SooutheasternCalifornia elects female Conference President.

[Neil D]

For 40 years we have waited for these committees to conclude thier work....At what point, do we conclude that the leadership is afraid of taking up the cross of Christ? We have evidence of blessing, from women pastors here to women pastors in china, and still, we deny God's leading....We have studied with leading pastors, even those in the very same committees over the issue of Women's ordination, but still we are told to wait....for cultural improvements...

We are being manipulated by bureaucratic politics...and the laity is desiring an answer....that is why the Unions are moving forward, and the NAD is also forced to take a stand...

....and apparently, bureaucratic policys/committees are being used as roadblocks.... because other committees have been used and have resolved problems much sooner than this one, which is over 40 years of age.....

[Green Cochoa]

I will honor and respect the G.C. regardless of their decision.

Will you?

I used to say that I would. But having seen that the current movement has been an act of rebellion from its inception until now, I am changing my mind. After all, would I respect the introduction of witchcraft into the church?

Think about this.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Bravus]

Yep, this is exactly what I was saying. It's all: "Respect the duly constituted authority! (as long as it agrees with me)"

Which means the appeal to authority is bogus (strategic action, not communicative action, in Habermas' terms).

It's a power play to get their own way, *not* a principled stand. Because if it was a matter of principle, they'd stand by the authority through thick or thin. Whether it agreed with them or not.

[Green Cochoa]

Yep, this is exactly what I was saying. It's all: "Respect the duly constituted authority! (as long as it agrees with me)"

Which means the appeal to authority is bogus (strategic action, not communicative action, in Habermas' terms).

It's a power play to get their own way, *not* a principled stand. Because if it was a matter of principle, they'd stand by the authority through thick or thin. Whether it agreed with them or not.

Bravus,

How far are you willing to go to support the GC? Would you support the GC and/or the world church if it began teaching witchcraft?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Bravus]

I don't support them at all.

I do my own thinking: and for me, if anyone at all should be ordained (a proposition I'm pretty ambivalent about), it's a simple matter of natural justice that all people should be treated equally.

I don't have to subscribe to buckling under to authority myself to be able to call someone else for using a call to buckle under authority in a less than honest manner...

[debbym]

club,

i would not say people who are prayerfully endeavoring to spread the Gospel, and to minister the word of God, and to obey God's will in every area of their lives are in rebellion.

Humility and prayer, surrender and love do not go hand in hand with rebellion.

[olger]

The problem with this whole issue is politics are being played into this whole thing.

Politics like DO WHAT I TELL YOU AS I AM THE LEADER HERE.

DEFY ME AND I WILL MAKE YOU SUFFER. Suffer how? By not allowing that women to vote or be seated as a delegate etc.

We all know how that played out.

When politics like this are played out and we see how Ted Wilson at times acts like a child more than our GC president it makes it very hard to respect the man as a leader appointed by God. I know as a man he has faults but really sir. Must we stand back and allow a man with an obvious temper be our GC president and sing HAIL TO THE CHEIF. Every time his name is mentioned.

I know I am being sarcastic here. Still a man with a temper who cannot hold his words but instead sticks his foot in his mouth really is going to start losing the respect of the whole church.

His father Neil Wilson was unceremoniously voted out of office. Looks like a repeat coming up someday if these outbursts continue.

What "outburst" are you referring to?

[olger]

Male leadership is a very plain principle in the Bible. No question about it. The politics of the issue are secondary to the biblical ramifications.

rejoice always,

G

[ClubV12]

Debbym says,

"i would not say people who are prayerfully endeavoring to spread the Gospel, and to minister the word of God, and to obey God's will in every area of their lives are in rebellion."

I agree with that. I base my position on the actions we can see and that have been taken which point to a different spirit than the one you mention. SECC and NAD have openly and without apology denied the requests of the G.C. They have openly and without apology moved ahead of the stated G.C. policy by election of a woman President. NAD has accepted without hesitation their position, in opposition to the G.C.

