My Take: Going by the (Black) Book
Raj Attiken, August 26, 2015: The recent release by the General Conference Secretariat of a document entitled “Unions and the Ordination to the Gospel Ministry: Brief Summary and Comprehensive Working Policy Explanation” dated August 2015[i], has bemused some who have been involved in, or observant of, the months-and-years-long saga of the ordination debate. At the heart of this document is the question of whether or not Union Conferences have the authority to authorize the ordination of qualified women in their territories to the gospel ministry. The eight-page document seeks to establish that while Unions can determine who, in their territories, should be ordained, they cannot decide the criteria for ordination, specifically gender inclusion. The document appeals to General Conference Working Policy and interpretation of policy, to make its case. It cites policies to describe the position of the General Conference regarding discrimination: the church does not discriminate based on gender except when it discriminates against women who are called by God to ministry!
Policies are general guidelines that regulate actions within an organization. As such, they are an important mechanism to shape the internal culture of an organization. Policies do not exist in isolation: they impact people. There are moral and ethical values at stake in the enforcement of policy. Policies that guide the church should reflect the highest and noblest of moral and ethical values – derived from Scriptures – if people are to adhere to them with a clear conscience. In hierarchical corporate structures it is also generally true that authority and control flow from the top to the “lower” levels of the organization. In the church, however, the flow of authority is far more complex. Referring to the misuse of authority in the world, Jesus declared that “among you it will be different” (Matthew 20:26). He claimed that he has “been given all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). Any authority that is enjoyed by people – the church – is, therefore, derived from him and variously distributed within the church community.
Policies are least helpful when they are called on to support organizational actions that do not fit the standards of “the highest and noblest of moral and ethical values.” It is generally the case in such situations that when an organization has to “throw the book” at an individual or group of individuals in order to control or coerce, that very act is indicative of heightened anxiety and desperation within the system. Appealing to policy here is akin to producing the marriage certificate as the source of authority to compel a married couple to treat each other with love, respect, and dignity. Just as in marriage so also in church relationships: the enforcement paradigm is a flawed paradigm.
The timing of the release of this “Explanation” document is not without significance. For, no longer can the church claim that women should not be ordained to the gospel ministry on grounds that the Bible forbids it. The years-long Theology of Ordination Study process, launched by the General Conference, has definitively concluded that the Bible does not explicitly or implicitly forbid such ordinations. Second, no longer can it be claimed that ordaining women to ministry will cause disunity in the church. Women have been ordained in various places, and the church continues, just as it did prior to these ordinations. Third, no longer can it be claimed that women cannot fulfill the demands of pastoral ministry. Women pastors have put this myth to rest effectively and convincingly.
Since none of these reasons for the exclusion of women from the privilege of ordination have been shown to hold merit, the help of the 700-plus-page “black book” — the General Conference Working Policy – has now been enlisted. Through an appeal to history and various sections of policy and its interpretation, the August 2015 document attempts to squelch any challenge to the ultimate authority of the General Conference. Authority, and particularly the absolute authority of the General Conference, is a dominant theme of the document. Accordingly, any authority that the Unions have is said to be derivative and always subject to the General Conference’s final authority. Reading the document leaves one realizing that Ellen White’s “kingly power” metaphor regarding the General Conference is being given new life for our times.
The appeal to policy, perhaps as a last resort, to clamp down on the ordination of women, raises several issues. One, of course, is the place of control-by-policy leadership in the church on matters of moral significance such as acknowledging or denying the God-ordained role of men and women in the church. Another is the relationship of General Conference Working Policy to the governing documents of Unions – namely the Constitutions, Bylaws, and Regulations — and the authority these documents assign to a Union. A third issue is what, in fact, the policy says about the authority that the various levels of the organization possess in light of the direction in which authority is to flow in the organizational model of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. A fourth is whether a policy on discrimination should trump a policy on non-discrimination, especially in a hierarchy of values. A fifth issue relates to the contemporary veracity of policies established some thirty-five to eighty-five years ago (in 1930, 1944, 1977) in determining actions in 2015.
Does the release of the “Explanation” document of August 2015 signal a shift in the General Conference’s approach to relating to the individuals and to those church entities that have already moved, or will move, ahead with ordaining women as pastors? Is the “stick” of working policy being brought out to enforce compliance? What scenarios might result if this is, in fact, the intent?
