Commissioned Ministers Eligible may be Presidents

[CGMedley]

In a carefully balanced pair of actions, Seventh-day Adventist leaders in North America voted October 31 to fully participate in the world church’s recently launched study of the theology of ordination while also reaffirming the division’s unique policy of allowing ordained or commissioned ministers to serve as presidents of local conferences and missions. READ MORE . . .

http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=4858

[olger]

One almost wonders if the NAD can think of anything else........

"It's supposed to rain tomorrow.."

"That reminds me, we need women's ordination !!!"

And so forth...

[doug yowell]

In a carefully balanced pair of actions, Seventh-day Adventist leaders in North America voted October 31 to fully participate in the world church’s recently launched study of the theology of ordination while also reaffirming the division’s unique policy of allowing ordained or commissioned ministers to serve as presidents of local conferences and missions. READ MORE . . .

http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=4858

This is an interesting way of portraying the NAD position. NAD agrees to "fully participate" in the theological study while "reaffirming" their unique policy implimentation. Is this putting the cart before the horse? What's the point? Did NAD simply forget to establish a theological basis before creating their own policy or are they on a spiritual conquistador mission for God? If the majority of the world church arrives at a different theological destination than NAD can we expect NAD to unaffirm their present policy? Why the urgency to act before the world church has had time to consider the theological basis that NAD may or may not have presented for justification of their newly implimented policy?

[olger]

INDEED.

[Tom Wetmore]

From the article:

"Speakers on both sides of the discussion praised Jackson’s sensitive handling of the difficult issue as well as the prayerful and civil way the discussion unfolded."

Indeed, this was the spirit with which the topic was handled. And I have no doubt this will be the spirit under which the study of the theology of ordination will occur.

If all who participate do so honestly and sincerely seeking to do God's will and still come to different conclusions, what then? What does it say of God's will on the matter? Can anyone claim they are right and the other wrong if God is guiding them both to different conclusions?

[Daryl]

Wasn't the NAD's request to the GC at the 2011 Autumn Annual Council for variance for doing just that defeated?

And then they re-affirm their action in defiance of the defeated motion?

Is the NAD, consequently, in rebellion?

[Tom Wetmore]

"No" to all three questions.

[Daryl]

Their request was defeated, therefore, the answer to my first question was YES.

Why did you say NO to that one?

[Daryl]

Here's another related link:

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=84ac041b8b705798057dab6f2&id=57dda406ac

[Daryl]

Here is another one:

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=84ac041b8b705798057dab6f2&id=a428abb10f#mctoc2

[olger]

You are correct Daryl. It was defeated, and Tom knows it - he was lamenting the vote outcome a couple weeks ago.

rejoice always,

g

[Tom Wetmore]

And were you there to hear all of the discussion and explanation of what actually was being done for both the GC Annual Council and and the NAD Year End meetings? And were you there for the 3 previous GC Annual Councils and NAD YE Meetings where related actions were discussed and taken?

It is not as simplistic as you want it to be to fit within your narrow construct of reality.

[olger]

Still lamenting..

Hi Tom!

[Tom Wetmore]

Their request was defeated, therefore, the answer to my first question was YES.

Why did you say NO to that one?

Because I understood you question to ask if the action taken by NAD was the same as the request for a variance that had been denied by the GC. They were not the same policy. The variance request involved the section of policy pertaining to language in the model constitutions. After the request was denied, there was no follow up action that the NAD needed to take since there was no change to be made to that model language policy.

The NAD action involved a different section of the Division's Working Policy dealing with employment regulations. That policy was already in place and the GC was well aware of it and did not ask the NAD to take any action on it. NAD did not need to do anything with regard this policy.

[Tom Wetmore]

You may be lamenting. But I have nothing to lament. You guys seem to be the ones trying to make something of it.

I'm just saying that if you weren't there you are not in a particularly good position to offer much insight into all that actually happened, much less draw any conclusions about what happened.

It would be like me inspecting one of your jobs from where I sit based on a couple snap shots taken of the work in progress.

[Daryl]

They may not have been the same policy, but weren't they dealing with the same issue?

