Trans-European Division votes on WO

[Neil D]

Would you like to answer the question Neil, since you responded to it.

[Tom Wetmore]

Moderator Note:

Stick to the topic and not each other. Name calling and ad hominem comments are unacceptable and will be deleted.

Several of you may want to take some time out and go get some fresh air.

[ClubV12]

I don't believe TED or NAD is in rebellion in presenting their study on W.O. to the G.C. They are following the request for such a study and that is commendable.

As to the issue of rebellion, perhaps another word might be less controversial. But one thing is clear: Several Conferences have violated the rules the G.C. have layed down as it regards W.O. This is the position of the G.C. itself. Therefore it is not "accusing the brethren" or gossip or rumor mongering. This is the factual position and public statement of the G.C. as it relates to Conferences proceeding with W.O. outside the rules of the G.C.

Instead of rebellion, the G.C. states it as a "violation", a more politically correct term. This violation was not accidental, it was done in full knowledge of the law. That law, rule, guideline, was rejected, dimissed, ignored by willful choice.

I don't know what word people would like to hear, but I do believe "rebellion" is an accurate assesment of the end result of specific actions taken.

[Tom Wetmore]

Have you considered that the choice of words was quite intentional? That the statement of the executive officers (please understand that this means only the top three officers, and not a statement voted by the GC Executive Committee.) was not an accusation of rebellion quote specifically because that has distinct spiritual implications? To accuse a leader of being in open rebellion is much the same as saying they are in apostasy against the church. That is very different from a policy or procedural "violation".

Again, your frame of reference is limited. You do not know what you are talking about. You draw unwarranted conclusions as a result of not being very well acquainted with the terminology and meaning of church policy.

[ClubV12]

I applaud the carefully chosen words of the professional leadership of the Church, who must walk a careful line because of their position.

I'm a layman, I am no bound by the same rules political correctness as they, where none dare call it rebellion. Even though, the term fits like a well worn pair of shoes.

The action of the various Conferences and higher is not one of ignorance. It is deliberate and calculated action. I believe they are acting sincerely. I believe they feel compelled to make this an issue by their actions.

Those deliberate, willful actions are a direct defiance of the rules of the G.C. Apostasy may in fact be a word worthy of consideration. I will opt for rebellion as it sounds nicer, more politically correct.

My conclusions are not unwarranted. There is the "law" and here we have a clear "violation" of the law. The judgment MUST be rendered "guilty". The consequences, the sentencing phase, remain under review. I have no recommendations in that regard, I will leave that to others to decide what, if anything, should be done. But "guilt" is obvious, the law has been violated, the judgment of that has been pronounced.

[Tom Wetmore]

[Johann]

This thread is on the vote of the Trans European Division. In our area this is the General Conference. Every delegate voted for the resolution, also those who had previously been against the ordination of women. What did they see now in the Bible and the writings of Ellen White which you do not see?

Let me repeat this. Do you still insist that answering the question asked by the GC means there is a rebellion?

[ClubV12]

I'm not sure what question you are making referrence to of the G.C. asking somebody something Johann.

I have previously state neither TED or NAD are in rebellion for complying with the G.C. request for a study. I applaud their efforts to honor that request.

I don't know what the status of the Conferences are in TED, but we DO know what some Conferences have done in NAD. Ordain women against the G.C. policy. Elect a woman as President. This is in open defiance of the G.C. rules and requests to stop.

[Tom Wetmore]

For a different perspective - http://michianaadventistforum.wordpress....gary-patterson/

Just so you have an opportunity to understand that it is not all so simple and clear as you really want to believe it is.

[ClubV12]

I've read that entire series by Patterson. He puts a nice "spin" on it, as any good lawyer could appreciate. He finds a few loop holes and suggests the Columbia Conference was well within it's "legal" right to proceed with ordination. He reasons the G.C. has no say in the matter.

He completely misses the point of the spirit of the law and the understood agreement between the G.C., Divisions, Unions, etc. as it concerns the working guidelines. He wants an exacting contract in great detail with plenty of fine print. Just like the Jews had 613 laws and debated whether an egg laid on the Sabbath day was lawful to eat, or not. Gimme a break...

It very much reminds of hiring a contractor who does exactly what the contract spells out in detail and nothing more. ONE more nail than specified will be an extra charge. I don't like working with people like that myself. I don't care for the storekeeper who is fanatical about charging a $1.01 for something and DEMANDING you pay that penny.