In reality, the use of this “stick” is not without its own challenges. When it comes to Unions that are deemed, by interpretation, to be in violation of General Conference policy, the available mechanisms to enforce compliance are limited. The General Conference does not have authority to terminate the employment of, or otherwise discipline, the Union officers since their respective constituencies elect them. The General Conference does not have the authority to replace Union executive committees since they, too, are elected by their constituencies. What recourse, then, does the General Conference have to keep in check a Union that is seen to be in violation of working policy?
When Conferences and Unions are audited by General Conference Auditing Service (GCAS), included in the audit process is a policy audit. If an entity is deemed to be in violation of a policy, reference to this violation is included in the audit report presented to the entity’s governing board. It is then up to the governing body to take any remedial or punitive action, if it so chooses. In the instance of ordination, since the constituencies of these Unions overwhelming voted favorably on this matter, the audit report should be of no surprise.
The General Conference could call for a special meeting of a Union Constituency in order to discipline or replace its officers, or dismiss or replace its executive committee. In either case, this option is loaded with risks. A General Conference-called Union constituency session can do business only if there is a quorum of delegates present. It is feasible that delegates will decide not to attend such a meeting, in which case the meeting cannot be called to order for a lack of a quorum. Even if there is a quorum in attendance, it is unlikely that these Union constituencies that earlier voted – by up to 80% majority – in favor of ordaining women would discipline their officers or executive committees for implementing an action they authorized. It is also unlikely that they can be persuaded to rescind their previous actions. Trying to achieve its objectives via a Union constituency session is, therefore, fraught with potential risks and complications.
As an alternate, but extreme, approach to enforcing its will, the General Conference Executive Committee could withdraw membership status of a non-compliant Union (a fact that is referenced in the August 2015 document). Whether the executive committee can be persuaded to take such an action is debatable. The implications are enormous. Disbanding the China Union Mission because of the number of ordained women pastors there (who give leadership to some of the largest Adventist churches in mainland China or anywhere in the world) is likely to have no appreciable impact on the church in China! In contrast, disbanding a couple of the largest Unions in the North American Division can have a crippling effect on both the Division and the General Conference. The consequences – especially the unintended and unforeseeable ones – could be enormous.
It could well be that the release of the “Explanation” document does not signal the intention of General Conference leadership to go down the road of policy enforcement on this matter. But, highlighting policy in the manner it has done suggests that the Adventist Church is well into the Aristocracy or Bureaucracy stage in its life cycle – stages when its administrative systems, policies, precedents, rules and guidelines dominate behavior. The pathologies of these stages do not portend well for the organization.
The use of policy to influence or enforce compliance on moral issues is a telling admission of the state of affairs in the church’s governance circles. An enforcement paradigm is a bankrupt paradigm. It unmasks severe angst in the halls of leadership. To claim non-discrimination while acting in a discriminatory way is not to match words with actions. In a world where religious teachings are frequently met with healthy skepticism or open hostility, any hint of hypocrisy is quickly seized upon as reason for rejection. Brandishing church policy as justification for discrimination is morally and ethically wrong. That’s my take!
[i] https://www.scribd.com/doc/275068499/Unions-and-Ordination-to-the-Gospel-Ministry
Notably lacking in the reasoning system of the position paper from the Secretariat, is how does the GC derive it authority?
1) Local Conferences have the authority to hold church property and employ pastors, etc, because that authority has been delegated to them NOT by the GC, but by collective action of the local churches, which are the Members of the Local Conference.
2) Likewise, Union Conferences have the authority to operate colleges, authorize ordination of pastors, etc, because that authority has been delegated to them by collective action of the Local Conferences, which are the Members of the Union Conference.
3) Likewise, the General Conference has the authority to establish doctrine, recruit missionaries, etc, because that authority has been delegated to them by the Union Conferences, which are the Members of the General Conference.
You are absolutely correct regarding the paucity of recourse actions available to the General Conference for non-compliance, and to their potentially disastrous unintended consequences.
On a minor note, auditors also submit reports to Constituency meetings, and in the case of major policy audit issues, should these issues be ignored by the Executive Committee they can be referred to and addressed by the Constituency in a Regular Session or Special Session.
