Print

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

[Dedication]

Both the Potomac Conference and the Union Conference failed to give any kind of recognition as ordination to SDA Clergy.  Without that it was only ordination to that of local Eldler.  The women who were ordained were not issued new credentials.  They continued to hold the same Commissioned Credentials, which was clearly stated in your reference.

In actual fact the denomination did not act as to what Sligo did because everything that Sligo did was exactly what they were denominatially authorized to do.  IOW, they did not rebell.  The fact that some wanted them to cross the boundaries is not relevant.  When push came to shove, Sligo did not cross the boundaries.

I see you fail to see the point.
I agree it was NOT official.
But the act was an act of rebellion none the less.

Back pedalling that it was only "ordination to eldership" just shows the "excusing" of it.
These women weren't ordained to eldership, but to be PASTORS.  Of course they could only receive the commission license, that's what I said.  Of course they were not given recognition as ordained ministers by higher levels. 

But the claim was made that these women were ordained as pastors

http://hope4washington-com.netadvent.org/sligostory5
1995 - Ordination of Women Pastors - Kendra Haloviak, Penny Shell, Norma Osborn

The woman that backed out, saw through the deception:
The whole fan fare that they were being ordained to the ministry when legally it couldn't be done.

Later another large church did the same:

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/wo/LaSierraOrdination.htm

The ordinations of Wilson and Haldeman closed a process that officially began on July 7, the day after the General Conference voted against women's ordination at its world session in Utrecht. La Sierra took pains to ensure that its decision to ordain was voted at each level of local church government. Immediately following the General Conference vote, the La Sierra Church Board met July 7, 1995, recommending that the Pacific Union Conference and Southeastern California Conference authorize women's ordination by November 1, 1995. This action was supported in a church business meeting on July 15, 1995, by a vote of 108 yes and 5 no.

However, when neither the union nor conference saw fit to move ahead with this recommendation by the November date, the church called a historic business session on November 11, 1995, to determine its course of action. This meeting was attended by more than 500 people, including 348 voting members. After a worship service and brief statements from Smith and head elder Steve Blue, the meeting began under the leadership of church board chair Dr. Cliff Reeves. Microphones were provided on the floor and 31 different church members addressed the issue; 26 of the speeches from the floor were in favor of women's ordination and 5 were opposed. When the discussion ceased a secret ballot vote was taken and the decision to proceed with the December 2 service passed by a count of 275 yes to 73 no.

A La Sierra church official pointed out that the local congregation was willing to vote its convictions on an issue like this by nearly an 80 percent margin, in spite of the world church's differing position. He said, "This provides hope that the priesthood of all believers is not dead in Adventism." Many other local churches are currently considering the ordination question at this time and it appears that action will be taken on a congregation-by-congregation basis.

   

As to your statemenet about Unions: 
1)  Some would say that it is not rebellion until a Union actually grants the credentials of an ordained minister to a female.
2)  The vote by the Unions was on the basis that the Unions have the right to decide who to ordain and the General Conference did not have the right to demand that  the Unions wait for a further decison by the General Conference.  People here can argue over whether or not the Unions may be required to wait.  The bottom line is that whether or not this action by the Unions was rebellion will depend upon what you believe on this point.

http://www.adventistworld.org/article/1308/resources/english/issue-2012-1008/questions-answers

1.  Does the General Conference have authority to determine the criteria for ministerial ordination at the union level and below, or does the union conference have the delegated authority within its territory to establish such criteria, including gender? 

Decisions of the General Conference Sessions profoundly impact the church at all levels, including General Conference/division, union conference/mission, conference, and local church. While it is true that local churches approve candidates for baptism, and local conferences recommend to unions for approval all requests for ordination, none of these levels establish the criteria for baptism or ordination. A local church board determines who is going to be baptized; it does not determine the criteria for baptism. The 28 Fundamental Beliefs and the baptismal vows have been mutually agreed upon by the world church. This keeps the church unified internationally. In the same way a union conference has the delegated authority to approve candidates for ordination based on their satisfying the criteria for ordination established by the world church; it does not have the authority to ignore this mutually agreed-upon criteria. That is why the unions are not authorized to move forward unilaterally with ordination without regard to gender. If the church were to accept such a premise, there would be varying standards of ordination and criteria for ministry. Such a path would not likely end there. It would open the door to varying standards for baptism, church membership, etc. The issue here is not women’s ordination per se; it is which level of church organization has the constitutionally given authority to determine what qualifies a person for ordination. This can only be done by the General Conference in Session, or the General Conference Executive Committee, which acts between General Conference Sessions (General Conference Working Policy L 35).
 
Notice how the Church Manual describes the relationship between the various levels of church organization:
 

In the Church today the General Conference Session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions, is the highest ecclesiastical authority in the administration of the Church. The General Conference Executive Committee is authorized by its Constitution to create subordinate organizations with authority to carry out their roles. Therefore all subordinate organizations and institutions throughout the Church will recognize the General Conference Session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions, as the highest ecclesiastical authority, under God, among Seventh-day Adventists.1
 
The requirement for all church entities, including conferences and unions, to follow existing policies is made clear in the Bylaws of the General Conference: “Administrations of all organizations and institutions within a division’s territory shall be responsible to their respective executive committees/boards and operate in harmony with [the] division and General Conference Executive Committee actions and policies.”2 For the above reasons, the recent action taken by the Columbia Union Conference Constituency Session to approve ordination without respect to gender represents a violation of these policies.