NAD Votes on E 60 Policy: Conference/Mission President Eligibility - i

[Stan]

NAD Votes on E 60 Policy: Conference/Mission President Eligibility

Following a two-hour discussion on October 31 concerning Policy E 60, the NAD Year-end Meeting committee members voted to reaffirm the action taken at 2010 Year-end Meeting. The committee requested the following resolution:

Whereas, the North American Division is an integral part of the World Church and respects and values the position of the General Conference as it relates to the Conference/Mission President being an ordained minister, and

Whereas, the North American Division desires compatibility in all policies of the World Church including the ones that deal with women in leadership positions,

In the spirit of equality and being sensitive to the unique needs of our field and not acting in any way contrary to the Bible nor the Spirit of Prophecy,

We hereby vote to affirm the North American Division Working Policy E 60 as is currently written in the 2010-2011 Working Policy book, which reads as follows:

E 60 Conference/Mission President

Inasmuch as the conference/mission president stands at the head of the ministry in the conference/mission and is the chief elder, or overseer of all the churches, a conference/mission president should be an ordained/commissioned minister.

According to the General Conference’s Office of General Counsel, the vote numbered 162 in favor of the affirmation and 61 against it.

Prior to the discussion of this policy, Dan Jackson, president of the North American Division, led the congregation through the hymn “Have Thine Own Way Lord” and asked for the Holy Sprit’s leading in the discussion. Also, attendees separated in small groups (about three times) to pray about the proceedings. “My desire is that at the end of this discussion everyone present says in their own mind ‘I was in the presence of the Spirit of God,’” said Jackson.

This vote will allow those who hold the commissioned ministers credentials to lead out in conferences, whether male or female, which could include treasurers, Bible workers, and educational institution presidents.

[Stan]

So, we can now have Female Conference Presidents... and NAD presidents, but can not have a GC Female President. no other Division has this option.

[Gail]

Will be interested in the future of the NAD!

[Stan]

The reality is this, it is not going to make a significant difference to the average person in the pew.

[John317]

(quote): ...Whereas, the North American Division is an integral part of the World Church and respects and values the position of the General Conference as it relates to the Conference/Mission President being an ordained minister, and

Whereas, the North American Division desires compatibility in all policies of the World Church including the ones that deal with women in leadership positions,

.... This vote will allow those who hold the commissioned ministers credentials to lead out in conferences, whether male or female, which could include treasurers, Bible workers, and educational institution presidents.

Since no other Division in the world has this option, how does its passage show respect and value of the position of the GC as it relates all the policies of the World Church?

Are there special needs in the NAD that do not exist outside of this Division, needs which made its passage urgent or necessary at this time? I'm wondering why it wouldn't be more beneficial to the World Church for the NAD to wait for the rest of the church to agree with the position NAD has taken.

Finally, do you know if, before the vote was taken, the delegates came to a consensus in regard to the Bible's teachings in 1 Cor. 11 & 14 and 1 Tim. 2?

I'm concerned that it may not have been so much a move due to the Bible's teaching but for other reasons.

The Adventist Review will doubtless publish an explanation of the vote.

[BobRyan]

I am wondering if this is yet another telling sign regarding Elder Jackson's style, method and agenda in leadership.

IF the GC2010 delegates had it all to do over again - would they choose Dan Jackson again?

in Christ,

Bob

[Stan]

BOB

This was voted by the NAD committee...

The action was taken over a year ago.

I don't understand all this,

BUT

THIS IS NOT ABOUT WOMENS ORDINATION!

[John317]

I don't understand all this,

BUT

THIS IS NOT ABOUT WOMENS ORDINATION!

What would you say it's all about?

If it isn't about women's position in the church, why was the following statement made:

Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen

So, we can now have Female Conference Presidents... and NAD presidents, but can not have a GC Female President. no other Division has this option.

If the SDA church is going to pass such a resolution, I think it's very imporant to be upfront and on the basis of a consensus by the World Church that the Bible and Spirit of prophecy fully support the church's decision.

I don't see that happening in this action. It seems very clear to me there's an attempt to push a policy through the back door without any apparent concern on the part of NAD that it's contrary to the majority of the members in the World Church.

