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

[lazarus]

Thanks Tom for giving us the bigger picture. I can see why we are where we are now. Hmmmm.

[John317]

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.

Something tells me that political manuevering will be used until the NAD gets the decision it wants either through the World Church in GC session or through any other means possible.

We need a significant period of time for the church as a whole to study and pray about the issue, and then vote either to accept or reject. The subject should be handled straightforwardly. It seems obvious to me that this hasn't been the case up to now.

[Tom Wetmore]

From my inside the building perspective, you are misreading the source of any possible "political maneuvering" and whether in fact such exists.

In the several GC Sessions where women's ordination has been directly or indirectly a point of proposed action a number of the division voted unanimously as a block against it. There was confirmed pressure on individual delegates to do so. (There was even opposition to the vote being done by secret ballot.) That pressure overriding of personal conscience in voting is distinctly political.

And it should be noted that the very clear tone and desired direction of the recent vote by the GC concerning the variance was set by the opening unequivocal speech in opposition by the chair, Elder Wilson.

In stark contrast at the NAD YE meeting, the chair, Elder Jackson, took great pains to emphasize that he was not pushing for any pre-determined outcome. He identified 3 possible directions that could be taken. There was no motion on the floor until the end of more than hour of discussion.

Characterizing the efforts of NAD as "political maneuvering" is simply untrue. Using the defined and accepted governance processes of the Church to get things done is not political maneuvering.

[CoAspen]

This has been a long ongoing issue, as we all know. Hopefully this time, regardless of outcome, the accusations of 'whatever' can be laid aside, and just move on. Regardless of GC or World Church policies or decisions, we owe our ultimate soul to God. Let every person follow that voice and look forward to the end and not others choices. It is well past time this debate ends, for the good of everyone. The only being, I can see, getting enjoyment out of all of this 'debate' is Lucifer, his sidetracking being shown to be successful.

(my opinion, not any one else's and I am totally responsible for it)

[Alchemy]

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.

But, there isn't any need for all this! The Bible doesn't change and women should never be ordained or hold positions reserved for those that are ordained! Period!

The fact that all this is going on gives us every reason to believe this is not being handled "in good faith and with integrity". I don't have any confidence in that.

[Alchemy]

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.

Tax purposes in the United States is a terrible reason! Politics over Scripture is exactly what I'm talking about.

[Alchemy]

Originally Posted By: 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.

Something tells me that political manuevering will be used until the NAD gets the decision it wants either through the World Church in GC session or through any other means possible.

We need a significant period of time for the church as a whole to study and pray about the issue, and then vote either to accept or reject. The subject should be handled straightforwardly. It seems obvious to me that this hasn't been the case up to now.

I agree completely!

Politics doesn't work well with civil authorities, and is much worse in SDA Church authorities. This issue has been voted down by the world church every single time it has been voted on in our history. No exception. Twice in the last 30 years at GC Sessions, and once again by the world church just two weeks ago!

But, we have people bent on creating just one exception to throw up in anyone's face they can! From one exception they will want to create a landslide of exceptions and force this grossly unBiblical teaching down other peoples throats, and the NAD is leading the way. This relentless badgering of this subject is not because the SDA Church fails to have a coherent policy on women's ordination, but because it has a very Biblical and coherent policy on women's ordination.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: 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.

Tax purposes in the United States is a terrible reason! Politics over Scripture is exactly what I'm talking about.

I think you missed the point of that and misunderstand.

It is not about politics or even tax law over Scripture. As long as we live on earth we are stuck with that rendering unto Caesar part. Church's have to follow the laws that pertain to them. But the tax issues are just background to why the credentialing policy was clarified simply to distinguish clergy from non-clergy church employees. It was not about women in ministry since the tax law is gender neutral.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: 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.

But, there isn't any need for all this! The Bible doesn't change and women should never be ordained or hold positions reserved for those that are ordained! Period!

The fact that all this is going on gives us every reason to believe this is not being handled "in good faith and with integrity". I don't have any confidence in that.

Well, in case you had not noticed, there is a decided difference of interpretation of the same Bible by people who are indeed reading it and understanding it in good faith and with integrity.

