Print

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

[Gregory]

I can agree that is what they wish.  However, I also see a road that some are traveling, to include those who wish to heal, that may lead to a split.

[Murcielago]

I can agree that is what they wish.  However, I also see a road that some are traveling, to include those who wish to heal, that may lead to a split.

It could, but from what I have heard from them, they are willing to take substantial time and do everything they can to prevent a rupture, rather than follow the lead of the radical few who are demanding an immediate split in the church. Of course anything could happen. The squeaky wheel often does get the grease, and those who thrive on controversy and dissent are usually the squeakiest of them all.

[Daryl Fawcett]

This was posted over at Maritime:

By the way, did I mention I'm in the Columbia Union but our conference in West Virginia, when it saw what the Union was about to do voiced it's objection officially by way of motion at it's own constituency meeting. So the Mountain View Conference (West Virginia) is the only conference in the Union that took preemptive action and stood with the world body.

I was happy to hear of this preemptive action by that Conference and hope others will follow after the fact.

[Gregory]

I cannot verify this, but I think it is likely to be accurate.

It is being reported that Karen Cress has been ordained by a Conference in the Columbia Union and notice of such along with a photo of her ordinaiton certificate are posted on Facebook.


This is of interest as both she and her husband have been considered to be rising stars in the denomination.

I do not have a Facebook account.
 

[Snoopy]

It is 12:45 and I am sitting in the SDA Church that I attend.

There is a growing sense that the church is going down a road that will lead to a split and that split will be greater than is immagined.  It it thought by some that such is what is desired by some of our members.

Yes, it seems that there is a small element calling for, and relishing the prospect of the GC imposing a split. In my opinion they are a radical fringe who thrive on controversy and love the idea of seeing those they disagree with destroyed. I trust that the GC is not made up of wild-eyed radicals, and will work out a wise solution that heals, rather than deepens the wounds.

Murcielago, your sentiments would be better expressed over at Spectrum or AToday.

Why do you say that, Artiste?   I thought AdventTalk was a forum for respectful discussion of issues related to the Adventist church.

[Dedication]

Over the past week I have had occasion to talk with various people from the GC and from the NAD. It is encouraging to hear their tone. It does not represent the rage and fear we are seeing expressed and reflected on them. They appear to be reasonable, sincere people who are trying to work out a solution that keeps the church intact, strengthens it, and promotes participation and growth at all levels. I have not heard even one of them express a desire for retribution, but reconciliation and understanding. I strongly support them in that goal.

NAD (North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists) is in favor of women's ordination.
Even a large percentage of people in the General Conference Office are in favor of women's ordination.
If this were only an issue for the churches in the "western world" to decide it would have been passed.

What took place in the Columbia Union is only one piece of a much larger puzzle that has been taking shape in America.

The union and local conference decisions to take up the ordination of qualified candidates to the pastoral ministry, regardless whether they be male or female, has been a response to the rescinding of the November 2011 North American Division's (NAD) decision to allow ordained/commissioned ministers to become conference presidents as a result of legal counsel indicating that the NAD could not make such a decision since they have no separate constituency.  Thus the word "commissioned" was erased.

This does show me the movement wants more than recognition as qualified pastors, they want to get into leadership roles.

Actually the movement goes back to the Utrecht General Conference where women's ordination was voted down.  Immediately after (in 1996) at least three women were ordained in the Loma Linda area.

March 8, 2012, the Mid-America Union Conference was the first to formally vote support for the ordination of eligible candidates to the pastoral ministry, regardless of gender.
On April 5, President Lemon found it necessary to clarify that the Mid-America Union had not voted to actually ordain women, but that the vote reflects the union’s commitment to work in harmony with the North American Division of the General Conference, and the Union still remains committed to moving forward on this issue.

The Pacific Union Conference (PUC) in its March 2012 meeting voted to table the motion to approve immediately the ordination of ministers without regard to gender until a later meeting. But is still fully committed to move in that direction and set up an ordination study committee to lay out the steps necessary to make gender-neutral ordination a reality.

