Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

Over on http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/08/15/general-conference-violation-its-own-policy appears a second piece by Gary Patterson on how GC Working Policy permits the ordination of women. He states:

As the August 9 document indicates, the General Conference does establish “the criteria for ordination….” There are fifteen such criteria listed in policy L 50, none of which refer in any way to gender. If, therefore, any individual approved by the union meets these criteria, the General Conference authority has been satisfied. Given that there is no gender reference in these fifteen requirements, the union is acting within its authority as stated in policy B 05.

The Working Policy states:

L 50 Examination of Candidates for Ordination

1. Before any ordination is carried out, there shall be careful, unhurried, and prayerful examination of the candidates as to their fitness for the work of the ministry. The results of their labor as licentiates should be reviewed, and the examination should cover the great fundamental facts of the gospel. Before the church sets a man apart by ordination he should have given satisfactory evidence of:

a. A call to the ministry as a lifework,
b. A belief in and knowledge of the Scriptures,
c. An acquaintance with and full acceptance of the vital truths we believe we are called to proclaim to the world,
d. An experience in various kinds of ministerial responsibility,
e. Entire consecration of body, soul, and spirit,
f. Spiritual stability,
g. Social maturity,
h. An aptness as a teacher of truth,
i. An ability to lead souls from sin into holiness,
j. Fruitage in souls won to Christ,
k. A cooperative attitude and confidence in the organization and functioning of the church,
l. A life of consistent exemplary Christian conduct,
m. An exemplary family,
n. Being a model steward in tithe and offerings,
o. An understanding of and adherence to church principles as set forth in the Church Manual.

I'm particularly interested in hearing from Murcielago on this one.

Would it not be true that the part of the sentence immediately preceding the 15 criteria must be prefaced to each of the 15 criteria? And therefore, would not each of the 15 criteria inherit the references to the male gender found in those words?

I see only three possibilities: (a) Patterson failed to read the Working Policy he is claiming to analyze. (b) The current GC Working Policy no longer says "a man" or "he," raising the question as to how the reference to gender got removed without anyone squawking. (c) Patterson is prevaricating.

[SDAminister]

Over on http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/08/15/general-conference-violation-its-own-policy appears a second piece by Gary Patterson on how GC Working Policy permits the ordination of women. He states:

As the August 9 document indicates, the General Conference does establish “the criteria for ordination….” There are fifteen such criteria listed in policy L 50, none of which refer in any way to gender. If, therefore, any individual approved by the union meets these criteria, the General Conference authority has been satisfied. Given that there is no gender reference in these fifteen requirements, the union is acting within its authority as stated in policy B 05.

The Working Policy states:

L 50 Examination of Candidates for Ordination

1. Before any ordination is carried out, there shall be careful, unhurried, and prayerful examination of the candidates as to their fitness for the work of the ministry. The results of their labor as licentiates should be reviewed, and the examination should cover the great fundamental facts of the gospel. Before the church sets a man apart by ordination he should have given satisfactory evidence of:

a. A call to the ministry as a lifework,
b. A belief in and knowledge of the Scriptures,
c. An acquaintance with and full acceptance of the vital truths we believe we are called to proclaim to the world,
d. An experience in various kinds of ministerial responsibility,
e. Entire consecration of body, soul, and spirit,
f. Spiritual stability,
g. Social maturity,
h. An aptness as a teacher of truth,
i. An ability to lead souls from sin into holiness,
j. Fruitage in souls won to Christ,
k. A cooperative attitude and confidence in the organization and functioning of the church,
l. A life of consistent exemplary Christian conduct,
m. An exemplary family,
n. Being a model steward in tithe and offerings,
o. An understanding of and adherence to church principles as set forth in the Church Manual.

I'm particularly interested in hearing from Murcielago on this one.

Would it not be true that the part of the sentence immediately preceding the 15 criteria must be prefaced to each of the 15 criteria? And therefore, would not each of the 15 criteria inherit the references to the male gender found in those words?