Raj,
Thank you for bring a voice of reason in the midst of all the shouting. I was a bit surprised by the clarity and conviction in your conclusion but am forced to agree about the degree of angst in the halls of church leadership so I fear for the future of God’s work with leadership that allow themselves to be distracted by the loud arguments instead of remaining focused on doing the work the Holy Spirit is attempting to empower and direct. We need more leaders who are willing servants of our powerful King instead of accumulators of kingly power.
“… accumulators of kingly power.”
We should not be surprised as we see the “accumulators” pursuing an increasing power in the SDA Denomination. This is the ultimate goal of all the military exercises that we have seen taking place since 2010.
Things are going to be worse, so everyone should “brace for impact”…
The first major attack was against NPUC. The next may well target the two Unions that already ordained females in the past. Left alone what they intend to do about the SECC’s President, Sandy Roberts.
Stay tuned…, things are going to become ugly, since the “accumulators of power” have the support of the 3rd world – so now they feel all very “muscular.”
Jim Hamstra on August 26, 2015 at 10:10 pm said:
“Notably lacking in the reasoning system of the position paper from the Secretariat, is how does the GC derive it authority?”
Sometimes people need to be reminded, even at the GC level, that they have been given authoritative roles for a reason. Often it becomes easy to forget the reason and just enjoy the position of power. These leaders and authorities should be challenged, I do not mean that their authority should be questioned, but that they sometimes need to be reminded of the reason they were given the authority and the responsibility that came along with it. Any effort that calls for honest oversight and accountability deserves our full support.
We are surrounded by authority figures in every aspect of our lives—at work, at school, and even in the Church—and some of us are authority figures ourselves—as parents, local church leaders, etc. This authority is given along with the responsibility of using it for the good of those being served. This is why I think it’s important that we hold our GC leaders accountable for actions that they have taken in the performance of their duties. If we don’t do it, who will?
The whole church derives its authority from scripture. Women are gender excluded from the positions many are claiming they are qualified to hold. This issue will not be resolved by political volley ball. The church is split spiritually, and will most likely split physically. As EGW has said, “Two parties will be developed”. And there can be no unity between the two.
Scripture as the source of authority changed for the new church in Acts 15, when the simple observed working of the Holy Spirit replaced the proven, certain, long-standing, God initiated and required practice of circumcision as an eternal sign of a man’s submission to God.
Acts 15 declares that there is to be no such thing as an Old Testament Christian. And because the New Testament was not canonized or even drafter at that time, Act’s 15 establishes that the the Christian church is to measure the presence of the Holy Spirit rather than measure the people’s compliance with the recorded experiences of ‘men of old’ as the signature definition of what is a Christian.
Same measure for, Who is a Seventh-day Adventist?
How can this not work far better than hurling proof texts over maters that are lost in history, Bill?
Bill Garber,
This situation will not get better any soon. And the reason is that there are way too many men in our Church who are affected by the virus that develops the urge to discriminate against women.
This is not a spiritual/religious issue as we all know, but it’s rather a psychological defect that many carry and instead of having it treated they keep band-aiding it pretending it’s real skin. The wound remains underneath though.
“Acts 15 declares that there is to be no such thing as an Old Testament Christian.”
Acts 15 declares no such thing, Bill. The whole new testament affirms there is only one faith both old and new covenant, and Abraham is appealed to as a classic example. The only spiritual difference is old covenant believers looked forward to the Christ event, and new covenant believers look back to the same event.
Only time separates the two covenants. The ceremonial law was sign of faith in the coming event. When the event transpired, the ceremonial law was negated. How could you participate in the ceremonial law as faith in a coming event, when the event has passed? Paul rightly calls it a denial of Christ and equates it to the unpardonable sin. Heb. 10:26-39
The same argument in Galatians where he affirms a law was added, ceremonial, and is not subtracted. Paul has no other basic theme in all his letters. Forgiveness was always by Christ and the ceremonial law pointed to this reality. Now, we are forgiven (justified) by faith in Christ without the deeds of the (ceremonial law).
He affirms this does not negate the moral law and he has no other theme in all his letters.
Bill,
Exactly. We should be measuring the guidance of the Holy Spirit because it was testimony about the works of the Holy Spirit that convinced the early church leaders to not impose the Jewish ceremonial laws on the Gentile believers. I see a great parallel between then and now in the debate over the ordination of women because it will be seeing how the Holy Spirit blesses, or how the blessings of God are withdrawn from those who defend tradition more than Him, that convinces people of which way the church should be going.