Notice the following statements that clearly point to the purpose of the vote being about women's work in the church:

Quote:

Spirited debate marks major discussion of women’s roles in leadership

Mark A. Kellner, news editor, Adventist Review

A request to allow commissioned ministers in the North American and Trans-European divisions – those who have not been formally ordained as Seventh-day Adventist pastors – to serve as conference presidents sparked more than six hours of debate October 11, 2011 during the world church’s Annual Council.

....Noting a need for experienced leadership within the North American division’s conferences, Dan Jackson, NAD president, said, “We believe the position of a president of a conference should be open to treasurers, to finance officers, to secretaries who are not ordained, to those who carry a commissioned minister’s credential, but are not on an ordination track, including women.”

Jackson added, “This is not a request for women's ordination. … We are talking about governance and leadership.”

Bertil Wiklander, Trans-European Division president, voiced his division’s request for a a similar variance: “We need your help to allow all our members in outreach. Opening doors for women in leadership would strengthen growth of the church in Europe,” he said, noting the Adventist Church “in the Trans-European Division faces an extraordinary mission challenge where people are extremely resistant to the gospel and joining a church is an exception rather than the norm in these countries.”

...Uganda Union Mission director John B.D. Kakembo was among those voicing concern on that very point: He said he was troubled that “when we say that if we don't do this, we will be seen as people who are discriminating.”

Baltic Union president Valdis Zilgalvis spoke in support of the variance: “Women in the early Christian church were recognized” as ministers, he said. “In fourth century, women were pushed away from ministry at the altar, and you know which church did that. … I agree the leader should be trained, but I don't see a difference between the genders.”

Paul Ratsara, president of the Southern Africa-Indian Ocean division, urged caution in the process: “Definitely this topic is a very sensitive one,” he said. “It is very hard for me to stand here when I think of the request of my dear colleagues from this [North American] Division. … We need to agree on that first: is this negotiable, is this something we can say, 'You can do it, no problem?'”

...Nepthali J. Manez, president of the North Philippines Union, opposed the measure, saying, “If this is approved, I would encounter a lot of difficulties. If we grant this motion, at least from the way I assess my constituency, it would give me a lot of problems.” He urged that delegates “wait at least a year” before moving forward.

West African Union president James M. Golay also expressed his concerns, saying, “The church is God's church. I don't want for the issue to divide us.”

[Tom Wetmore]

What is lost sight of is that there are a substantial number of male commissioned ministers. These are men that have come into Church leadership without theological training, such as treasurers, teachers, healthcare professionals, etc. They are recognized as having significant leadership qualifications. There was a time when such individuals were routinely ordained without regard to their lack of formal theological training or pastoral experience. As a means of stopping that dilution of ordination the commissioned minster credential was created to recognize those with leadership qualifications that were not on a track of ordination. Women pastors were included in that category of credential because they are not on an ordination track.

There were a number of examples noted of male treasurers and educators that became local conference and union conference presidents. Under the current credentialing practice they would no longer be eligible. Yes, there are also women that fall into that category. But the big difference is that if a qualified woman and a qualified man, both holding commissioned credentials, are under consideration for a president position, there is a way to solve the problem for the man. He can be ordained. There is nothing to prevent going back to that old practice. And more than likely the woman will have had significant pastoral experience and theological training that the man did not have.

The problem is that honest acknowledgement that any women might be included totally eclipses the issue in the minds of those opposed to women in ministry. The rest of the world have male commissioned ministers as well that would benefit. But they know that it will not be a problem in their area because they will simply ordain that man so he can be a president when the time comes. And many of those areas do not have any women holding commissioned minster credentials anyway.

[Tom Wetmore]

The request to the GC was a variance from a GC mandated constitution/bylaw provision. Other variances have been granted to other divisions to meet local needs that were culturally based.

The gender part of it is at its heart a cultural issue. What was clearly noted was the variance granted in territories where polygamy is practiced. Men converted that have multiple wives will not be required to divorce all but one as was originally required. That would never have passed here in North America. But North America fully participated in resolving that cultural problem elsewhere by allowing that variance even though it would not fly here. Now they are the strongest voices against allowing North America a variance to meet the cultural needs and expectations here.