I'm sure he is a very nice and sincere fellow, I just don't agree with his analysis of the situation based on a strict reading of the law, as he has done.

[Johann]

I'm not sure what question you are making referrence to of the G.C. asking somebody something Johann.

I have previously state neither TED or NAD are in rebellion for complying with the G.C. request for a study. I applaud their efforts to honor that request.

I don't know what the status of the Conferences are in TED, but we DO know what some Conferences have done in NAD. Ordain women against the G.C. policy. Elect a woman as President. This is in open defiance of the G.C. rules and requests to stop.

The GC asked the divisions to give a study report, and that is what the TED has done, and this is what we are discussing here. There are other threads for discussing what others are doing.

[Gregory Matthews]

I do not know that I would say that Paterson is 100% correct in everything that he says. I do not give that level to myself. However, I think that he is substantially correct. I will suggest that those who c riticize him have missed a fundamental point.

One such point is that some Unions are the final authority as to who is ordained in thier Union. It has been accurately pointed out that some Union Constitutions give the Unions that authority.

It should be recognized that where the Union Constitutions give the Union that right, it was with the knowledge of and concurrence of the General Conference. IOW, where this is the case, the GC has allowed the Unions to have that authority

The authority that the Unions have can only be removed from them by a properly constituted process which would involve the change in theier Constitutions.

Absent that change, such Unions are not in rebellion. They are only exerising the authority that is theirs to exercise.

[ClubV12]

Point of clairification Gregory!

I to believe that it is the right of the Uninons to determine who is suitable for ordaining. The problem, as I see it, is that the G.C. determines the guidelines a candidate must meet to qualify. Guidelines for the entire world Church. Those guidelines currenty do not recognize women. If each Union ignores those basic world level guidelines for ordination, a Union here or there could ordain anybody they like based on their own personal criteria.

This is essentially the case now, the Unions and Conferences ignoring the requirements outlined by the G.C. for qualification. Balaams donkey, up next! Why not, if every Union has it's own standards.

[Johann]

This is no donkey speaking, but comes from the pen of Ellen White:

Quote:

A Council of Men—Not Just One Man—It has been a necessity to organize union conferences, that the General Conference shall not exercise dictation over all the separate conferences. The power vested in the Conference is not to be centered in one man, or two men, or six men; there is to be a council of men over the separate divisions. The showing by the past leadership of the conference is not after God’s order. There has been a work done of a character that has not been approved of God. The result we have before us in the ruins where once stood that large printing plant, [The Review and Herald Office in Battle Creek] with its expensive facilities.... {ChL 26.1}

In the work of God no kingly authority is to be exercised by any human being, or by two or three. The representatives of the Conference, as it has been carried with authority for the last twenty years, shall be no longer justified in saying, “The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we.” The men in positions of trust have not been carrying the work wisely. {ChL 26.2}

The Lord calls for wise men to preside over His work and to be faithful shepherds of His flock.—Manuscript 26, 1903 (April 3, 1903 Re: The Work of the General Conference). {ChL 26.3}

1. It was necessary to organize the unions.

2. The purpose was to prevent a dictation from the General Conference.

[ClubV12]

I'm clear on that aspect of the organization Johann. I believe they eventually got it right and it is right today. Like any new organization we suffered through growing pains, didn't always get it right. I like the model we have today and have had for many years. I support it, as did Ellen White in her comments from 1911 in support of the leadership of the Church.

Ordination has been a way of saying to the world, this person speaks for the Church. Not a local spokesperson, a world wide spokesperson. As such and if ordination continues to carry that responsibility, it is reasonable for the G.C., as head of the world organization, to have guidelines for the qualifications of those who are ordained. Without them, we have no world wide consistency from one Union to the next. I see that as a problem! There is good reason, for instance, the G.C. does NOT recognize women ordained in China as Pastors. NOT because they are women, but because the qualifications for ordination vary so widely from one area of China to the next. Terribly inconsistent.

The current debate will help shape, change those qualifications and I'm OK with that. Let the G.C. do it's job. Until that process is complete, some Conferences and Unions have run ahead of those duly appointed to leadership by our Lord. For me, it really is an issue of respect toward those appointed to lead His Church.