I see only three possibilities: (a) Patterson failed to read the Working Policy he is claiming to analyze. (b) The current GC Working Policy no longer says "a man" or "he," raising the question as to how the reference to gender got removed without anyone squawking. (c) Patterson is prevaricating.

Points k and o would eliminate persons such as Dave Weigely and Dan Jackson.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Is there a way to see if the most recent version has changed the wording any in L50?

[Bob Pickle]

Is there a way to see if the most recent version has changed the wording any in L50?

Why don't you contact someone at your conference, union, or the GC and ask?

[Murcielago]

Over on http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/08/15/general-conference-violation-its-own-policy appears a second piece by Gary Patterson on how GC Working Policy permits the ordination of women. He states:

As the August 9 document indicates, the General Conference does establish “the criteria for ordination….” There are fifteen such criteria listed in policy L 50, none of which refer in any way to gender. If, therefore, any individual approved by the union meets these criteria, the General Conference authority has been satisfied. Given that there is no gender reference in these fifteen requirements, the union is acting within its authority as stated in policy B 05.

The Working Policy states:

L 50 Examination of Candidates for Ordination

1. Before any ordination is carried out, there shall be careful, unhurried, and prayerful examination of the candidates as to their fitness for the work of the ministry. The results of their labor as licentiates should be reviewed, and the examination should cover the great fundamental facts of the gospel. Before the church sets a man apart by ordination he should have given satisfactory evidence of:

a. A call to the ministry as a lifework,
b. A belief in and knowledge of the Scriptures,
c. An acquaintance with and full acceptance of the vital truths we believe we are called to proclaim to the world,
d. An experience in various kinds of ministerial responsibility,
e. Entire consecration of body, soul, and spirit,
f. Spiritual stability,
g. Social maturity,
h. An aptness as a teacher of truth,
i. An ability to lead souls from sin into holiness,
j. Fruitage in souls won to Christ,
k. A cooperative attitude and confidence in the organization and functioning of the church,
l. A life of consistent exemplary Christian conduct,
m. An exemplary family,
n. Being a model steward in tithe and offerings,
o. An understanding of and adherence to church principles as set forth in the Church Manual.

I'm particularly interested in hearing from Murcielago on this one.

Would it not be true that the part of the sentence immediately preceding the 15 criteria must be prefaced to each of the 15 criteria? And therefore, would not each of the 15 criteria inherit the references to the male gender found in those words?

I see only three possibilities: (a) Patterson failed to read the Working Policy he is claiming to analyze. (b) The current GC Working Policy no longer says "a man" or "he," raising the question as to how the reference to gender got removed without anyone squawking. (c) Patterson is prevaricating.

One may see the implication in the sentence prefacing the listed statements of policy, yet the listed statements of policy do not state gender as a prerequisite. It clearly is not listed as one of the criteria in the GC Working Policy.

[Bob Pickle]

So you don't agree that the criteria inherit the references to gender found in the prefatory statement?

How about this: The United States has had presidents with the following first names:

• George
• Thomas
• Dwight
• Ronald

Would you have any trouble with someone coming along and saying that nothing in the list of presidents' names mentions the United States?

[Murcielago]

So you don't agree that the criteria inherit the references to gender found in the prefatory statement?

How about this: The United States has had presidents with the following first names:

• George
• Thomas
• Dwight
• Ronald

Would you have any trouble with someone coming along and saying that nothing in the list of presidents' names mentions the United States?

There is nothing in that list that references the United States. It could be a list of actors, cartoon characters, or just something out of the phone book.

The list of criteria in the GC Working Policy does not reference gender as one of the criteria. That is indisputable. The prefacing sentence can be broken apart to make an implication of gender, but that still does not place it as one if the oficially listed criteria.

[Bob Pickle]

So a prefatory statement is not joined to each and every item of the list that is introduced by that statement, even though that statement is not a complete sentence, and even though the items of the list must be joined to the statement in order to make it a complete sentence? Somehow I don't think that anyone is going to buy that idea.

