Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gregory]

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);

* * * *

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

* * * * *
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 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, . . . .

See my post dated May 8:

1) The above is a clear stataement as to why some believe that "rebellion" is not the issue. 

2) As I said in my May 8 post, things are moving very fast.  Denominational leadershilp needs to be very careful as to how they respond.
 

[Bob Pickle]

Perhaps, perhaps not. Local churches could also take action by disciplining those who are promoting and/or participating in rebellion, and/or failing to recognize properly constituted church authority.

This is not a matter that is subject to the local congregation to decide to discipline.  That authority resides at a higher level.

Are you saying that while local churches may discipline erring members, they are forbidden to discipline members who just happen to hold office higher than the local church? If that is what you are saying, please substantiate your contention.

The bottom line is:  It is not a clear as Bob would like to make it sound that rebellion is taking place.

The bottom line is that the governing documents of the denominaitonal organizations are not in perfect harmony.

The bottom line is that 9T 260-261 says what it says.

Are you saying that the governing documents of a conference or union take precedence over the SoP, and that those documents prohibit a local church from disciplining members who blatantly and intentionally violate 9T 260-261? If so, substantiate your contention.

You seem to be begging the question. The issue is rebellion against properly constituted church authority. You seem to be assuming that a GC Session is not a properly constituted church authority, and that thus conference and union and NAD officials are free to thumb their noses at a GC Session vote if their governing documents permit.

If governing documents are a higher authority than the Bible and SoP (God forbid that we should ever go down that road), then all a local church needs to do is adopt a constitution that states that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and then they can proceed to discipline their erring members who as conference or union or NAD officers are rebelling against that authority.

[Bob Pickle]

Because the Pacific Union Conference Executive Committee is committed to following denominational procedures and processes, ...

Lies. If they were committed to following denominational procedures and processes, they wouldn't be calling a constituency session to consider doing exactly opposite of what the 1990 and 1995 GC Sessions voted.

Authority and responsibility in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not centralized in a hierarchical structure.

Since when is a GC Session a hierarchy?

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; ....

And thus conference and union officers, and local pastors, who rebel against properly constituted church authority such as a GC Session vote may be disfellowshiped by their local church. If that were to happen, would those officers and pastors automatically lose their jobs?

... 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.

How far are we going to push the wording of what has been established policy for a long time? So Unions can decide to ordain practicing homosexuals or two-year-olds, and they have full authority to do so because some document's wording can be interpreted that way?

Was this document approved by a GC Session vote? If not, then must not the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes take precedence over any interpretation of this document's wording?

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.

They're playing games. In what way is a GC Session a "centralized authority"? Imagine every township in America sending a delegate to a grand convention in DC to decide some issue. And then folks would call that convention a "centralized authority"? It's anything but a centralized authority!

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.

But this is precisely what was voted down by the 1995 GC Session. And like a spoiled child, the Pacific Union is upset that it didn't get its way, and is determined to do what it wants anyway.

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.

Then cease the movements toward rebellion, and support the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes! The Lord Jesus Christ is the one who inspired 9T 260-261.

It is rather, the result of a commitment to follow church procedures ....

Lies. Not once did this document raise the issue of the GC Session being the highest authority on earth under God, or 9T 260-261. Therefore, in reality, this document makes clear the Pacific Union committee's determination not to follow established church procedures, GC Session votes, and 9T 260-261.

[Bob Pickle]

2) As I said in my May 8 post, things are moving very fast.  Denominational leadershilp needs to be very careful as to how they respond.

Dan Jackson already said he wasn't going to do anything, thus shirking his duty.

So perhaps the Adventist Church should just fragment to pieces, not have GC Sessions anymore, not have a GC any more. Then we'd be down to unions and conferences. And as soon as local churches figure out that they would be free to retain more tithe or all the tithe if they didn't have a conference to have  to answer to, then conferences and unions could go by the wayside too.

Gregory, when the South went down this road in 1861 or so, and advocated states rights over the powers of federalism, many people, including Ellen White, had no problem labeling what was happening as "rebellion." Why be hesitant to call it like it is this time around?

Of course church leadership needs to be careful in its response. But it should also avoid the lackadaisical response the Union gave which worsened and prolonged the crisis that became the Civil War.

[Gregory]

The magnitude of this decision of the Pacific Union Conference should not be underestimated.

This special meeting is going to cost the Union a very large sum of money.  It is doubtful that it can be prevented from happeing.

The GC can send a representative, to include the President.  That person can recommend that the proposal not happen.  However, in my thinking, the proposal is likely to pass.

Events are moving fast.  I may post as to why I think that they are moving fast, when I have time.

 

[Gregory]

So perhaps the Adventist Church should just fragment to pieces, not have GC Sessions anymore, not have a GC any more. Then we'd be down to unions and conferences. And as soon as local churches figure out that they would be free to retain more tithe or all the tithe if they didn't have a conference to have  to answer to, then conferences and unions could go by the wayside too.

1) Fragmentation:  That is of major concern to leadership.  As this is developing, there is concern that fragmentaion will occur regardless of the decision.

2) Tithe:  That is already happening, but on the level of the individual giver rather than the Conference.

3)  Union Conferences:  There is a large block that believes that Union Conferences should not exist.  This female ordination issues could affect this issue, but it could affect it either way.