However sincere they may be, however prayerful they may be, their actions speak louder than their words. They are in direct violation of the spirit of the laws that govern the Church. There is no other way to define these actions other than "rebellion".

Perhaps that word carries such a bad connotation some feel it must be rejected. Perhaps they are embarrased by the word. Rebels with a valid cause are not embarrased. If you feel SECC and NAD are in the right, embrace the rebellion. Be proud of it! Support it with pen and voice. If you believe you are on the side of "right", do it boldy and without apology. Please do so with respect and while honoring those who you are rebelling against. Please stop the name calling and trash talking of those you oppose. It does nothing to promote your "rebellion". Go get 'em "freedom fighter"!

[CyberGuy]

Well we disagree on the view. You see politics and to some degree that may be true. Never the less, I see a need for order and discipline. I see men trying to do their job as best they can.

Having been a supervisor for a large part of my career, I can appreciate how difficult it is herding cats...

What is being done here is the theory that one size fits all. This simply does not work.

Years ago a person could be disfellowshiped for wearing a wedding ring. People in Europe and in other nations argued that the wedding band helps to avoid problems for it tells others looking for a date that you are taken and are off limits. Saves embarrassment for both sides. Here in the USA that was less of an issue. Finally the church voted that a wedding band was ok. Took decades though.

Then there was the case of wife beating and divorce. Can a wife divorce her husband in the case of abuse in there was no adultery. EG White made it clear the wife should not stay with an abusive husband but did not say if divorce was called for.

Through a trick in parlementary procedure the west Meaning NAD and Europe and Australia stayed until Friday afternoon and then brought back the proposal that was tabled to allow women in cases of abuse to divorce their husbands. Most of the delegate4s from Africa and South America had gone home. It passed but the Divisions in Africa and South America said they would not honor that vote and would still disfellowship women who divorced their husbands for anything other than adultery.

So you see again we have one section of the church refusing to honor what was voted on the GC in session.

We have learned that a once sixe fits all simply does not work for all cultures worldwide. For doctrine yes but for policy NO that simply does not work.

[Gregory Matthews]

Greeen said:

Quote:

Bravus,

How far are you willing to go to support the GC? Would you support the GC and/or the world church if it began teaching witchcraft?

Green, do you think that ordaining females is on an equal level to the sin of witchcraft?

Your statment above may lead some people to think that you do.

[Tom Wetmore]

Male leadership is a very plain principle in the Bible. No question about it. The politics of the issue are secondary to the biblical ramifications.

rejoice always,

G

I already answered this statement of opinion in the other thread where you posted the identical thing. (Spamming without really responding to the actual question at hand, it seems…)

Let me ask you a question, Ger. Let's assume you wife, after much thoughtful reflection, study and prayer, told you that she fully supported WO and women in church leadership. What are you as a man and husband going to do about that? And what would you do if she further told you that she was under the growing conviction that God was calling her to become a pastor and that she had decided that she would follow that calling wherever it lead should such an opportunity present itself to her? And what would you do if a conference president called her and offered her a pastoral assignment?

[ClubV12]

You know, I'm begining to think this talk about the Holy Spirit on either side of the issue can be likened to the roll of the Spirit in the Civil War. God was punishing BOTH sides, He was punishing this Nation as a whole.

I gotta wonder if thats whats happening with this issue. The Holy Spirit is not in this, on either side. Like two children arguing on the playground and the teacher has to pick which one started the fight. No she doesn't. She can send them both to "detention" (or whatever).

Sure the North was "more" right than the South, both still suffered, both were still punished.

I really do believe the only solution is to let the teacher control the fight. The end goal, whatever that may be, is simply not worth tearing the Church apart over.

Everybody go to their room, let the Parent Teacher Organization finish the work they started and they will call you when their done.

[CyberGuy]

What "outburst" are you referring to?

I refer to the outburst when Ted Wilson ordered the Pacific Union president to deliver a message to the delegates at the SECC constituency meeting saying.

"The GC will not recognize a women elected as president of SECC and will not allow her to vote at the Fall Council or be seated as a delegate"

The entire delegation gave a loud disapproving murmer.