What if we instead wrote the sentence this way:

"Before the church sets a man apart by ordination he should have given satisfactory evidence of: a. A call to the ministry as a lifework, b. A belief in and knowledge of the Scriptures, c. An acquaintance with and full acceptance of the vital truths we believe we are called to proclaim to the world, d. An experience in various kinds of ministerial responsibility, e. Entire consecration of body, soul, and spirit, f. Spiritual stability, g. Social maturity, h. An aptness as a teacher of truth, i. An ability to lead souls from sin into holiness, j. Fruitage in souls won to Christ, k. A cooperative attitude and confidence in the organization and functioning of the church, l. A life of consistent exemplary Christian conduct, m. An exemplary family, n. Being a model steward in tithe and offerings, o. An understanding of and adherence to church principles as set forth in the Church Manual."

The only difference is the spacing within the sentence. And let's make no mistake about it: The entire list of 15 criteria, along with the prefatory statement, comprise a single sentence!

Would you maintain, like Patterson, that the GC is violating its own policy because the 15 criteria in this single sentence contain no reference to gender?

[Murcielago]

If it isn't a stated criteria, then it doesn't qualify as criteria.

[SDAminister]

If it isn't a stated criteria, then it doesn't qualify as criteria.

Good point. Brilliant deduction. In fact, the criteria doesn't even mention that the person needs to be a Seventh-day Adventist. I can't wait to inform our Union leadership of the vast crop of people of all faiths they can now ordain because of this. Thank you!

[Murcielago]

If it isn't a stated criteria, then it doesn't qualify as criteria.

Good point. Brilliant deduction. In fact, the criteria doesn't even mention that the person needs to be a Seventh-day Adventist. I can't wait to inform our Union leadership of the vast crop of people of all faiths they can now ordain because of this. Thank you!

Bear in mind that the conferences and unions also have criteria. The GC criteria is only one level.

[Artiste]

If it isn't a stated criteria, then it doesn't qualify as criteria.

Good point. Brilliant deduction. In fact, the criteria doesn't even mention that the person needs to be a Seventh-day Adventist. I can't wait to inform our Union leadership of the vast crop of people of all faiths they can now ordain because of this. Thank you!

Bear in mind that the conferences and unions also have criteria. The GC criteria is only one level.

Good one, SDAminister...

[Johann]

So you don't agree that the criteria inherit the references to gender found in the prefatory statement?

How about this: The United States has had presidents with the following first names:

• George
• Thomas
• Dwight
• Ronald

Would you have any trouble with someone coming along and saying that nothing in the list of presidents' names mentions the United States?

There is nothing in that list that references the United States. It could be a list of actors, cartoon characters, or just something out of the phone book.

The list of criteria in the GC Working Policy does not reference gender as one of the criteria. That is indisputable. The prefacing sentence can be broken apart to make an implication of gender, but that still does not place it as one if the oficially listed criteria.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church claims that it is an international church, and the greatest part of the membership is now outside of the USA.  In some areas people wonder why almost all of the GC presidents have been American. The two exceptions of presidents not born in USA have been Norwegian, like Jan Paulsen.

Some wonder why some people think only American expressions are valid in the policies of the GC?

Take as an example, if I visit the Ambassador of the USA in my country and we speak together in my language. We talk together about the plans of Hillary Clinton. If we refer to Hillary Clinton as the Minister/Secretary of State in USA, speaking in my language, I'd have to ask the Ambassador what "his" plans are.

Why? Because in my language the word "minister/secretary" is masculine I have to say "he" or "his" as long as I am talking about the work she is doing as a "minister" - even if Hillary is a female.

If the church is international. is the GC under no obligation to consider how the meaning of gender varies in different countries? Most people in this world are under the impression that God understands their language, even if it does not happen to be English.

Many people will sense that Gary understands them as well.

PS. Even the English language varies. A "Secretary" in US government is a "minister" in the United Kingdom - England.