A Time of Crisis

[Gregory Matthews]

Monday, October 9. 2017

The following link should be sobering to all informed Adventists.  For one of the most respected leaders in the SDA denomination to come forward publicly with the following statement can only suggest that a crisis is upon us that exceeds all previous ones that this denomination has faced.

Gentlepeople, regardless of where you are individually on the issues that we face, today should be a day that unites all of us in a prayer that God will intervene to bring us to resolution and a unity in purpose and mission.  

https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2017/10/08/call-action

[Gregory Matthews]

Phillip Brantley writing in response to the article by Dr. Knight, makes the following points:

Quote

Here is a list of objections to the proposed effort to coerce delegates to either click or not click a button that indicates that they follow policy:

1. Vagueness: The action is too vague to be sufficiently understood. The action is like a statement that declares "I am good" or "I encourage a safe work environment" or "I love God." If auditors made a vague statement that the organization under audit "followed policy" or "did not follow policy," we would not know what that vague statement means. Auditors in their wisdom do not resort to vagueness and we should not countenance vagueness. We cannot discern the meaning of the click of the button or the refusal to click the button, because either is too vague.
2. Risk of Misrepresentation: The click of the button or failure to click is subject to misrepresentation. We do not know what the delegate is thinking, so consequently we risk misrepresenting the meaning of the delegate's action.
3. Risk of Selective Enforcement: Ted Wilson will not investigate those button-clicking delegates who are his political allies but those who appropriately find his behavior alarming. The risk of selective enforcement is the main reason why vague statutes are invalidated.
4. Unfairness to the Delegate: It is unfair to require a delegate to provide a yes-or-no answer but not allow the delegate to explain his or her answer.
5. Superfluous: Whether the delegate is following policy can be discerned in the audit reports and other facts known. It is superfluous to require the delegate to click or not click the button.
6. Lack of Proper Foundation: The question posed to the delegates lacks proper foundation, because there is sharp disagreement about what the policy is. Unions that ordain women as ministers have declared what they think is policy. Opponents of women's ordination have disagreed. Accordingly, the question posed to the delegates is improper because it lacks a proper foundation.
7. Question Requests an Improper Legal Conclusion: Whether or not the delegate complies with policy is not solely a factual question but a legal question that the delegate may not be trained or equipped to answer. By way of illustration, only until Seventh-day Adventist Church law becomes settled with respect to which entity possesses authority with respect to ordination can such a question posed to the delegates be answered in an intelligent way.
8. Humiliation of the Delegates: The delegates are servants of the Lord. They are humiliated when suspicion is directed toward them and when demands are made that they reiterate their fidelity. How would Ted Wilson feel if he were forced to sign a loyalty oath in order to be granted speaking privileges at Andrews University? A loyalty oath written by me? Or written by the professors at the Seminary? Or written by other proponents of women's ordination?
9. Impractical and Unworkable: The precious few hours of Annual Council should not be squandered on numerous investigations about whether particular delegates are complying with policy. Time that should be spent toward advancing the mission of the Church should not be squandered in quarreling about who gets to speak and vote.
10. Violates the GC's Constitution: The GC's constitution in all probability does not countenance that delegates can be deprived of their rights to speak and vote because of noncompliance with policy.
11. Encourages the Bearing of False Witness: The proposal encourages delegates to lie rather than slink home to their third world countries in disgrace. The GC should be promoting candor and forthrightness with respect to compliance with policy rather than facilitate the quick and easy lie one can tell by clicking a button.
12. Disproportionality: The punishment meted out should be proportionate to the offense committed. Delegates should not be ostracized for minor deviations from policy. Taking away voice and vote is typically reserved for members who are excommunicated from the Church. Embezzlement is a major deviation from policy. Ordaining women as ministers, if that is in fact a deviation from policy, is relatively minor, as demonstrated by the enormous blessings provided to the Church by ordained women ministers.
13. Ambiguity: Policy is comprised not only of words but the intent and spirit behind those words. The clicking of the button may indicate compliance solely with words, compliance solely with intent and spirit, or compliance with a combination of words and intent/spirit. Accordingly, the question posed to the delegates is improper and unanswerable because it is ambiguous.
14. Loss of Exemplary Leaders: Exemplary leaders may understandably refuse to comply with the proposal. They may be wrong in doing so, but they remain exemplary leaders nonetheless. The proposal may facilitate the loss of exemplary leaders the Church needs in order to finish the work.
15. Delegitimizes the GC's Executive Committee: If all delegates are not allowed to speak and vote, then all actions taken by the GC's Executive Committee thereafter are invalid and illegitimate per se.
16. Makes Policy Inflexible: Policy is not supposed to be inflexible, something that is poured in concrete. There are legitimate reasons, given exigent circumstances, to deviate from policy. The proposal elevates policy to the level of the Ten Commandments, to the level of the Word of God. The proposal closes its eyes to possible changes of circumstances that might occur in the future. The proposal divests leaders from their exercise of wise judgment, which is sorely needed.
17. Delegates are Unfairly Singled Out: The history of loyalty oaths is that only certain persons are targeted and that singling out of certain persons is unfair.
18. Furthers Loyalty Oath Culture: The proposal furthers the demoralizing and damaging culture that Ted Wilson has fostered in the Church. History teaches that loyalty oaths are corrosive and corrupting to the culture.
19. Wise Governance Neglected: The proposal is the antithesis of wise governance. The proposal should be scrapped in favor of other approaches that can more effectively deal with the issues. The ordinations of women as ministers are here to stay. We need leaders at the GC who understand this.
20. Kicks the Can Down the Road: The proposal does not fix the issue pertaining to women's ordination. It only kicks the can down the road. The best solution is to take the limited action of voting that ordinations of women as ministers are valid only in the unions in which those ordinations are done. Once that vote is taken, then the delegates can more appropriately direct their energy and resources toward finishing the work.

 

[Kevin H]

Quote

 

This is so sad

[CoAspen]

Maybe there are times when the great edifices must fall so that the landscape can be seen.

[CoAspen]

Reading and rereading through the Phase 2 document, left me a little confused. In talking about not trampling or coercing the individuals conscience, they seemed to be saying that when it comes the .org in session that is not true. They switch to the wording 'opinions' of the single or a few and those must not be held. My understanding of what was written regards policy making, governance, etc. The idea seems to be that women being ordained by God, which is not said but is the elephant in the room, must follow a policy because .org is saying it is not allowed. Here we have a policy dictating that which may be a God/ HS led issue. The document seems to so focused on the end, wanted result, that an independent review was not done. There is a blurring of the lines between opinion and HS led conscious , or is there?

 AS some have said, the document is not well laid out or written. To much copy and paste along traditional lines with out some real though as to context, in my mind.