The Pacific Union President then assured the delegates that Sandy if elected would be a Union delegate and the GC would have no choice according to their own bylaws but to accept her as a voting delegate.

That is how it turned out. Sandy Roberts was seated and introduced as one of three new conference presidents and she received the LONGEST standing ovation from the World church delegates. A tribute to Sandy Roberts and a political slap in the face to Ted Wilson.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

What "outburst" are you referring to?

I refer to the outburst when Ted Wilson ordered the Pacific Union president to deliver a message to the delegates at the SECC constituency meeting saying.

"The GC will not recognize a women elected as president of SECC and will not allow her to vote at the Fall Council or be seated as a delegate"

The entire delegation gave a loud disapproving murmer.

The Pacific Union President then assured the delegates that Sandy if elected would be a Union delegate and the GC would have no choice according to their own bylaws but to accept her as a voting delegate.

That is how it turned out. Sandy Roberts was seated and introduced as one of three new conference presidents and she received the LONGEST standing ovation from the World church delegates. A tribute to Sandy Roberts and a political slap in the face to Ted Wilson.

You seem to be enjoying this...

[Tom Wetmore]

I refer to the outburst when Ted Wilson ordered the Pacific Union president to deliver a message to the delegates at the SECC constituency meeting saying.

"The GC will not recognize a women elected as president of SECC and will not allow her to vote at the Fall Council or be seated as a delegate"

The entire delegation gave a loud disapproving murmer.

The Pacific Union President then assured the delegates that Sandy if elected would be a Union delegate and the GC would have no choice according to their own bylaws but to accept her as a voting delegate.

That is how it turned out. Sandy Roberts was seated and introduced as one of three new conference presidents and she received the LONGEST standing ovation from the World church delegates. A tribute to Sandy Roberts and a political slap in the face to Ted Wilson.

In the interest of accuracy (since some tend to discredit the whole if one fact is a bit askew…) I should correct a few errors of fact.

Dr. Roberts was elected after Fall [Annual] Council of the General Conference Executive Committee. The upcoming meeting of concern was the NAD Year End meeting of the NAD Executive Committee. Local Conference presidents from within NAD are ex officio members (not delegates) of the NAD Executive Committee. Local Conference presidents are not automatically members of the GC Executive Committee.

Dr. Roberts did receive a long sustained round of applause, longer than the other two new local conference presidents. But it wasn't a "standing ovation". From my perspective, it could have appeared that way since I, and a number of people were already standing at the back of the auditorium when it happened.

And finally, those present were not "World Church delegates". They were from NAD, because this is the NAD Year End Meeting. There were a number of General Conference officers present, including Ted Wilson.

And now some added detail of what followed. With the required quorum present, the meeting was called to order and after a few preliminary remarks, Dan Jackson stated that it would be beneficial to address the obvious question on everyone's mind in light of the statement released that morning by the GC Executive officers regarding Sandra Roberts election and resulting presence as a member of the Committee. He asked Alex Bryant to review the NAD Bylaws and Policy regarding membership, which Alex read before the group. The conclusion was that under the clear wording a duly elected conference president of a local conference is a member and the opinion of the NAD officers was that out of respect for the clear vote of the constituency of the SECC consistent with their Constitution and Bylaws in that election, she must be recognized as a member of the Committee. With a few more remarks Dan Jackson opened the floor for discussion. Only three members came to the floor mics to speak. One was simply a point of order asking if Sandra Roberts should leave the room for the discussion. Dan Jackson left it to her and she stayed. One conference president raised concerns, sort of echoing the released statement from the GC Executive Officers. And then Ricardo Graham explained the process of her election and the position of the the Pacific Union that it was proper and in harmony with their Constitution and Bylaws and those of the Union. That was it. With nobody else having anything further to say, they moved on to regular business.

[olger]

Thanks for the clarification, Tom. Hyperbole is a constant companion of elation.

[phkrause]

Come on!! Witchcraft??? Your comparing "witchcraft" to WO??? That's going to far, sorry I can't agree with that at all.

