NAD in direct opposition to the G.C.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

False? You might want to consult the Church Manual before making that claim again. I don't just shoot from the hip, I do my homework.

Actually you often do not do your homework and you do shoot from the hip. The above statement of yours is an example. You did not quote from the current CHRUCH MANUAL. {NOTE: I also do that, especially when I want to show that what I am referencing has a history that goes back a ways.] The Current CHURCH MANUAL is the 2010 version, which is available online.

I do not believe that I have ever noticed you referencing the NAD Working Policy. I wonder why? While it is not on-line and you cannot purchase it from an ABC, it is available both in print and on CD.

Overall, you seem to lack an understanding of the authority that the Divisions, the Unions, and the local Conferences have to conduct their own ministry and in doing so to deviate from GC policy and practice. No, that authority is not unlimited, but it exists on some levels.

IOW,you simply cannot read an older edition of the CHURCH MANUAL and simply apply it in a ridged manner to all Divisions, Unions and Conferences.

[ClubV12]

If Gregory and Neil are done,,,

As we see the love for the Church Manual I wonder if that love extends to the government of the Church?

How about it Gregory, Neil, will you support whatever decision the G.C. makes concerning W.O. or will you continue to applaud and support those Conferences that will ignore that ruling?

That IS the question this thread is dealing with, respect for authority, at all levels really.

Locally, do you respect the Church Board or do you murmur and complain? That last question is rhetorical.

[Tom Wetmore]

Well Club, here is your error regarding this question. It is with how you interpret what you are reading in the Manual. You claimed that only ordained ministers can perform marriage ceremonies and interpret the exception as being only a rare exception for special circumstances. You left the impression that such would only be the case where no ordained minister was available.

As has been pointed out by those who do know and understand what the exception means, where division practice recognizes and allows for commissioned ministers to function in this capacity, approval does not need to be sought in each instance and only in exceptional circumstances. The emphasis of the exception to the general rule is the division practice of having commissioned ministers in the first place. Not all divisions have or use this credential in their division working policy. NAD does.

And this does highlight a significant reason for the difference of opinion and the conflict between the GC and NAD that arose over NAD Working Policy E60 2 years ago that launched this effort to resolve the theology of ordination. NAD has the most developed credential policy and actuallly does extensively use the commissioned minister credential for both men and women. The practical difference between the two credentials is very minimal. Both are authorized within the Divison to do essentially all of same ministerial functions. Many capable administrators and leaders within the Division hold the commissioned minister credential simply by virtue of the path they arrived at ministerial status. Commissioned minister are often long term church workers that have come out of non ministerial roles, experience and training, such as teaching or finance or even lawyers and move into administrative roles that have a spiritual emphasis and that are more typically held by ordained ministers. Some go on to serve as regular pastors. And it it does include women pastors.

It was with that in mind that the Division recognized that some of these commissioned minsters even with extensive administrative experience and proven leadership qualities were bypassed for presidential appointments. Since there is virtually no practical difference between being ordained and commissioned, the decision was made to add the word "commissioned" to that policy identifying those who should be eligible to be considered for conference presidential appointment.

Unfortunately most other divisions do not have, or if they do, rarely use the commissioned minister credential. And in those divisions it would have been a more limited credential and/or only for women. Since in NAD it also included women, the focus at the GC Annual Council was on that fact and misunderstood by many from other divisions as only for women. That overwhelmed the discussion without any effort to understand that as used in NAD that credential was essentially the same as ordination. That is what lead to the action that precipitated discussions after NAD had its year end meeting where they withdrew the change to E60. Since those discussions lead to questions of the significance of ordination and the realization the Church really did not have an established theology of ordination, the whole TOSC effort was established.

[ClubV12]

"They directly challenge two world Church decisions on the matter of ordination," reads a statement, passed by a 264-25 vote during the Annual Council meeting in Silver Spring, Md. "They create doubts about the importance of collective decision-making as a basic feature of denominational life." Huff Post quoting the G.C. statement.

I take it you don't agree with this G.C. statement CoAspen? Most don't agree with it, even though the vote was 264 in support and only 25 against.

And that is the problem. MOST on this board don't agree with or support the authority of the Church or the process by which it is being run. Many have openly stated that will be the case even after the W.O. vote.

Which by the way, is not even gaurenteed to come to a vote! It could be tabled, leaving us where we are now. For some, even worse, the G.C. could outright disapprove of W.O.

What then will the Conferences do? What action will they take? Continue to ignore and heap disdain upon the highest authority on earth?

Tis a serious matter indeed, each will have to make a decision to stand with or against the leadership of this Church.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

As we see the love for the Church Manual I wonder if that love extends to the government of the Church?

How about it Gregory, Neil, will you support whatever decision the G.C. makes concerning W.O. or will you continue to applaud and support those Conferences that will ignore that ruling?

That IS the question this thread is dealing with, respect for authority, at all levels really.

Locally, do you respect the Church Board or do you murmur and complain? That last question is rhetorical.

Club, your comment about a love for the Church Manual is both sarcastic and a misrepresentation of where any of us are. In sum total, your pick and choose what you consider to be the policy of the denomination and fail to consider other documents that are also policy. That may be ignorance on your part. You may never have seen a division Working Policy and you may not know how such relates to the Church Manual.

In any case, whether through ignorance or something else, you often misrepresent the policy and practice of the denomination.

You ask whether or not we will support a GC decision of female ordination. I remind you that none of us are making any comments that would suggest that we want to leave the denomination due to those who differ with us. You have the evidence in hand and no need to ask the question.

You talk about us applauding those Conferences that you have suggested are in rebellion. Perhaps they are. But, I remind you that this is not an open and shut case. There is reason, even though you do not agree with it, that these Conferences are doing exactly what they have the authority to do. They are not in rebellion against properly constituted authority, in my opinion.

Honest people do differ on this.

You ask if we support the local Church Board. What do you think is the level of our involvement? Why would you think that we would become that involved.

Yes, we may serve on our local the local Church Board. We may even serve on local Conference Committees. We may advise the local Conference officials on issues and more. I have done all of these and continue to do so as appropriate. In doing all of these, I am not expected to agree with every decision that is made. The SDA Church does not expect that of me. They only expect me to be appropriate. When I attend meetings where decisions are being made and discussion takes place, I voice my opinion in an appropriate manner.

Club, your sarcasm and misrepresentation of other people and your shooting from your hip without a full consideration of the facts would not be tolerated in the circles in which I voice my opinion and advise others.