Where in scripture do you find that the church has authority? The only spiritual authority that I find in scripture is the authority of the Holy Spirit over the individual believer.
Strategy to double the number of SDA churches:
Every church now will have to build a second similar building on the side of the current building.
Then a similar sign has to be installed in front of both churches, with the single difference: one will state “we discriminate against women” and the other “we do not discriminate against women.”
And voila!
Outstanding article Raj.
The fact that the GC pinion piece mentions the options the General Conference has is, in fact, proof that the GC Committee already has considered and continues to hold open all of its structural options.
If the goal is ordination uniformity with regard to gender, leadership will have to use every option at their disposal.
In a larger sense, one might consider the Holy Spirit’s willingness to let the GC Leadership withdraw membership status of a Union Conference.
To what good could such a fracture come in any ultimate sense?
We do well to contemplate that question as it seems increasingly clear that the GC Leadership is willing to entertain going nuclear with a Union Conference in order to demonstrate the GC’s authority.
Leadership is not about establishing its authority but is about its ability to establish unity, without loss of life.
Acts 15 demonstrates how such leadership succeeds when there is deep and public polarization over a matter in the church. We have leaders who have yet to try this method, and no sign of any interest on their part in doing so.
Of course, Acts 15 describes a church without a working policy. Perhaps that is its key advantage.
So is it the working policy that is blinding GC leaders when searching for how to lead the church united and not the at times flaming differences of opinion with regard to a host of matters often in discussion hear and across the church today?
“So is it the working policy that is blinding GC leaders… ?
No, not at all. What is blinding those men is the thirst for power and control.
Bill Garber on August 27, 2015 at 11:27 am said: “Outstanding article Raj…Leadership is not about establishing its authority but is about its ability to establish unity, without loss of life.”
Excellent commentary and analysis by Brother Bill Garber and Raj. They seem to show by their comments that what is most needed and essential right now is spiritual leadership for the SDA church. We need two things to heal us after San Antonio.
1. Creating a vision wherein leaders and followers experience a sense of calling so that their lives have purpose, meaning and makes a difference, and
2. Establishing a organizational culture based on the values of God’s love whereby leaders and followers have a sense of membership, feel understood and appreciated, and have genuine care, concern, and appreciation for BOTH self and others.
The source of spiritual leadership is an authentic life of spirituality, connectivity to God, such as spending time in nature, prayer, Bible study, reading, listening attentively to a variety of ideas and points of view , not just those who agree with you. One friend who has been around GC leaders for a long time, and knows Brother Ted very well, commented on how Brother Wilson has surrounded himself with a team of well intentioned “YES” persons who agree with him and will not oppose him publicly or privately. Where is a Nathan (2 Kings 12:7) who will boldly point out ethical alternatives to the unfair status quo?
Correction on my Biblical reference it should have been @ Samuel 12:7 and NOT 2 Kings…sorry about that!
Further correction: 2 Samuel 12:7, is what I meant to type on my keyboard…
With the GC 5 year meetings ending on such a sad note, much worse than before the sessions, where “Unity” was the theme,
demonstrates a lack of empathy and managerial competence and
expertise of the Executives of the General Conference. This is evidence of maladministration and grounds for recall of any officers of The General Conference deemed incompetent, by the rank and file members, in the North American, Europe, and Australia Unions. This would be a demand invitation to the GC Presidents and Vice Presidents to appear at a Constituency session, and defend several recent decisions brought to policy. To be determined later. The constituency drawn from all SDA Churches, of constituents of the Unions in the areas listed above, but without the
employees of the SDA Church, in any capacity. This will permit a session free of coercive, and or direct tampering of constituents. The power of the SDA Church is invested in it’s general membership, not in a hierarchy of a few old men
who’ve assumed status under a fixed program of collusion; fixed committees consisting of a few hierarchy members above, naming those below.
Due too more recent years of evangelism in 3rd world countries resulting in a majority of Church membership living in the 3rd world, has created a
great diversity in Cultural influences in the SDA Church, which has caused a great problem for the North American members. (Continued)
“The power of the SDA Church is invested in it’s general membership, not in a hierarchy of a few old men”
You are 100% right. It is obvious that the Church’s leadership has been hijacked, and things are being reversed with more power being requested by the “guys upstairs in black suits,” those few on the top of the pyramid.