[olger]

I don't want to intrude on your conversation, Peter, but he may be referring to the mysticism of Spiritual Formation as witchcraft. That isn't too much of a stretch, in fact mysticism is of occultic persuasion. But I ain't sure how he meant it.

[phkrause]

Than O he needs to explain himself better than that. To throw out that witchcraft, of any kind, is equal to WO is very sad.

[olger]

God does equate rebellion with witchcraft, doesn't He?

[Bravus]

Last time I'll say it: *when* (because it's a matter of when, not if) the GC votes to allow women's ordination, those who continue to oppose it will be in rebellion.

Hope they're cool with being accused of witchcraft.

[olger]

Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, David. I hope we agree on that.

blessins,

G

[phkrause]

Exactly

[CyberGuy]

This from Spectrum

When President Penick announced the conference nominating committee report, Pacific Union Conference president Ricardo Graham took the stage to preside alongside committee chair, Dr. Fritz Guy. Guy brought the recommendations of the committee for a vote.

Graham prefaced the discussion and votes on nominees with news that he had received personal communication from General Conference president Ted Wilson. Graham delivered the cautionary message from Elder Wilson, warning that if a woman were elected president, it would put the conference and the union in direct conflict with the General Conference, and a woman president would not be seated or given a vote at the upcoming Year End Meetings in Silver Spring. At this news, a loud murmur rippled through the gathering.

Graham hastened to add that the nominating committee had followed conference and union by-laws “to a T” (bringing strong applause) and that any potential conflict would only be between the union and the General Conference. He conveyed that voting for a woman as president would not be a problem from a conference or union policy standpoint and referenced union action concerning the North American Division’s E-60 policy.

Following Graham’s remarks, Dr. Guy moved the first recommendation of the nominating committee: Dr. Sandra Roberts as conference president. Delegates almost immediately began flocking to microphones to speak to the motion. The first commenter, a pastor, stated that some delegates did not hear Elder Wilson’s message, and asked Graham to repeat it, which Graham obligingly did.

Next, a slew of delegates spoke both for and against Roberts. Those in opposition to the nomination cited church unity and the need to defer to the world church on matters of ordination of women. Graham pointed out that as for General Conference policy requiring that a conference president be an ordained minister, Roberts already was (In March of 2012, SECC voted to ordain pastors without regard to gender).

Among those in favor of Roberts’ nomination, several prominent leaders spoke. Among them, Loma Linda University Church senior pastor Randy Roberts (no relation to Sandra) took the microphone, first stating that he felt it was very unfortunate that Elder Wilson chose not to deliver his message in person, electing instead to compel Graham to do it while simultaneously chairing the vote on Sandy Roberts’ nomination. Continuing, Randy Roberts stated that unity demands equality, and noted that it is those leaders in power who call for unity, and never those excluded from power. When he finished speaking, delegates applauded loudly.

La Sierra University Church senior pastor Chris Oberg spoke, noting that during the administration of former GC president Neal C. Wilson, Southeastern California Conference was at odds with the General Conference when it moved to pay men and women equally.

Following a vigorous discussion, and with numerous delegates still lined up to speak, Frieda Roos, a member of the conference executive committee called Roberts “the most qualified person to be president at this moment,” and called the previous question. Over 80% of delegates voted to end discussion and vote on Roberts’ nomination. Graham opened voting.

When the results were finally disclosed, 72% of delegates had voted to make Sandy Roberts the first woman to serve as a conference president in the Adventist denomination. Delegates responded with loud, sustained applause. Almost instantaneously, social media sites lit up with photos, status updates and tweets announcing the news and sending it viral.

Roberts’ rise to the presidency comes on the heels of her nine years as executive secretary. Prior to that, she served in the conference’s youth department for five years. She is a former pastor, chaplain, teacher and general manager at Pine Springs Ranch camp and conference center. Roberts succeeds Elder Gerald Penick, who served as president for nine years, and who will return to pastoral ministry to finish out his career of denominational service.

The rest of the conference officers were elected by large margins without discussion