Pacific Union and WO

[Woody]

Union Committee calls special constituency session to authorize ordinations without regard to gender

Posted on May 09, 2012

At their March meeting, the Pacific Union executive committee voted to table until May 9 a motion that would immediately approve the ordination of ministers without regard to gender. They also set up an Ordination Study Committee to outline the steps necessary to make gender-neutral ordinations a reality as soon as possible.

Today at the La Sierra University Alumni Center, that committee delivered their report to the full executive committee. The committee replaced the original motion with a new one and voted overwhelmingly to call a special constituency meeting, tentatively scheduled for August 19.

The committee voted separately on the main motion, including the preamble. The preamble and main motion were approved by a vote of 42-2. The process, which includes calling a special constituency session, was approved unanimously.

Voted (preamble):

Whereas Scripture is clear that the end-time Church is blessed precisely because men and women preach God’s message (Joel 2:28-29 and Fundamental Belief 17);

Whereas we are commanded to “act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8);

Whereas “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for all are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28);

Whereas “differences between male and female must not be divisive among us” and “we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation” (Fundamental Belief 14);

Whereas the Seventh-day Adventist Church is co-founded by a woman, Ellen G. White, who remains an authoritative and guiding voice;

Whereas the Pacific Union is enriched by Spirit-filled women who are responding to God’s call in our schools, churches and conferences;

Whereas the Seventh-day Adventist Church assigns Unions the final decision-making authority and responsibility with respect to ordination (NAD Working Policy L45 05 3, Spring Council 2012 116-12G Report);

Whereas the Pacific Union Conference voted its full commitment to Women’s Ordination, August 30, 1995 (reaffirmed May 12, 2010 and March 15, 2012);

Therefore, [main action]

The Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee will approve or disapprove candidates for ordination without regard to gender, effective when the Union Bylaws are amended.

The Process

Voted, approval for the following process:

Because the Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee is committed to following denominational procedures and processes, and to facilitate the involvement of the entire Union constituency, a special constituency session will be called to consider amendments to the Pacific Union Conference Bylaws to clearly authorize the ordination of ministers without regard to gender.

The Pacific Union Conference Bylaws Committee will examine the Union bylaws and suggest amendments to clearly authorize the ordination of ministers without regard to gender.

The Pacific Union Conference will provide an informational packet for the delegates, pertinent to the issues to be discussed in the special constituency session.

Both the study committee and the executive committee made it clear that they are committed to following established church processes and procedures. Their recommendations and actions were guided in large part by a summary of church structure prepared earlier this year by the General Conference and distributed at GC spring meetings. The full name of the document is The General Conference and Its Divisions — a Description of Roles and Relationships in Light of Organizational Structure Development, Current Governance Documents, and Practices. That documents makes clear that:

Authority and responsibility in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not centralized in a hierarchical structure. Instead authority and responsibility is distributed throughout the Seventh-day Adventist Church structure ….

The distribution of authority and responsibility in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is illustrated by the following examples of how and where final decision-making authority and responsibility are located ….

The document goes on the explain that the “final authority and responsibility” for deciding who will be a church member is located at the local church; the “final authority and responsibility” for the employment/assigning of pastors and other workers resides at the local conference; and the “final authority and responsibility” for deciding who will be ordained is officially located at the unions.

The committee also considered that the same paragraphs that declare ordination decision are to be made by the unions, not by the divisions or the General Conference, include this counsel:

It is to be understood that the exercise of authority and responsibility is done within the context of the belief, values, and policies of the entire church. No entity is authorized to exercise its authority and responsibility in a manner that is contrary to the interests of the whole church and its activities in fulfilling its mission.

Obviously the distribution of authority found in the Seventh-day Adventist Church can result in tension between world-wide policy and the “final authority and responsibility” which has been assigned to the congregations, conferences and unions. The GC document has much to say about balancing those centers of authority, especially in the final Conclusions and Recommendations:

The following paragraphs and sentences are chosen from the Conclusion to the GC Spring Document. The full document will be made available in the next few days.

The distribution of authority and responsibility in the Church along with the recognition that “authority rests in membership” presents significant challenges in finding a balance between centralized authority (actions of the global church) and the more localized authority (actions of the constituency) in churches, conferences and unions.

At the same time the church has worked to preserve unity, the effect of church growth has enlarged the understanding of diversity and its rightful place in a worldwide community. To expect that every entity in the world church will look and function exactly like every other entity of its type may in itself become an impediment to mission. The development of structural designs in the history of the church indicates that unity must be built on a stronger foundation than uniformity.