If these gentlemen are so sure that what they are doing is right and God’s will for the church then I suggest that they put it to the test and trust God for the outcome. They should refuse to accept tithe funds from any entity that they deem to be in rebellion. The money could be held in an account by the rebelious entity until such time as the church works out a compromise . Surely they must trust The Lord enough to be willing to put their convictions to a real test.
The problem they now have is that they are asking people to follow church policy over their moral convictions and what they see to be the clear leading of The Holy Spirit. We see them to be the ones in rebellion because they have decided it is better if they choose who should be ordained rather than letting The Holy Spirit do it. Any time human beings try to do the work of The Holy Spirit things go south in a big hurry and this is no exception.
“They should refuse to accept tithe funds from any entity that they deem to be in rebellion. The money could be held in an account by the rebelious entity until such time as the church works out a compromise .”
I suggest that the SECC freezes the “remittances upstairs” until the name of its President (Sandra Roberts) is published in the Year Book.
Susan, Better yet, If people are so sure they are right, why don’t they just withhold their funds until a solution is found. Not scared of Malachi 3:8-10 are you?
Susan,
Refusing to accept tithe funds? What a novel idea! Still, with all the entreaties we hear about needing to give more, I don’t think there’s much chance of that ever happening.
(Continued)
The 3rd world evangelism ethics and influences view, were promoted by the missionaries in order to make it easier for them to join the SDA Church. The 3rd world is noted for its sexists views, relegating in some locales of holding the female of the species in contempt, of being inferior to the male species. Also Polygamy is a theme prevalent in some areas of the 3rd world. These diverse cultural themes are anathema to the democratic views of the North American SDA members, who believe in complete equality of the sexes, and not in misogamy of the female sex, as practiced by some of the the General Conference officers, and some are coerced by the general staff, and so with the common theme of misogamynism prevailing in the area of decision making policy, as well as several other items of concern, the rank and file North American Unions of SDA Church membership seek to come to an amicable understanding of these stated problems, which are moving toward a schism in North America. The Membership doubts the Church can wait 6 months for redress of these issues.
If these rules from this GC Session are what the GC wants world church to follow, then should not all women in offices of power from GC down to local Conf level be removed to reflect that policy. Allowing them to remain in those power positions seems out of sic win those policies. How must the women in power offices at GC feel at work each day after this Session?
I think that ALL women doing ANY work for the Church should resign, quit, and stop helping immediately. This includes all responsibilities in local churches as well. Let the guys teach the children’s lessons in their classes every Sabbath.
But first a survey should be conducted, to identify those discriminators of women that are so adamantly against equality. Those are the ones that should be put in charge of all the vacant positions after all women quit.
Brilliant idea, isn’t it?… 🙂
My sentiments exactly, George. All those men who tout male “headship” and think women can’t teach or shouldn’t speak. ..time to step up in every capacity including chilldren’s ministry.
George Tichy, While building another church beside each current church would double the number of churches. another way to provide accommodation for those for or against discrimination of women would be to unite the currently separate churches based on race (as in regional conferences) and then to use these duplicate facilities to provide for those demanding gender discrimination.
Brilliant idea.
I feel that there is finally some hope, some light at the end of the tunnel. Let’s keep brainstorming, I am sure we are going to get some great ideas and everyone will be properly accommodated and happy at the end. Both, discriminators and non-discriminators…
A good minister friend of many years missionary experience on a continent other than North America tells stories of parishes where visiting preachers years ago were required to be examined for circumcision before they could take the pulpit. I know of no censure from headquarters against that important cultural requirement in areas of the world where insistence on circumcision for clerics of all denominations was ironclad. Likewise in parts of the world (mine) where a church that discriminates against women is held in lowest regard among thoughtful visitors and members, an accommodation to culture is absolutely defensible.
Obviously the Holy Spirit is blessing women Adventist pastors who serve in their local geographic area. It should humble every critic advocating the heretical idea that a women couldn’t be possibly blessed by the Holy Spirit with pastoral gifts.
How would these critics dismiss the pastor in China who started a church with ten people in her living room? This is the pastor who leads the largest Adventist church in the world, more than 7000 members?
How brazen to say the Holy Spirit does not guide her, nor called her into pastoral ministry. She and hundreds like her are leading many into the Gospel of Jesus, while critics sit at their computer keyboards denying that the Holy Spirit discriminates by gender the gifts of the Spirit upon His people.
“How brazen to say the Holy Spirit does not guide her,”
Harrpa, people can say the most absurd things when they are discriminators of women blinded by their obsession personal insecurity.