That is just one example of variances that have been allowed.

[lazarus]

A means of stopping that dilution of ordination the commissioned minster credential was created to recognize those with leadership qualifications that were not on a track of ordination. Women pastors were included in that category of credential because they are not on an ordination track.

I can understand the need to prevent dilution but in reality there is very little difference between what a Comissioned and Ordained individual is allowed to do. Like you said, they would simply ordain a comissioned individual. There is a distinction without a difference. I'm confused!!! There seems to be a problem with our theology of ordination.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, I agree there is a problem. We have no coherent and consistent theology of, or practice of, ordination.

The GC has asked the divisions to form ordination study committees to address the theology of ordination. BRI will apparently be trying to guide that process.

NAD also took action to do just that and I would expect that this issue will get a full and fair study here in North America.

[Alchemy]

NAD Votes on E 60 Policy: Conference/Mission President Eligibility

Following a two-hour discussion on October 31 concerning Policy E 60, the NAD Year-end Meeting committee members voted to reaffirm the action taken at 2010 Year-end Meeting. The committee requested the following resolution:

Whereas, the North American Division is an integral part of the World Church and respects and values the position of the General Conference as it relates to the Conference/Mission President being an ordained minister, and

Whereas, the North American Division desires compatibility in all policies of the World Church including the ones that deal with women in leadership positions,

In the spirit of equality and being sensitive to the unique needs of our field and not acting in any way contrary to the Bible nor the Spirit of Prophecy,

We hereby vote to affirm the North American Division Working Policy E 60 as is currently written in the 2010-2011 Working Policy book, which reads as follows:

E 60 Conference/Mission President

Inasmuch as the conference/mission president stands at the head of the ministry in the conference/mission and is the chief elder, or overseer of all the churches, a conference/mission president should be an ordained/commissioned minister.

According to the General Conference’s Office of General Counsel, the vote numbered 162 in favor of the affirmation and 61 against it.

Prior to the discussion of this policy, Dan Jackson, president of the North American Division, led the congregation through the hymn “Have Thine Own Way Lord” and asked for the Holy Sprit’s leading in the discussion. Also, attendees separated in small groups (about three times) to pray about the proceedings. “My desire is that at the end of this discussion everyone present says in their own mind ‘I was in the presence of the Spirit of God,’” said Jackson.

This vote will allow those who hold the commissioned ministers credentials to lead out in conferences, whether male or female, which could include treasurers, Bible workers, and educational institution presidents.

How disgusting!!

The NAD is just like a feminist, they only want their own way. They don't care about what the world church says or the Bible says or anything else.

Pastor Doug Bachelor was right, commissioned is the same thing as ordained. That whole "variance" game was a ploy to try and fool the world church into thinking it wasn't about ordination and so on. That was all a lie!

I am glad the world church got it right, although the vote never should have been that close.

[Alchemy]

Yes, I agree there is a problem. We have no coherent and consistent theology of, or practice of, ordination.

The GC has asked the divisions to form ordination study committees to address the theology of ordination. BRI will apparently be trying to guide that process.

NAD also took action to do just that and I would expect that this issue will get a full and fair study here in North America.

We have a very consistent and coherent theology and policy on ordination. Mainly, only a man can be ordained! Every vote that has come before the GC Session on woman's ordination has been soundly defeated! And rightfully so.

Now, when you mention "practice", that is a different story. The NAD loves to lead the way on snubbing their noses at the GC Session and World Church votes and just do what they want! This commissioning of women is an absolute sin. They act just like the gay movement in their tactics to get what they want. Use politics to change policy to suit themselves.

Absolutely putrid!

[Tom Wetmore]

If we have a consistent and coherent theology of ordination, why would the GC commission the Biblical Research Institute to develop one and request all the divisions to contribute to that process by convening theological study groups to submit papers to assist in that process?

The inconsistent practice is evidence of the lack of a clear theological position on ordination. And it is not just in North America that the practice is inconsistent.