There must be room to recognize the need for a legitimacy of local adaptation of policies and procedures that facilitate mission while not diminishing the worldwide identity, harmony and unity of the Church.

The relationship among the entities of the church is more than a matter of law and policy. Therefore attempts to codify that relationship will always be inadequate. The primary strength of the Church comes not from its structure but from its collective desire to live out a commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Such a commitment embraces a call to community.

Pacific Union executive committee members made it clear during discussions this week that they are committed to taking seriously the “final” authority and responsibility that the Seventh-day Adventist church has assigned to unions. And they made it clear that their call for a special constituency session is not to be interpreted as a way to delay the ordination of all whom God has called to ministry. It is rather, the result of a commitment to follow church procedures and to make sure the final action, whatever it is, is backed by the full authority that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has assigned to the Pacific Union Conference.

CONTACT:

Gerry Chudleigh

Communication Director

2686 Townsgate Road

Westlake Village, CA 91361

Mail to: (PO Box 5005, 91359)

www.puconline.org

Office: 805-413-7286

http://pauc.adventistfaith.org/news_entries/14974

[Gerr]

I have nothing against WO, however, I do believe in church order. When the world church meets in session and votes on something, is that not to be taken as the "voice of God"? And did not the world church in a general conference session reject WO?

[Woody]

I have nothing against WO, however, I do believe in church order. When the world church meets in session and votes on something, is that not to be taken as the "voice of God"? And did not the world church in a general conference session reject WO?

Yes, I do believe that WO was rejected on a "world-wide" basis. But on a local level - things are different. And I am actually in agreement on this because I don't feel the church is ready for it on a world wide basis nor is it appropriate.

[CoAspen]

I can't believe that the GC in session is the 'voice of God', that would simply mean we have a 'Pope by committee'....in my opinion.

[doug yowell]

I can't believe that the GC in session is the 'voice of God', that would simply mean we have a 'Pope by committee'....in my opinion.

How bout the Pacific Union leadership? Are they the voice of God to the GC? Maybe the NAD leadership? Spectrum? SECC? Is God's voice speaking exactly the opposite thing to each independent conference or person on this issue? How meaningful is the ordination of Pastor Jane Doe from Tacoma Park when she travels to Kenya as the church rep? See any potential problems there? Those that are insistent on charting their own course despite appeals from the world church have made a pretty clear statement on their idea of unity. Particularly if it is merely a policy enacted in order to fulfill the desires of a particular segment of a culture.(Isn't that their argument, that it's only a cultural thing?)

[doug yowell]

Pacific Union executive committee members made it clear during discussions this week that they are committed to taking seriously the “final” authority and responsibility that the Seventh-day Adventist church has assigned to unions. to make sure the final action, whatever it is, is backed by the full authority that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has assigned to the Pacific Union Conference.

NO mention of the full and final authority of the GC?? Sounds like the Confederate States of America appealing to their constitutional rights to establish slavery.

[Woody]

Quote:

How meaningful is the ordination of Pastor Jane Doe from Tacoma Park when she travels to Kenya as the church rep? See any potential problems there?

Very meaningful. Today we have many pastors in Kenya and going to Kenya who are not ordained. Traveling to Kenya for a visit does not require one to be an ordained minister in order to represent the church. In Kenya the ordained minister would not be recognized as an ordained minister. No problem there since being ordained makes no difference in visiting Kenya and is not required.

[Woody]

This dialogue convinces me that the reason many oppose ordination for women is that they don't have a clue what ordination means and is.

[Tom Wetmore]

Quite true!

[phkrause]

I can't believe that the GC in session is the 'voice of God', that would simply mean we have a 'Pope by committee'....in my opinion.

I do agree that no committee or individual is the voice of God. But the SDA church is definitely not a committee of one person as is the Pope. At least they sit down and a group of individuals vote, maybe not always to our liking. Our SDA president can not say on his own what is going to be OK or not OK. I do believe the Pope has the say all above whatever the RCC decides.

[CoAspen]

I believe my comment is quite clear. If we establish any particular 'group' as speaking for God, I believe there is an issue. Since God speaks to whom He chooses, we should be very careful in making that statement. Humans can and do, as a group at times, make such statements but they are interpreting that through their experience. The goal is advancing the Good News, not stifling that goal because of culture, personalities, etc. That is not to say if a certain culture, for instance, is against women leaders because of acceptance of such by the people with in that culture, they should be overridden. But neither should that culture expect all others to follow their desires. In this country we do not have such an issue, women have been accepted for quite some time as equals.