I once perceived that Adventist valued conscience, not falling into the living by traditions and manmade rules and regulations, not falling into states of power and control, hierarchies and bureaucracies, and living by the spirit of Jesus were hallmarks of Adventist. Not always loved out but nevertheless underlying strong values and desires.
At this time of the church’s governance, I see all of these being thrown to the wind and actively worked against. This is no longer the church I knew. We are now a big bureaucracy of increasing authoritarianism and control. The words of the global CEO sound at times like those of the leader of a cult.
This church has fine people, and many well meaning people,and leaders. At the grassroots there can be healthy community if there is the will and the way. Above that, many leaders are forgetting their role and to serve the congregation. Top down hierarchy has no place in Adventism. The talk against the religious leaders of Jesus time and the catholic church through the ages that were decried throughout Adventist history are being paralleled increasingly by the higher eschelon’s ofmadventist leadership. They are seeming more and more like the churches who live and breathe by Canon Law in their administration – and the GC more in more brings in lawyers to heavy dissenters to their way of doing church policy, with threats if they deviate, and write papers analysing the details,of,past GC decisions. Jesus is far away from all these…
The highest level of GC now seems more akin to the leadership of the for,ready Worldwide Church Of God, the Watchtower Society, and the Church of majesty’s Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I love the people in my local church and find value associating with them.
However, I am divorcing myself from any identity with higher leadership of a global religious corporation of control, authoritarianism, and cultish demands.
Correction:
The highest level of GC now seems more akin to the leadership of the for Worldwide Church Of God, the Watchtower Society, and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.
I love the people in my local church and find value associating with them.
However, I am divorcing myself from any identity with higher leadership of a global religious corporation of control, authoritarianism, and cultish demands.
Mtrcus, this is the way to go. Considering the circumstances and the direction this administration is taking our Church (i.e., backwards!) the best one can do is to focus on the local church and nothing else.
The bureaucratic machine is going to grow, and the power and control will be centralized “upstairs” in the hands of one man. Therefore, detaching is the best thing to do.
By the way, is there any (at least one…) benefit that any local church gets from the existence of the GC?
IOW, What is the GC good for anyway? Would anything disturb the local churches if the GC were just dissolved today? (What a dream, uh?)
George,
I share your concern for what is happening in church administration above the local church, or perhaps the local conference. While I am dismayed by what is happening at higher levels, such as the General Conference, I choose to not be dismayed by it because of how little of it really impacts on me. Plus, as you have illustrated, the local church is where things are happening that effect me.
So, as for your question about what would happen in the GC were suddenly to be dissolved, it probably would have very little impact on the local church. Plus, it might actually be a very positive thing because it would make more obvious how little they are needed and it would give us greater opportunity to focus on being led by the Holy Spirit.
William, just consider how much tension has been created by the GC at several levels. It seems that they love to keep interfering in all sorts of issues. The thirst for power and control is so evident… They may be the only ones who don’t see it!
(When I say “they” it’s certainly most directed at TW)
George, it seem to the vast majority of us that your thirst for power and control, and those like you, is evident. We voted no; yet you continue. “They” are forced to step in with granted authority to protect us from your attempt to discriminatory impose your opinions. You dig your own hole then complain about it.
Very compelling, well reasoned and informed article, Raj. The GC is setting a dangerous precedent here, not to mention that their top-down approach to leadership is opposed to Jesus’ admonition that those who desire to lead must be servant of all. Its repercussions obviously go much deeper than the issue of ordaining women.
Concerned Christian:
Since when did a majority determine what is right or truth? The majority cannot determine either theology or doctrine. Only when the FB’s PLUS the Working Policy is amended can there be an official decision. That has not yet been done as the official working policy fully gives the unions the authority to determine ordination within their territor subject to their respective divisions. No majority, or popular vote can make doctrinal changes which, as yet, have never been made about WO. Only the annual council officially makes changes, never a majority of world delegates. They only stated their determination NOT to permit any WO in the entire world church.
If you believe otherwise, please refer to Gary Patterson’s complete and thorough explanation of the current Working Policy which gives absolutely no mention of disallowing WO.
I guess the first determination was the election to replace judas?
Gary lacks legal and governance wisdom. Romans 16:”17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”
The preamble to the FB’s:
“Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.”