[doug yowell]

Whereas, the North American Division desires compatibility in all policies of the World Church including the ones that deal with women in leadership positions,

In the spirit of equality and being sensitive to the unique needs of our field and not acting in any way contrary to the Bible nor the Spirit of Prophecy,

We hereby vote to affirm the North American Division Working Policy E 60 as is currently written in the 2010-2011 Working Policy book, which reads as follows:

This is the part that I especially like. In the spirit of equality??? Does that mean that the NAD will allow individual church bodies,unions, or conferences within it's jurisdiction to establish their own dissenting policies in order to be sensitive to their own unique needs? What unique "needs" have suddenly sprung up within the division that demand this change, the needs of those in leadership positions to satisfy the demands of a minority who clamor for the change? What is morally or spiritually inequitable about the historically successful existing policy? If the rest of world church doesn't recognize the NAD policy then how can NAD's future leaders expect to have a voice in establishing leadership positions in the GC? What NAD continues to demand is autonomy from the world church.It banks it's success on the world church's unwillingness to stand up and demand unity across the board.

[doug yowell]

If we have a consistent and coherent theology of ordination, why would the GC commission the Biblical Research Institute to develop one and request all the divisions to contribute to that process by convening theological study groups to submit papers to assist in that process?

The inconsistent practice is evidence of the lack of a clear theological position on ordination. And it is not just in North America that the practice is inconsistent.

Hard to argue with that. But when and why did the existing understanding of policy suddenly become so muddled? Why wasn't this a problem in 1962,or 72?

[doug yowell]

The reality is this, it is not going to make a significant difference to the average person in the pew.

If what you say is true then it further proves that the claim of "need" is phoney. It's being done to satisfy a "need" that does nothing to administer the gospel more effectively to the person in the pew. So what's the real need for pursuing the conflict? For whom is the NAD spending all this time and energy in attempting to institute this change in policy? Where is the "unique need?"

[doug yowell]

Yes, I agree there is a problem. We have no coherent and consistent theology of, or practice of, ordination.

The GC has asked the divisions to form ordination study committees to address the theology of ordination. BRI will apparently be trying to guide that process.

NAD also took action to do just that and I would expect that this issue will get a full and fair study here in North America.

Maybe the church has abandoned the biblical model for the cultural and pragmatic model. It must be considered as one of the legitimate options if a study is to be considered full and fair.But then, given the past record of the NAD I really don't think they are in any mood to even consider that they may be barking up the wrong tree. It will be interesting to see the biblical foundation upon which the NAD bases it's findings.So far they haven't shown any biblical arguments to pursuasively sway the rest of the world church.What's gonna happen if the other world divisions reach different conclusions?

[Tom Wetmore]

Rather than prejudging what we think will happen, we will just have to wait to see how this unfolds. And part of that needs to accepting that everyone is approaching this in good faith and with integrity. Having witnessed the discussion that lead up to the vote by NAD, I am confident that it they are.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

If we have a consistent and coherent theology of ordination, why would the GC commission the Biblical Research Institute to develop one and request all the divisions to contribute to that process by convening theological study groups to submit papers to assist in that process?

The inconsistent practice is evidence of the lack of a clear theological position on ordination. And it is not just in North America that the practice is inconsistent.

Hard to argue with that. But when and why did the existing understanding of policy suddenly become so muddled? Why wasn't this a problem in 1962,or 72?

This will take quite a bit to explain and put in perspective.

I think the problem predates even 1962 or 72. The muddled practice began long before that when men were being ordained as minsters that had no pastoral experience or training. The striving for equal standing did not start with women. This notion that ordained pastors are somehow the top of the pecking order apparently left conference treasurers, school principals, college presidents, and other departmental directors that weren't clergy and other lay workers feeling they were of lesser status so there was a growing practice of ordaining them almost more as a reward for denominational tenure. The ministerial workers started out with a ministerial license which lead to an ordained minster credential after they went to seminary, had some pastoral experience and were ordained. All other workers were given a missionary license.