Are we going to hinder the work of GOD because of human meandering! The real issue is accepting that God speaks to us as individuals and not just corporately. We can't play lip service to the concept of the H*S speaking to us as individuals and then say 'no He didn't' to others.

[doug yowell]

This dialogue convinces me that the reason many oppose ordination for women is that they don't have a clue what ordination means and is.

I believe that would include the entire GC,Woody. You might remember they've been ordaining for decades and have just now realized that they need a committee to study what it means. And these ore the ones who also support WO. I realize that all we need to do to clearly understand the true meaning and purpose of ordination is to ask you(and maybe Tom) but I don't think the world is quite ready for that just yet. Think of all the conflict that could be avoided.

[Overaged]

How bout the Pacific Union leadership? Are they the voice of God to the GC?

We shall see if this question actually gets answered.

[Overaged]

This dialogue convinces me that the reason many oppose ordination for women is that they don't have a clue what ordination means and is.

When will we get a full and authoritative definition thereof from those who "really know?"

[monty]

There are some questions which come to mind as I grapple with the WO issue and the movement within the church I see it causing: + When a person is ordained does it mean they are annointed? + If man chooses to ordain does God follow along and annoint? + How can a person in the pew know if a person is annointed? + Can there develop a culture of "annointedness" among those who are ordained?

[Tom Wetmore]

A good deal of the confusion no doubt arises out of the fact that the KJV translates quite a few different Greek words as "ordained". It wasn't as if there was a precisely defined ecclesiastical sacrament of ordination, certainly not as we now practice it. The sense of the context in which these various words were used is much more consistent with the more practical and common, less loaded term "appointed". That is the word that is most frequently used in modern translations.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

How bout the Pacific Union leadership? Are they the voice of God to the GC?

We shall see if this question actually gets answered.

It already has been. WO proponents claim it is a movement inspired by the Holy Spirit and that those who oppose are resisting the moving and obvious calling, by the Spirit, of women to Head Pastoral ministry because they cannot move past their cultural blindfolds.Or, as a woman pastor form the SECC once told me, WO advocates "believe that they are on the cutting edge of Christianity." Reformers of a church that has been mislead by the mistranslations of the Biblical manuscripts and held hostage by a patriarchal system of family and church government. Free at last, free at last,Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!!

[Woody]

All that has been done so far on this issue - has been within the legal guidelines and Spirit lead leadership of the church. Under the leadership of our President - we are moving forward in promoting reformation and change in our church. May God continue to lead His church.

[doug yowell]

All that has been done so far on this issue - has been within the legal guidelines and Spirit lead leadership of the church. May God continue to lead His church.

See what I mean?

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

All that has been done so far on this issue - has been within the legal guidelines and Spirit lead leadership of the church. May God continue to lead His church.

See what I mean?

We should not be afraid of God's leading. We should get onboard and accomplish His will. For there is much work to be done. God needs ALL of us.

[doug yowell]

We should not be afraid of God's leading. We should get onboard and accomplish His will. For there is much work to be done. God needs ALL of us.

Come on,Woody, did ya forget that you were talking to a close minded,woman-hating,Scripturally ignorant, and spiritually blind bunch? People all over the world,join in,join the love train,love train.

[Woody]

Okay. You got me. A Point to Doug.

[Gerr]

I can't believe that the GC in session is the 'voice of God', that would simply mean we have a 'Pope by committee'....in my opinion.

God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has invested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work.--9T 260, 261 (1909). {LDE 56.1}

God has invested His church with special authority and power which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising, for he who does this despises the voice of God.--AA 164 (1911). {LDE 56.2}

So whose voice are we to listen to now? What if one or more of the local conferences in the PUC or any other Union vote for one thing and the others against? What if some churches in the local conferences vote for one thing and the others against? CHAOS!!! MADNESS!!!

It is one thing to agitate and to keep agitating for change. That would be healthy, IMHO. It is totally another thing to take a unilateral action that is contrary to what the whole body wants. Is the body of Christ to be divided?

[Overaged]

Okay. You got me. A Point to Doug.

Only one point? lol

[Overaged]

A good deal of the confusion no doubt arises out of the fact that the KJV translates quite a few different Greek words as "ordained". It wasn't as if there was a precisely defined ecclesiastical sacrament of ordination, certainly not as we now practice it. The sense of the context in which these various words were used is much more consistent with the more practical and common, less loaded term "appointed". That is the word that is most frequently used in modern translations.

Does this difference in wording really make that much difference in how to interpret WO? That is actually an interesting question. I am going to look at a few texts and do some study on this point you made here. If you have any texts to suggest; can you please post them here?