Originally Posted By: Daryl Fawcett

Their request was defeated, therefore, the answer to my first question was YES.

Why did you say NO to that one?

Because I understood you question to ask if the action taken by NAD was the same as the request for a variance that had been denied by the GC. They were not the same policy. The variance request involved the section of policy pertaining to language in the model constitutions. After the request was denied, there was no follow up action that the NAD needed to take since there was no change to be made to that model language policy.

The NAD action involved a different section of the Division's Working Policy dealing with employment regulations. That policy was already in place and the GC was well aware of it and did not ask the NAD to take any action on it. NAD did not need to do anything with regard this policy.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, a similar issue but different policies that have different implications and purposes and require different processes to change.

The model language for constitutions that is in bold print in the working policy books for all divisions is dictated by the GC and cannot be changed without an approved variance from the GC. (Someone suggested that the variance action did not actually follow the prescribed process, but I have not researched that point to be sure.)

The E-60 policy is a part of NAD's Working Policy dealing with employment issues. Each division is permitted to form its own policies dealing with employment as well as quite a number of other areas to meet the particular needs within their territories. Other divisions have policies that NAD does not have. The GC does not dictate those policies nor does it have to approve them. The credentialing policies come under this section of policy as well.

The specific model language for constitutions is fairly recent in origin. I think it is quite likely that many conferences have not adopted it and operate under older versions. The constituency of each conference has to adopt them. They do have a certain degree of independence. It cannot be simply dictated from above. The ability of higher levels of the Church to enforce or dictate policies is limited.

[Daryl]

According to a version of the Conference Model Bylaws that I have, it is written in the bold that only ordained ministers can be elected as a Conference President.

Doesn't that therefore, mean that the NAD can't do what they did without first obtaining permission from the GC?

FYI, I am a member of the Bylaws Committee for both our conference and our union.

[Stan]

I understand there are some of the conferences in Canada that modified their bylaws over the past year to accept either a commission or an ordained minister for president.

[Tom Wetmore]

No. Read my post again.

They need permission to change the model bylaws section. That was denied. So that section of NAD policy has not been changed as per the GC action. It still reads as the version you have.

But that is not the section of policy that NAD was dealing with.

[Tom Wetmore]

I understand there are some of the conferences in Canada that modified their bylaws over the past year to accept either a commission or an ordained minister for president.

Those conferences and the ones that still operate under the older versions which are silent on presidential qualification may well proceed to elect someone as president who is not ordained because they conscientiously believe it is the right thing to do. As Elder Paulsen said in commenting on the variance request before the vote, What then? What will we do about that?

The dilemma is that the ability to enforce policy is weak. The policy is written with the underlying assumption that everyone will follow it without question. So there are no teeth in the policy to enforce it.

[Daryl]

So the church from the GC level down has policies that are without any form of accountability? Interesting.

[Woody]

So the church from the GC level down has policies that are without any form of accountability? Interesting.

I think we have a good system. It is God ordained. It is wise and balanced.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen

I understand there are some of the conferences in Canada that modified their bylaws over the past year to accept either a commission or an ordained minister for president.

Those conferences and the ones that still operate under the older versions which are silent on presidential qualification may well proceed to elect someone as president who is not ordained because they conscientiously believe it is the right thing to do. As Elder Paulsen said in commenting on the variance request before the vote, What then? What will we do about that?

The dilemma is that the ability to enforce policy is weak. The policy is written with the underlying assumption that everyone will follow it without question. So there are no teeth in the policy to enforce it.

You brought up the point, somewhere, that those with multiple wives were accommodated, which I wholeheartedly approve of, but that courtesy is not being returned by those very people. (Course it could be argued that those with multiple wives may not be able, at this point in time, to be able to see beyond their reality.)

I'm not sure this thought exactly fits in here.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, there is a form of accountability. I'm just saying it does not have teeth. Kind of like a dog that is all bark and no bite.

The accountability for policy compliance is built on moral persuasion. But what do you do when someone sincerely and conscientiously believes the policy is morally wrong?