As I noted before, the commissioned ministry credential was an effort to stop this dilution of the distinction between clergy and lay workers in administrative and leadership positions. The view was that any special significance of ordination was being trivialized by making it more about status and tenure and less about a sacred calling to the gospel ministry. This credential was specifically recognized as not being a stepping stone to ordination. There was also another set of credentials developed for teachers, the highest of which was a commissioned ministry of teaching. Any worker not in teaching or ministry were started out with a missionary credential which could lead to a commissioned minister credential after 5 years of service.

In the 70's or early 80's women pastors were included in the commissioned minister credential category because it was not on an ordination track. From soon after the death of EGW and the early 70's there were very few if any women in pastoral ministry. The closest they could come would be what was called a "Bible Worker". From the earliest days of the Church until a few years after EGW died, there were quite a few women pastors, typically given a licensed minister credential with a few notable exceptions such as EGW who were issued an ordained minister credential.

[Tom Wetmore]

The situation in NAD has of necessity taken a somewhat different path in the 90's largely driven by the need to more clearly distinguish clergy for tax purposes. Ministers in the US have a unique tax status that exempts them from withholding and employment taxes (FICA) and gives them a substantial tax break through the parsonage exclusion. (That is offset somewhat because they pay the full social security taxes as if self-employed since they are exempt from FICA taxes. FICA splits the social security taxes evenly between employer and employee.) The confusion arose because tax regulations use the terms "licensed, commissioned or ordained" to describe ministers that could possibly qualify for this tax benefit. Obviously not all religions use this sort of terminology to describe how they recognize and describe their clergy. There are also priests, rabbis, imams, etc.

The confusion arose over the increasingly common issuing of commissioned minister credentials to non-clergy Church workers. Most of them were men. At that time I was given that credential. Beyond the superficial terms used the tax law actually required that those eligible to be treated as minister for tax purposes be recognized as clergy and actually perform clergy functions in the exercise of their ministry as defined by tax law and regulation. But some were confused by a superficial reading of the tax regulations and saw the term "commissioned minister" as being qualified. There were many that were potentially being improperly classified for tax purposes. Needless to say that could have had serious tax implications.

So NAD had to develop a less confusing credential category to separate the non-clergy out of the commissioned minister category. So they developed the Administrative Credential for the non-clergy in administrative positions. (That is the credential I now have.) That is a credential distinction unique to NAD that no other division has. The GC Working Policy does not include it, although GC employees are issued it since they are employed within NAD territory. So the GC actually follows the NAD policy in issuing credentials. NAD retained the commissioned minister credential but limited it to those showing a clear calling and function in spiritual leadership. There are both men and women who hold that credential.

There you have the long story that has created this unique need for NAD.

[CoAspen]

Thanks for the whole story, nice to have it from a credible source!!!

Certainly not a cut and dried issue as many believe.

Again, thanks.

[doug yowell]

[i think the problem predates even 1962 or 72. The muddled practice began long before that when men were being ordained as minsters that had no pastoral experience or training. The striving for equal standing did not start with women. This notion that ordained pastors are somehow the top of the pecking order apparently left conference treasurers, school principals, college presidents, and other departmental directors that weren't clergy and other lay workers feeling they were of lesser status so there was a growing practice of ordaining them almost more as a reward for denominational tenure. The ministerial workers started out with a ministerial license which lead to an ordained minster credential after they went to seminary, had some pastoral experience and were ordained. All other workers were given a missionary license.

As I noted before, the commissioned ministry credential was an effort to stop this dilution of the distinction between clergy and lay workers in administrative and leadership positions.

Very interesting. Sounds like the whole tax status has taken advantage of the once inocuous pragmatic process. I think the whole "importance" issue needs to be revamped.

[Tom Wetmore]

There is a very detailed policy, 39 pages worth, in the GC and NAD policy book about the ministry. It describes well the importance of what being a minister of the Church is all about. When I was researching and analyzing the tax issues this was a very valuable part to understanding who we as a church consider to be our clergy, what it takes for them to be qualified to be minsters and what it means practically and functionally to be a minister. The credentials categorize workers but do not really tell the whole story, certainly not the "importance" part, as you say.