Impugning the character and integrity of fellow believers with whom one disagrees is unhelpful and must stop now.

[Alchemy]

I agree the tax law is gender neutral, but the Bible is not. Ephesians 5:22-29 and 1 Cor. 11:3, 7-9 makes this point extremely clear.

[Tom Wetmore]

And reasonable minds do differ. As said previously, let's let the BRI lead study of ordination take its course. All of the Biblical scholars that will be a part of that deserve our trust and confidence in their integrity.

[John317]

Should the church allow the tax laws or any other human arrangements to maneuver it into a situation where it is necessary to do things that the Bible plainly forbids?

That's the question we have to answer. If there is no clear biblical basis for the church's practices, then it should change its practices to conform to the Bible's standards.

All of the threads on the topic have only shown more and more clearly that there is no biblical basis for ordaining women to be the pastors and elders of local churches.

In order to push such an agenda on the world church, it's evidently necessary to argue the following:

(1) that God's blessing on women in ministry prove God wants them to be ordained as pastors/elders of local congregations;

(2) that the translators are all prejudiced and unable or unwilling to see the real meaning of the biblical languages;

(3) that the word "servant" in Romans 16: 1 should actually be "minister";

(4) that Paul told the Corinthians that their women should not speak in the churches while at the same time a nearby church has a woman as its pastor/elder;

(5) that we can't understand what Paul's instructions mean;

(6) that the modern churches have outgrown Paul's old fashioned instructions;

(7) that the modern churches need women as pastors/elders and therefore we have a right to go contrary to Paul's express instructions;

(8) and that since Junia (or Junias, a male) is described as "of note among the apostles," it means women should be ordained as pastors in the world church.

Such are the main arguments being used to convince the world church to change its policy, but as long as these same invalid arguments are used, I have no doubt that the world church in General Conference will contine to deny the requests to ordain women to be ministers of the churches.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

All of the threads on the topic have only shown more and more clearly that there is no biblical basis for ordaining women to be the pastors and elders of local churches.

Wow, if it doesn't agree with certain individuals opinions, then those persons having a different view and having presented their biblical basis don't count!!!! The above quote should have the honesty to state "in their opinion".

"All", leaves no room for the fact that their was the opposite opinions and with biblical basis!

...."but as long as these same invalid arguments are used"...

Glad you are the worlds authority on 'invalid' arguments. Has it ever occurred to you that the opposite side considers your arguments 'invalid'??

[Alchemy]

Tom Wetmore wrote; "Impugning the character and integrity of fellow believers with whom one disagrees is unhelpful and must stop now."

I haven't done anything of the kind! You are the one that judged and said all these people have all this integrity! How do you know that? And why should I just take your word for it?

You need to stop first, and the door won't be open for a response.

I am a free man and I can disagree with anyone I want!

[Tom Wetmore]

Should the church allow the tax laws or any other human arrangements to maneuver it into a situation where it is necessary to do things that the Bible plainly forbids?...

That you even ask the question simply tells me you too did not understand what I said about that. In fact it was quite the opposite. What was done was to balance the two so that we could better comply with both. And in fact the corrections in the policy ended up being more faithful to Biblical principles.

But that is really a side issue that I only brought up to better explain the necessity of the various divisions policies differing in order to meet unique needs, legally required or otherwise, to the countries and cultures they operate in.

[Alchemy]

Should the church allow the tax laws or any other human arrangements to maneuver it into a situation where it is necessary to do things that the Bible plainly forbids?

That's the question we have to answer. If there is no clear biblical basis for the church's practices, then it should change its practices to conform to the Bible's standards.

All of the threads on the topic have only shown more and more clearly that there is no biblical basis for ordaining women to be the pastors and elders of local churches.

