Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

The vote referred to comes across to me as being an open act of rebellion masqueraded as something spiritual.

Just a little bit ago, the world field voted against this very thing. See http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=4799. And then these individuals have the audacity to vote such an affirmation through anyway, and try to give the Holy Spirit credit for it?

[Gregory]

Well, on some levels the denomination is democratic and people vote.

It should be noted, that the REVIEW has published that the SDA Church recognizes ordained female ministers in China--ministers who have converted hundreds of Chinese people.

In many ways, the General Conference is limited in what it leglislate that church components do.

The article that Bob references refers to an action taken at Annual Council.  I personally would not be able to say that an action taken at Annual Council was an action of the World Field, althought the Annual Council does have some representatives from other countries.

In terms of authority, actions taken at the World General Conference more accurately reflects the wishes of theWorld Field than does an action of the Annual Council.   

[Johann]

Let's not mix up the NAD meeting with the GC Fall Council. The NAD deals only with matters that pertain to the Adventist Church in North America and not the World field. So this resolution only applies to North America.

[Gregory]

You are correct.  I made that mistake.

[Bob Pickle]

This is how it comes across to me:

The GC Autumn Council voted not to approve the NAD's request. The NAD, like a spoiled child determined to have its own way, voted to do it anyway, an open act of rebellion camouflaged as something spiritual, with the credit given to the Holy Spirit.

And the act of rebellion was intentional:

       Whereas, the North American Division is an integral part of the World Church and respects and values the position of the General Conference as it relates to the Conference/Mission President being an ordained minister, and
 
       Whereas, the North American Division desires compatibility in all policies of the World Church including the ones that deal with women in leadership positions,

The first paragraph above makes clear that those voting this resolution knew full well that the GC's position was that a conference or mission president must be an ordained minister, not a credentialed minister.

The second paragraph hypocritically expresses the intention of being in harmony with "all [GC] policies," which would include that a conference or mission president must be an ordained minister, not a credentialed minister, and then the NAD goes on to affirm a policy in direct contradiction to the position it just said it wanted to be compatible with!

[Bob Pickle]

So why even have a GC? And if the NAD can thumb its nose at the GC, can a union thumb its nose at the NAD? Can a conference thumb its nose at a union? Can a local church thumb its nose at a conference? Where is all of this going to go? Congregationalism?

If the women's ordination crowd can keep pushing, pushing, pushing decade after decade, bringing up the issue again and again and again, I think it's time to revisit the issue of women elders. Perhaps the BRI committees examining the ordination issue could examine that one too.

This is at least the second debacle Elder Jackson has been involved in. I heard he was going to apologize for publicly saying that David Asscherick should have been called into his conference president's office and given a beating for sending out a letter opposing evolution, but I haven't seen Jackson's apology yet.

Consider: Jackson thinks that David Asscherick should have been beaten for sending out a letter opposing the hideous delusion of evolution. Asscherick was simply following out his convictions, convictions based on Scripture. What Scripture did Jackson have for rebelling against the GC? The NAD resolution certainly doesn't give any Bible verses which clearly show that credentialed ministers must be permitted to be conference or mission presidents. If Jackson was right about Asscherick needing a beating for opposing evolution, shouldn't Jackson be beaten for opposing the GC simply because he or others were upset that they didn't get their way at Autumn Council?

[Gregory]

Bob, in the interestes of accuracy, let me correct a minor error or yours:  An ordained minister in the SDA Chruch is a credentialed minister.  I believe you meant to say, "commissioned minister."  By the way, a commissioned minister is also a credentialed minister.  Check your current YEARBOOK if you doubt that.

Just a minor typo of the type that all of us often make.

In the interests of accuracy, on my part, yes it is possible for one to be ordained or commissioned but not be credentialed.  It would have been more accurate if I had said above that ordained and commissioned ministers may be credentialed.  They are seperate processes.

[Gregory]

For those who may want to know the differences between credentialing, ordination and commissioning.

In both ordination and commissioning a formal ceremony is held (currently the practice in the SDA Chruch)in which an individual is set apart for a specific type of ministry within the SDA Chruch.  The fullest level of ministry is conferred by ordination.  The second level is that of commissioning.  While most people who are commissioned are women, there are males who are commissioned. Whether male or female, commissioned ministers can perform most duties of an ordained minister but cannot perform a few.  However, I point out that there is a General Vice President of the General Conference who is female.  However she was given an Administrative Ministrative Credential (2009 YEARBOOK).  Prior to his election to GC President, she served on an equal footing with Ted Wilson who held the credentials of an ordained ministers.

It should be noted that in the early days of the SDA Church some people were granted the credentials of an ordained minister without the public ceremoney of the laying on of hands. Others had a public ceremoney.  E.g. Both Ellen White and her husband were g'iven the credentials of an ordained minister, but there is no record that either had a public ceremony in which hands were laid upon them.

Both ordination and commissioning are a one-time event which, unless revoked, remain valid for life.  Credentials are granted to show current authorization to act in the functions granted by ordination or commissioning.    IOW, a credentialed minister is authorized to act in that role.