And frankly, the above quotes you posted are the hallmark and often repeated quotes used by fanatics to disregard the authority of the Church entirely. To justify their removing their membership or refusing to join at all.

Just sayin', those are the quotes they use. They are out of context and abused when used to condem the G.C. today.

[Johann]

And all of this discussion even before any of us have read the report from TED.

[Tom Wetmore]

Sadly, I suspect few will spend any time at all with it. One would hope that there would be a genuine interest in learning, a truly teachable spirit, that would compel all of our decision makers and a majority of our members to eagerly read it along with all the TOSC documents with an open heart and mind. I am afraid that many will give any of it a cursory read at best. And then it will only be to find fault with it and confirm and solidify their existing opinion.

But I hope and pray that the Holy Spirit moves mightily upon the hearts and minds of not just those appointed to study the issues, but those who must make decisions about it.

[CoAspen]

The sad part of this whole debate, so I have noticed, is that no matter how much material has been presented, no matter how definitive it is, a few will continue to say it is not enough or not really clear to support the equality of women in ministry. I am beginning to think that even the Pres came out in support and an overwhelming majority of the world church were to support it, we would still have disbelievers. My suggestion is that it is time to just leave them alone and not try to convince them anymore because we have become repetitious. Even when additional evidence is brought forth, it is still questioned and will continue to be. I think its time to 'shake off the dust' and move on.

[Tom Wetmore]

[ClubV12]

So far there is a 50 50 split on the Division reports, four who will support, four who are projected to not support.

A little early to leave the sand box CoAspen, recess isn't over yet. :)

[Johann]

Here are the twelve recommendations from TED:

1. Focus on the Mission of God and All Being Servants for the Salvation of the World. The entire matter of ordination should be seen and our terminology should be defined in the context of God’s purpose for the world as the Creator in Genesis 1-2 and the end-time vision of Revelation 21-22. This will revive the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers and the inspired biblical theology of mission, church, and service. It will give a theological foundation for activating all members in mission.

2. Remove the Current Distance between Clergy – Laity and the Levels of Ordination. We recommend that the Church embraces truly biblical principles and frees itself from the continuing dependence on ‘Roman’ practices, for example, by:

(a) Finding ways to visibly include the role of lay people in the ordination ceremony (lay people are theologically included in the idea of the church delegating authority to ordained pastors, and lay people participate in the conference/union committee decisions to ordain a pastor);

( Removing any idea of ‘(apostolic) succession’;

© Removing the existing distance between clergy and laity, and the idea that the ordained clergy forms a separate class of members who are elevated to a higher status than others;

(d) Removing the levels of ordination between all the different ‘servants’ who work in the church (globally and locally) and applying, rather, one concept of servanthood but with distinctions of duties and responsibilities which are documented in written credentials;

(e) Removing the intricate differences between various levels of ministry, such as the licensed and ordained minister, the licensed minister and the ordained local church elder, the pastor and the local church elder, etc.;

(f) Admitting that there is no biblical command to ordain anyone by the imposition of hands and that there is no consistent biblical formula for how a leader is inducted to office in the Christian church.

3. An Inclusive Ministry. Where it is culturally appropriate, the Church should allow for an inclusive and gender-neutral ministry, which means that credentials will be granted to men and women on equal terms for all offices which require ordination, presently the gospel minister, the elder, and the deacon/deaconess. This means that the Church removes all gender distinctions in its Working Policy related to the ministry and thus fulfils the biblical intent of the Working Policy BA 55 on ‘Human Relations’.

If this cannot be implemented across the world at the same time, the Church should allow it where unions/divisions request permission to do so. This may mean that the world-wide recognition of an ordination in one country may have to be reworded in the Working Policy to the effect that an ordained minister’s credentials are subject to the acceptance of a receiving division/union/conference.

4. Recommendation to the GC Session in 2015. We propose that a recommendation be brought to the General Conference Session in 2015, that it approves a revised policy in which unions, whose constituency meetings in session have voted approval and whose division committee has voted approval, be allowed to maintain an inclusive pastoral ministry which removes all gender distinctions within the work of the church in that union territory.

5. Theology and Practice of Ordination – Education of Members. The Church should continue its development of the biblical theology of ordination. Based on our study, we urge the Church to proceed in considerably more detail than in the brief consensus statement now considered by the Theology of Ordination Study Committee. This should be accompanied by an organised and intentional attempt to educate members regarding the biblical rationale for ordination and what Seventh-day Adventists believe about it in view of the teaching of the Bible, our only authority for life and practice.