In order to push such an agenda on the world church, it's evidently necessary to argue the following:

(1) that God's blessing on women in ministry prove God wants them to be ordained as pastors/elders of local congregations;

(2) that the translators are all prejudiced and unable or unwilling to see the real meaning of the biblical languages;

(3) that the word "servant" in Romans 16: 1 should actually be "minister";

(4) that Paul told the Corinthians that their women should not speak in the churches while at the same time a nearby church has a woman as its pastor/elder;

(5) that we can't understand what Paul's instructions mean;

(6) that the modern churches have outgrown Paul's old fashioned instructions;

(7) that the modern churches need women as pastors/elders and therefore we have a right to go contrary to Paul's express instructions;

(8) and that since Junia (or Junias, a male) is described as "of note among the apostles," it means women should be ordained as pastors in the world church.

Such are the main arguments being used to convince the world church to change its policy, but as long as these same invalid arguments are used, I have no doubt that the world church in General Conference will contine to deny the requests to ordain women to be ministers of the churches.

Just a note from Alchemy;

I was raised Roman Catholic and joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1982. And these women's issues have been an issue from the very beginning in my time in this church.

The GC Session voted it down in 1985 and I thought that would settle it. But it didn't. Then it was voted down by the GC Session in 1995, and that didn't settle it. The people supporting these women's issues have had all the opportunity and time to speak their mind and make their case, but they don't have a case and it shows!

Now the world church denied the NAD a variance on the issue of non-ordained people holding church leadership positions, and that doesn't settle it. There are people who refuse to submit to clear Bible teaching and the vote of the church at large and I find it grossly distasteful.

Never has the position of women pastors or leaders in the church ever been supported by any Scripture. It is a completely unBiblical position and should never be accepted. This has turned into a battle of the wills instead of accepting the will of God as revealed in the Bible! I have been abused and badgered over this issue for more than two decades and I don't feel sorry those who want woman ordination or leadership!

The response from supporters of these women's issues is I get told to be quiet, drowned out or cut off. That is one thing I like about the internet. LOLOL

Elder Dan Jackson is completely wrong in the position he has taken and the way he has handled it.

We should not be talking about this issue any more.

[Tom Wetmore]

We should not be talking about this issue any more.

Then stop talking about it.

As someone else less than eloquently stated it elsewhere, have the courtesy to allow those who do want to discuss it the opportunity to do so.

[John317]

Welcome to the Forum, my friend. I praise God that He led you out of the Catholic Church and into the SDA Church. He did the same for my wife, who's been an SDA now for almost 20 years. We serve a great God!

I'm sorry to hear that you've been shouted down and told to be quiet. I hope you don't have to deal with anything like that on the Internet.

Some day I'd like very much to read your testimony.

[Tom Wetmore]

The GC Session voted it down in 1985 and I thought that would settle it. But it didn't. Then it was voted down by the GC Session in 1995, and that didn't settle it. The people supporting these women's issues have had all the opportunity and time to speak their mind and make their case, but they don't have a case and it shows!

Each time it is brought up there is more support for it. The percentage against it continues to decline. Apparently more are seeing a valid case for women in ministry. At the Annual Council the variance would have been approved if just 26 people against it had voted the other way. That was approximately 10% of those who voted. It would seem that many did not see it as lacking any merit.

Originally Posted By: Alchemy

Never has the position of women pastors or leaders in the church ever been supported by any Scripture. It is a completely unBiblical position and should never be accepted.

And that is absolutely untrue. There is indeed support in Scripture for women pastors and leaders. We have been over this numerous times already. Ultimately the strongest opposition is cultural. Many of the comments at Annual Council clearly reflected that as the basis. There were in fact few voicing specific Biblical reasons against women pastors or leaders. In contrast a number of those speaking in favor cited specific Scriptural support.

Originally Posted By: Alchemy

Elder Dan Jackson is completely wrong in the position he has taken and the way he has handled it.

There were many who obviously disagree with your opinion on that, especially those of us who were eye witnesses to how he handled the issue.

[John317]

We should not be talking about this issue any more.

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Then stop talking about it.

I believe Alchemy means that given the history and theology of the issue, the church should already have finished talking about it because of the clear decisions made at the General Conferences. I'm quite certain he doesn't mean that the church at this point should literally stop talking about the issue.

Shouldn't we rather be encouraging people to express themselves on this and other topics on the Forum?