As an interesting point of interest, there were a few years in which the Church authorized a few of its clergy to fill that role by what is called a Certificate of Endorsement.  That happened to me for several years.  I remained ordained, but I did not have credentials.  However, as I had a Certificate of Endorsement, I continued to act in the role of an ordained minister.  After a few years, that changed and those clergy who were endorsed were gain granted credentials, which I currently have and are issued by the North American Division. That itself is a recent change as until recently my credentials were issued by the General Conference.

Does any of this make sense to you?  I Leave that to you to decide.     

[Gregory]

Bob asked:

So why even have a GC? And if the NAD can thumb its nose at the GC, can a union thumb its nose at the NAD? Can a conference thumb its nose at a union? Can a local church thumb its nose at a conference? Where is all of this going to go? Congregationalism?

The answer to your question is:  On some levels yes, up to a point.  However, in my opinion, the SDA Church has a long way to go before it is congregationalist.

Are you aware of how many SDA congregations in the United States are locally owned and not owned by the LocalConference?

NOTE: I do not know the number.  But when I was a young minister just out of the Seminary, in my first district two of my three congregations owned the property and building and the Conference only owned the third.

[Johann]

However, I point out that there is a General Vice President of the General Conference who is female.  However she was given an Administrative Ministrative Credential (2009 YEARBOOK).  Prior to his election to GC President, she served on an equal footing with Ted Wilson who held the credentials of an ordained ministers.

This indicates that the NAD was not rebelling against the GC but rather taking the same steps as the GC has followed for some years.

  E.g. Both Ellen White and her husband were given the credentials of an ordained minister, but there is no record that either had a public ceremony in which hands were laid upon them.

I have read that James White had already been ordained as a minister in a different denomination before he joined the Advent Movement, and therefore his ordination was accepted as valid in the Seventh-day Adventist Church when it was organized.

Ellen White received her commission from above. She received her certificate as an ordained minister from the General Conference.

[Gregory]

James White was baptized into the "Christian" denomination at the age of 15 (That would be either 1836 or 1837).  He accepted the teachings of William Miller in September of 1842 and immediately embarked upon a mission to convert people to Millerism during the Winter of 1842 - 1843.  His preaching resulted in more than 1,000  people to convert to Millerism.  As a result, the "Christian" denomination ordained James White in April of 1843. 

So, yes, it is correct that James White was ordained in a public ceremony by another denomination.  But, it should not be said that the early advent believers did not publicly ordain him due to the previous ordination.  In the earliest years there was neither a concern as to credentials nor ordination.  People, as did James white in that Winter evangelism series simplky went out on their own.  As they began to develop they began to issue letters (credentials so to speak) identifying people as valid representatives.  With the passage of time, they began to ordain in public ceremonies.  But, that did not affect whose lilke James White who had long served them.

   

[Bob Pickle]

However, I point out that there is a General Vice President of the General Conference who is female.  However she was given an Administrative Ministrative Credential (2009 YEARBOOK).  Prior to his election to GC President, she served on an equal footing with Ted Wilson who held the credentials of an ordained ministers.

This indicates that the NAD was not rebelling against the GC but rather taking the same steps as the GC has followed for some years.

How so? Did the GC change a policy or its constitution to permit women to fill the office of VP? And even if they did, how does that change the fact that the GC's Autumn Council just voted down the NAD's request, and the NAD soon thereafter voted to do anyway what the GC had just said no to?

[Gregory]

The NAD was scheduled to vote on that issue prior to the Autumn Council.  They were asked not to take that vote at that time.  As agreement was reached that they would not vote at that time if they would be allowed of take a vote on the issue after the GC had voted at Autumn Council.

One might argue that thel vote that was taken was open rebellion.

Or, one could argue that the agreement to allow the vote to be taken after the Autumn Council was an understanding that the NAD could allow female commissioned ministers to become conference presidents based upon two aspects of this issue:

1) It was probably well known that the NAD would vote to allow.  That vote then would be binding under most circumstances in accord with the NAD Constitution.  NOTE:  I am aware that this could be challenged.  But, it is unlikely that the GC would want to make that challenge.

2)  At a time that a female would be up for consideration for conference president the GC would still be able to oppose such and in a pre-emptive strike work to keep such a persom from being recommended for the position.

NOTE:  The battle to keep women from such posiitons has not been lost.  This is only a mild setback.

[Bob Pickle]

The NAD was scheduled to vote on that issue prior to the Autumn Council.  They were asked not to take that vote at that time.  As agreement was reached that they would not vote at that time if they would be allowed of take a vote on the issue after the GC had voted at Autumn Council.

Was this agreement published anywhere? I do not recall hearing or reading this before.

[Gregory]

http://www.atoday.org/article.php?id=907

Bob:

The above URL is of interest in a couple of areas.  One is the policy on local hires.  The second is on the issue of female conference presidents.  It should be noted that this article does not say exactly what I said.  So, I do not present this as the final answer to your question.  It does point out that the NAD had already put into place a policy that allowed for Commissioned Ministers to become Conference Presidents.  Therefore, such a situation would require that the NAD vote to either become compliant with what was voted at the GC Annual Council or to reject becommling compliant.

NOTE: I am still looking to see if I can document what I stated,as you have asked.