There should be an on-going teaching of church members regarding the mission of God, the nature of the Church and ordination. This is especially important for new members who come from Roman Catholic or Orthodox backgrounds. The Roman Catholic Church has extensive catechetical teachings about ‘Orders’, which is one of seven sacraments and lays the foundation for the priesthood and the right to determine a person’s salvation or condemnation. ‘Orders’ are part of even brief and popular Catholic Catechisms, but in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, we say almost nothing about ordination. This deficit has generated bias and unwarranted traditions that have determined members’ opinion on both ordination in general and women’s ordination. The text of the Working Policy is hardly known by members and is even insufficient as it now stands.

B. A REDUCED CEREMONIAL EMPHASIS:

6. Consider the Best Terminology. The Church should carefully consider the wisdom of using the term ‘ordination’, which is ambiguous and loaded with meanings from the Roman Catholic Church and various Protestant denominations that are not biblical and that are confusing our members who have come to us from other churches. Its origins in the pagan Roman empirical administration, its laws and idol worship, and in the false Christian theology introduced by Tertullian and Cyprian and others after them, make a Seventh-day Adventist hesitant and uncomfortable about this term. We recommend therefore that terms that are closer to the biblical terminology are introduced, such as ‘appoint’, ‘commission’, ‘dedicate’. If for traditional reasons, it is decided to keep ‘ordination’ as a technical term in denominational language, it should be acknowledged that each language in the world has ways of referring to the concept of ‘ordination’ that does not reflect the English ‘ordination’ or Latin ordinatio. For example, Greek Adventists use the common Greek term of cheirotoneo, which is found in Acts 14:23. Other options abound in various languages and the Church should acknowledge the wish of a union to choose better terms in the local language than ‘ordination’ or ‘ordain’.

7. Remove Ritualistic and Consecrational Flavour. Seeing how ‘ordination’ is treated in the New Testament – which is where we must find our guidance on Christian ministry – we recommend that the ritualistic and consecrational flavour of the act of ordination, its vague mixture of granting the Holy Spirit or gifts for ministry and ecclesiastical authority be radically toned done and removed from policy and practice.

8. Make the Imposition of Hands Optional. While an installation ceremony is a positive and needed feature in church life, we recommend that the imposition of hands be an optional part of the ceremony. In the New Testament, the apostle, servants/ministers, overseers/elders are nowhere ordained by imposition of hands in clear terms. For these functions, however, there is a clear biblical ground for talking about being ‘appointed’.

9. Emphasis on God’s Blessing and Practical Aspects. We recommend that the emphasis in the ceremony be placed on the public recognition of the ordinand, the church’s confirmation of the ordinand’s call from God and commitment to serve Christ and the Church, the Church’s approval of the ordinand as teacher, preacher and spiritual leader, and the invocation of God’s blessing.

10. Review Who Is To Be Ordained in the Church. A special study should be conducted regarding the biblical basis for applying ordination to some offices and not others in the Church. All office holders in the Church are servants of God, but the Bible is not clear on who is ‘ordained’ and who is not. All officials at local church level and in conferences, unions, and the General Conference can be introduced to their functions when they start. This is practical and encouraging, but the biblical basis for ordaining only the pastor, elder, deacon/deaconess is very scant.

C. SOME OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS:

11. Separate Ordination from Election to an Organisational Office of Leadership. A clearer distinction should be made between the ordination (i.e. the ordained minister’s credentials) and the election of leaders for regular church offices in missions, conferences, unions, divisions, and the General Conference. Ordination for the gospel ministry should be for the ministry of the word (Acts 6:2) and not for administrative positions. If an ordained pastor is elected for a church office of organisational leadership, this is a different task from being a pastor (although some functions may overlap). Holding ministerial credentials may certainly be a merit of one who is elected as a leader, but in its theology and policy, the Church should ensure that the two are clearly distinguished, so that ordination does not automatically imply administrative or organisational leadership.

12. Improve Ministerial Training, Education, Preparation for Ordination, and Clarify Processes, Requirements, and Qualifications. We recommend that, based on the study we submit, the Church sharpens its processes and requirements for pastoral education and training, and develops better means by which the qualifications of an ordinand are examined, evaluated, and developed. [tedNEWS]