The Church belongs to CHRIST, a gift from the FATHER. The HOLY SPIRIT determines both Theology and Doctrine. The Working Policy is explicit in ordination requirements. The Conference never said yes; but did say no.
Legally: leave the keys and paperwork inside; dissolution policy. Go call yourselves anything but something with Adventist in the name. The Pope excommunicated in such.
Instead; we all Love Gary and value his opinion. Misunderstanding happen. We are the Body and Love everyone. What more can you say?
FAÇADE
“Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed…”
“Only creed?” Seriously?
This is one of the most hypocritical statements I’ve ever seen. As I always have said, this is a mere maneuver to keep a nice façade on paper, to disguise the real condition – since in practice we all know it is not true. Any long term Adventist knows that the Bible is not the “only creed” the Church has.
BTW, when I was a theology student (1969-1972) we were taught that our Church does not have a “creed.” But yes, obviously things changed a lot since…
We failed to teach you. We are all not directly responsible for such; but still apologize.
If you are a Christian, your only Creed is the BIBLE; by default of definition. The Creed has always been there. Again: if you were led to believe otherwise; we are sorry. If you were led to believe you can interpret and self justify any action from such Creed; again we are sorry.
The “sorry” discourse should be applied not to me but to all Church members that were taught that the Bible is NOT the only “creed” we have.
And, just curious, when you say “we,” who do you have in mind? For you to apologize in the name of the Church you must have some representative rights. Do you really have them or are you just giving them to yourself?
“Gary lacks legal and governance wisdom.”
Assuming you refer here to Gary Patterson (?), what is the factual basis for your denunciation? Did not a General Conference Session elect him as a General Vice President? Were they not responding to the leading of the Holy Spirit in this action? And did he not for many years play a prominent role in exercising legal and governance wisdom? Then by what authority do you stretch forth your hand (on a keyboard) against him?
“The Church belongs to CHRIST, a gift from the FATHER. The HOLY SPIRIT determines both Theology and Doctrine.”
I totally agree.
“The Working Policy is explicit in ordination requirements. The Conference never said yes; but did say no.”
Is the GC Working Policy also a gift from the Father, breathed by the Holy Spirit?
Or is it possible that we have developed our own Adventist(R) Mishnayot?
If the latter be so, then a fair case can be made that Gary Patterson would rank as one of the foremost scholars of the Adventist(R) Mishnayot.
Gary is allotted his individual opinion. To raise him above such is what?
Did his ideologies, legal and governance wisdom not fail the test of vote? The Church is not dead yet and there is no mourning. The multitudes and vast majority hold a little more Faith than the size of a mustard seed and we do the work of the FATHER; but HE and we do walk softly.
Come on; we are all in this together. We all have assigned jobs to do. The vote was “no”; are against us? Do you cast out demons and do miracles? This serves no purpose under GOD; you only creates a stumbling block; for everyone involved. We wouldn’t care if we didn’t Love you.
“Gary is allotted his individual opinion. To raise him above such is what?”
Given his former role in the higher altitudes of the GC, I think he also has considerable expertise.
“We wouldn’t care if we didn’t Love you.”
You have an interesting way of expressing your Love for those who disagree with you 8-).
As others fight to salvage the failing Church?
You want us to say “what a great job you have done”?
This is Love how?
Jesus Christ made some very interesting comments regarding church leadership and trademark protection. In the gospel narrative these two concepts are closely linked.
You can find this recorded both in Mark 9:33-41 and also in Luke 9:46-50 (in slightly redacted form):
An argument started among them as to which of them might be the greatest. But Jesus, knowing what they were thinking in their heart, took a child and stood him by His side, and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great.”
John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”
Concerned Christian on August 30, 2015 at 4:30 pm said:
“Gary lacks legal and governance wisdom.”
put that statement next to:
“The Chicago Cubs will win the World Series this year.”
This is exactly what Gary has, plus he also has DISCERNMENT, something we can all use more of. Kevin DeYoung wrote:
“The Bible tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Surely part of loving in this way is trying to understand what another person wants us to understand. I may not understand perfectly and I may not agree, but if I love you I should try to know what it is you wish I could know.” Gary want us to know the truth. That is a most valuable “commodity” these days!
If the Cubs win, then look out!
This would assume the players knew what Love is.
Ordination is not Biblical anyway. The Scandenaviam Unions have gone further than the USA, they are the closest to the Bible.