Southeastern California Conference (SECC), urged by the One in Christ campaign, issued ordained minister credentials to all its eligible non-intern pastors, regardless of gender.

In May of this year, the Southern California Conference (SCC) “voted to support ordination of women"

The Columbia Union Conference voted to go ahead with women ordination in  a constituency meeting in July

Other unions voted lesser decisions on the issue -- mainly to "study" 

But NAD is moving pretty much as a whole toward women ordination.  Just that some divisions are more willing to abide to "due process" and are willing to wait for that to take place,  while others have given up hope that "due process", since it involves so many delegates from third world countries, will ever get them what they want.

You will also see (if you've watched the video of the Columbia Constituency meeting) that the president of NAD did not repeat president Wilson's call to desist and abide in compliance to GC process.   He only prayed for the Holy Spirit to fill the meeting.

I'm not even sure the officers in the GC are against women's ordination.
Their call is that due process be followed and the church move in unity.

This is what's happening in America.
Whether a person likes it or not is another matter, but it is happening.

If a split were to take place it may split off the third world countries from the American and western Europen countries.  Something the third world countries can't really afford to do.

I doubt that over half the membership in North america would vote against women ordination, and that's what it would take to halt the movement (at least for a little while)
 

[Artiste]

Ulicia, thank you for the summation.

I think you are ignoring the information in the GC Questions and Answers statement above in this thread, though.

[Snoopy]

It is 12:45 and I am sitting in the SDA Church that I attend.

There is a growing sense that the church is going down a road that will lead to a split and that split will be greater than is immagined.  It it thought by some that such is what is desired by some of our members.

Yes, it seems that there is a small element calling for, and relishing the prospect of the GC imposing a split. In my opinion they are a radical fringe who thrive on controversy and love the idea of seeing those they disagree with destroyed. I trust that the GC is not made up of wild-eyed radicals, and will work out a wise solution that heals, rather than deepens the wounds.

Murcielago, your sentiments would be better expressed over at Spectrum or AToday.

Why do you say that, Artiste?   I thought AdventTalk was a forum for respectful discussion of issues related to the Adventist church.

It is starting to look like some here have a behind-the-scenes agenda.

[Gregory]

This does show me the movement wants more than recognition as qualified pastors, they want to get into leadership roles.

I do not agree.

The current situation, that is permitted by the General Conference is that males are ordained and females are commissioned.

I will suggst that the "movement" (as it is called above) is saying:  O.K. if you do not want to ordain us simply erase all distinctions between what an ordained minister does and what a commissioned minister does.  In their attempt to erase the few distinctions, thay are dealing one by one with those differences and attempting to have them erased by a change in policy.

Let us agree that the Bible  rules. 
What is the Biblical reason for saying that a female may serve as a General Conference Vice President, but she may not serve as a local Conference President? Where in the Bible does it say that a female may present an evangelistic series that brings 1,000 people into the denomination, but she may not take those people and organize them into a congregation?

Where is the Biblical basis for limiting the female to a role that is less than that of a male?

As has been posted here before:  During a time of war, when male SDA Clergy was generally unavailable, two women held evangelistic meetings (multiple ones) that brought more than 2,000 people into the denomination.   Yet, at that time the denomination would not allow them to either baptize, or organize them into congregations. That had to be done by elderly, male clergy who cam in fromother parts of the country.

 

[Johann]

"Primarily, our accountability is to God."
Pres. Dan Jackson - CUC Constituency Meeting, July 29, 2012.

[Dedication]

This does show me the movement wants more than recognition as qualified pastors, they want to get into leadership roles.

I do not agree.

I will suggst that the "movement" (as it is called above) is saying:  O.K. if you do not want to ordain us simply erase all distinctions between what an ordained minister does and what a commissioned minister does.  In their attempt to erase the few distinctions, thay are dealing one by one with those differences and attempting to have them erased by a change in policy.

