council meeting. Each Division of the World Church was then asked to form its own TOSC and to present those findings at each of their own annual meetings at the end of 2013. These reports are to be given to the General Conference TOSC and they will be combined into a report that will be given to the General Conference Executive Officers for their review.

A final recommendation will then be presented to the General Conference Executive Committee where a decision will be made as to whether or not to move forward with a motion to the 2015 General Conference Session.

NewsPoints sat down with NAD President Dan Jackson and NAD Executive Secretary G. Alexander Bryant to discuss the recent vote of the North American Division and what the report from the NAD TOSC means:

NewsPoints: Why was the NAD TOSC formed and what was the selection process for its members?

DJ: The TOSC was formed at the request of the General Conference as they looked at the issue of ordination and its global impact on the World Church. The decision was made to ask each world Division to form its own TOSC to research the issue and to then prepare a report that would be presented to the General Conference. Originally, the committees were asked to look at the issue of ordination in general, but later it was decided to ask each committee to also include in their research a study on the theology of the ordination of women. A General Conference TOSC was formed and it will be looking at all of the world Divisions' reports and will then prepare a report to give to the General Conference officers for consideration.

AB: As we looked to staff this committee, we sought for balance and different perspectives that will represent all viewpoints of the Division, both pro and con. It was our desire and hope that this group would sincerely and prayerfully give deep study from the Bible on the subject of ordination.

NP: What was the role of the NAD administration in this process?

DJ: Once the TOSC was formed, we took a hands-off approach as it completed its work, having full confidence in the committee and that the Holy Spirit would lead them as they considered this issue.

NP: What is the result of the report prepared by the NAD TOSC?

DJ: The committee presentation contained two parts. The first was a minority report that was against the ordination of women and the second was a majority report that favors the ordination of both men and women equally. Each side was given an allotment of time to present their findings to the NAD Year-end Meeting. The time allotment for each presentation was determined based upon the proportion of the vote of each proposal made to the committee. The findings of the committee can be viewed at www.nadordination.com.

NP: So did the NAD Executive Committee vote to approve the ordination of women after the report was given?

GAB: No. The NAD Executive Committee voted to accept the report and to affirm its findings. This report will then be sent on to the GC TOSC.

We did not vote to start accepting the ordination of women. That would be moving ahead of the process that has been put in place by the General Conference. What we did was to inform the General Conference of where we stand as a Division on this issue. We are prayerful that the World Church can come to a consensus on this issue and we can then focus on continuing the mission of the North American Division.

NP: What is the next step in this process and what can the members of the North American Division expect to happen?

DJ: The General Conference TOSC will receive the report prepared by the North American Division TOSC and will then examine it with all of the other Division reports over the next six to eight months. A final report will be given to the General Conference and will be discussed at the 2014 General Conference Annual Council. At that time a decision will be made as to whether or not to move a motion to the 2015 General Conference Session.

We are praying that the Holy Spirit will be upon this final meeting as this important issue is discussed and considered, and as we move forward with the Mission of the Church.

NP: Thank you to both of you for taking the time to clarify this issue for the membership in the North American Division.

[ClubV12]

He stands in the outter court, loudly proclaiming with all due humility,,,

"That would be moving ahead of the process that has been put in place by the General Conference."

...snicker...

[Tom Wetmore]

The disrespect and supposed rebellion against Church leadership which you personally rail against rather frequently is indeed exhibited in your post. Do not forget that Dan Jackson is also a Church leader. He was elected at the General Conference in Session and not just simply the NAD president. He is also a Vice President of the General Conference. Your bias is showing and seems to show itself in automatic skepticism and prejudice about the man and anything he says.

I doubt that you even know the man or have had any interaction with him. I doubt that you have ever seen him conduct a meeting, and may have never even heard him speak. And I wonder how much, if anything of what he has written that you have read. Because, I think that if you knew him or actually observed him in action as I have quote often, you would not draw the same negative conclusions or continue to make unfounded and disparaging remarks about him.

How about at least giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[ClubV12]

Who ever he is, whatever his qualifications may be, regardless of where I or anybody else stands, it's an unfortunate statement. He misspoke, perhaps sincerely. He would have been better off to leave it out. Smacks of "spin" in a press release to the public.

[olger]

In one the myriad threads discussing the pros and cons of recent events in the SDA Church, I found this post (from someone who strongly favored WO) particularly salient:

"More then thirtyyyyy lonnnnng years we have been asking, begging, pleading for this conversation. And now when we are in the middle of this long awaited conversation we just walk away and do our own thing. That tells me we weren't really interested in having this conversation with our brothers and sisters in Christ, just in having our way. That attitude not women's ordination is what will cause the most offense. We want to be ordained to be Representatives of the meek and lowly Jesus but the taste of this particular action of the California Conferen is neither meek nor lowly. Particularly because as a world church we were in a conversation and We just walked away. There is no good reason why they could not have waited for 2015 and then decided on the next step to take."

[Green Cochoa]

When God said they had to wait for 40 years, some went and fought anyhow. The blessing of God was not then in it.

They died.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Tom Wetmore]

They all died. All but the two that trusted God to move forward.

[Green Cochoa]

They all died. All but the two that trusted God to move forward.

Yes, but those who didn't fight still had a generation to live. Even the two that were most loyal to God later died, right?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.