Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

A Response to the Pacific Union Conference Constituency Vote

The 17 million members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are united through the Holy Spirit in a common commitment to Christ and the truths of His Word, an urgent end-time mission, and a divinely inspired church organization. A threat to any one of these places at risk the unity of the church. It is for this reason that the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church affirms the Pacific Union’s action not to change their Constitution and remain in harmony with the world church. This represents a step in a positive direction. The General Conference leadership is seriously concerned, though, with the Pacific Union’s subsequent action to preempt the collective decisions of the world church regarding ordination. Unilateral actions contrary to the voted decisions of the global church seriously threaten the unity of the church.

The world church recognizes the vital role that women play in the life, ministry and leadership of the church and encourages their active involvement. Because the General Conference Administrative Committee has already voted and commenced the most comprehensive study in our history on the subject of ordination, which will include the study of the ordination of women, the action of the Pacific Union to grant Ministerial Ordination “without respect to gender” preempts the process voted for the current study of ordination theology and practices by committing the Pacific Union Conference to a particular outcome before the study-and-discussion process is completed. It also expresses a lack of trust in the integrity of the general process accepted and voted by General Conference administrators and personnel, division officers, and pastors and lay members from all the world divisions who serve on the General Conference Executive Committee, which includes the presidents of the 125 unions representing the world church, regarding how we approach common challenges.

       Further, the action is contrary to General Conference Working Policy and sets aside the 1990 and 1995 decisions of the General Conference in Session respecting the practice of ordination. The action taken by the Pacific Union Conference represents a serious threat to the unity of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church, and thus, at its next meeting in October 2012, as indicated in another recent public statement by General Conference officers and division presidents, the General Conference Executive Committee will carefully review the situation and determine how to respond. In the spirit of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the officers of the General Conference appeal to all entities, organizations, and individuals, including the Pacific Union Conference, to refrain from independent and unilateral decisions and from implementing any such actions.

It is our prayer that the “oneness” Jesus prayed for in His great intercessory prayer in John 17, and that which the disciples experienced in Acts 2, will be manifest in His church today. We pray that the result of this “oneness” will be lives transformed by His grace, united in His love, and empowered by His Spirit to proclaim His last-day message in all of its fullness to a perishing planet, hastening the glorious return of our Lord.

Ted N. C. Wilson, President
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

G. T. Ng, Secretary
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

Robert E. Lemon, Treasurer
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

[Gregory]

NOTE:  The General Conference response does not call it illegal.

Yes, it says it "sets aside."  It says it is a threat to unity.  But, it does not call it illegal.

I expect that Bob will ask me if I think it is illegal.  So, I might as well make a statement of what I think.

1) I think that there are valid points to be made on each side.  Some for saying that it is illegal.  Some for saying that it is legal.
2) Personally I argue that it is legal.
3) Neither Bob nor I, nor the typical person reading these posts is in a position  with the authority to decide whether or not it is legal.  In the U.S.  questions of legality are decided by those trained in law.  The Roman Catholic Church has a whole system set in place to decide the legality of church related issues.  The SDA Chruch typically has those decisions made by lawyers and/or administrators.
4) My belief is that the decision as to the legality is probably going to be made by those who will say that the action of the PUC was illegal.

IOW, while I believe that there are valid points on both sides, the chances are greater than 50% that the decision will be that it was illegal.

How can I say this since I will personally argue that it is legal?  Very easy.  One who argues before a judge must know and understand the opposing arguement, be prepared to meet that opposing arguement, know and understand the judge(s) and how they are likely to rule on issues and have a realisitic understanding of the probability of obtaining a favorable ruling on each issue raised.  My perception is that there is a greater probability of it being declared illegal than there is of it being declared legal.

[Murcielago]

A Response to the Pacific Union Conference Constituency Vote

The 17 million members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are united through the Holy Spirit in a common commitment to Christ and the truths of His Word, an urgent end-time mission, and a divinely inspired church organization. A threat to any one of these places at risk the unity of the church. It is for this reason that the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church affirms the Pacific Union’s action not to change their Constitution and remain in harmony with the world church. This represents a step in a positive direction. The General Conference leadership is seriously concerned, though, with the Pacific Union’s subsequent action to preempt the collective decisions of the world church regarding ordination. Unilateral actions contrary to the voted decisions of the global church seriously threaten the unity of the church.


General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

I am relieved that this action failed. While I support the second action, if it were contingent on the first action I would have hoped that they would just table the whole matter until after the 2015 GC session. As it is, it all seems to stand on shaky ground. Legal Counsel gave the go-ahead for the vote on the second after the first failed, but I sensed that he didn't seem totally satisfied or comfortable with it.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Would you say that Legal Counsel was strongly encouraged to give the go-ahead for the 2nd vote?

[Gregory]

I would not have to say that.

Under the law, some things are not cut and dried.  I posted earlier to this effect when I said that I  personally would argue one way but I suspected that a ruling would come another way.  I think that this was such an issue where a ruling could go either way.

The constituents clearly wanted to vote.  Money had been spent to hold the meeting.  People had traveled and potentially made plans for overnight stays.  This would all go for naught if the meeting essentially was cancelled, people were not allowed to vote for a technical reason.

I suspect that many administrators, to include denominational lawyers and the   parlimentarian who issued the decision beleived that it would be better to allow the meeting to continue, the speaches to be made, and the  vote to be taken, than it would be to cancel it all.

Allowing the vote to be taken would resolve an immediate issue, regardless of how the vote went.  The issue of the could clearly be addressed at a later time.

[Gregory]

Daryl, by opinion is informed by the fact that as far as we know, denominational leaders did not attempt to force the meetings to be cancelled.  They could have done so.  It appears that they did not.  I beleive that they felt that they should allow the meetiings to be held and decided to deal afterwards with the specific vote.

[Bob Pickle]

Gregory,

Further, the action is contrary to General Conference Working Policy and sets aside the 1990 and 1995 decisions of the General Conference in Session respecting the practice of ordination.

I do not see how any informed person can deny the truth of the above statement, and therefore it is unquestionable that the decision made was illegal.

There are some matters that are determined independently of earthly judges. For example, even in states where gay "marriage" has been declared "legal," it is still illegal because the supreme Lawgiver has already pronounced it so. You can also look through the SoP and note that some things are labeled crimes even though human laws do not make them such.

Similarly, even though an earthly judge were to declare the vote "legal," it would still be illegal since it violates key Seventh-day Adventist principles found in Acts 15, 9T 260-261, GC Working Policy, etc.

[Gregory]

Bob, I understand that you do not understand.  But, that does not make it unquestionable.

In any case, I have stated that I believe that it will be held to be illegal.

[Artiste]

Bob, I understand that you do not understand.  But, that does not make it unquestionable.

In any case, I have stated that I believe that it will be held to be illegal.

I think that Bob understands a little better than Gregory...

[Dedication]

A better word is "out of order" rather than "illegal".
Under present policies it was "out of order".

[Daryl Fawcett]

That is a nicer way of saying it is/was "illegal".

A better word is "out of order" rather than "illegal".
Under present policies it was "out of order".

[Johann]

A better word is "out of order" rather than "illegal".
Under present policies it was "out of order".

It is good to have someone here who understands the language.

[Johann]

That is a nicer way of saying it is/was "illegal".

A better word is "out of order" rather than "illegal".
Under present policies it was "out of order".

Reminds me, I was about 6 years old when I started learning Canadian English. Later I had to switch to US English.