Let us agree that the Bible  rules. 
What is the Biblical reason for saying that a female may serve as a General Conference Vice President, but she may not serve as a local Conference President? Where in the Bible does it say that a female may present an evangelistic series that brings 1,000 people into the denomination, but she may not take those people and organize them into a congregation?

Where is the Biblical basis for limiting the female to a role that is less than that of a male?

As has been posted here before:  During a time of war, when male SDA Clergy was generally unavailable, two women held evangelistic meetings (multiple ones) that brought more than 2,000 people into the denomination.   Yet, at that time the denomination would not allow them to either baptize, or organize them into congregations. That had to be done by elderly, male clergy who cam in fromother parts of the country.

I don't disagree with your assessment.   I really can't see any reason why a woman recognized as a spiritual leader by the church, can not baptize people she won to Christ (following the prescribed guidelines of course ) or organize people into congregations after they have won them to Christ.
But I still think they also want leadership opened to them as well. 

[Gregory]

But I still think they also want leadership opened to them as well.

Is it possible that some women would be qualified for leadership?  Or, are all women automaticly disqualified for leadership?

If it is possible that some women are quallified for leadership, should thay not be allowed ot demonstrate that qualification?

People who have posted here, have often posted to the efffect that men and women are different.  They have often posted to the effect that men and women may have different social skillls and/or described situations where one or the other would be more effective.  If such is accurate, it follows that there would likely be siltuations where women could exercise better leadership than men would exercise.  Women should be allowed to contribute their skills.

 

[Bob Pickle]

In the ASI televised program led by President Wilson, one of the five made the statement that the General Conference sets that standard for the requirements for ordination, which apply world-wide.  I do not believe that.  In the United States and in certain Conferences, there are educational requirements that do not apply to some locations  in other parts of the world.  The reality is that some people would not be ordained in the U.S. that  would be ordained on other places.

On what basis is such a variance made? Is the variance itself based upon the GC permitting or allowing for such a variance? If so, then it is still the GC that sets the criteria.

[Bob Pickle]

I can agree that is what they wish.  However, I also see a road that some are traveling, to include those who wish to heal, that may lead to a split.

But why would it lead to a split? The issue is super simple: The 1990 and 1995 GC Sessions voted down the requests to ordain women, and the GC Sessions constitute the highest authority under God on earth in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The only thing that would cause a split is if entities within the church refuse to recognize the authority of the GC Sessions.

This was posted over at Maritime:

By the way, did I mention I'm in the Columbia Union but our conference in West Virginia, when it saw what the Union was about to do voiced it's objection officially by way of motion at it's own constituency meeting. So the Mountain View Conference (West Virginia) is the only conference in the Union that took preemptive action and stood with the world body.

I was happy to hear of this preemptive action by that Conference and hope others will follow after the fact.

I wasn't aware that this was an action taken by the constituency session. Great news.

If a split were to take place it may split off the third world countries from the American and western Europen countries.  Something the third world countries can't really afford to do.

In reality, the split would have already occurred before it got to that point. Unions and conferences voting to ordain women in rebellion of the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes would have already split from the world church.

I for one have no intention of being part of an offshoot. If our conference were to break from the world church, I would urge our church to take some sort of action that would align us with the world church and not with an offshoot.

By the way, what does your union in Canada think of all of this? And, is part of our problem today the unbalanced and biased reporting of Spectrum and AToday? We tend to think of the unions that have voted to move away from the church, but we don't tend to think of the unions that have voted to stick with the church, or that haven't taken any action whatsoever. The Southern Union is on record as saying they will not go against the GC Session votes. Atlantic Union, Southwestern Union, Lake Union, where do they stand? Perhaps in reality we're talking about a few or several renegade unions within the NAD, and not even a majority.

[Johann]

"We believe fully in church organization, but in nothing that is to prescribe the precise way in which we must work; for all minds are not reached by the same methods. Nothing is to be allowed to keep the working servant of God from his fellow man. The individual believer is to labor for the individual sinner. Each person has his own lamp to keep burning... {RH May 9, 1899, Art. B, par. 14)"