|
|
Pacific Union Crisis--FAQLast modified 14 September 2001. Question: What is this about? Answer: There is a determined group working within the structure of our church to force it to accept the ordination of women pastors. One graduated step along the way is to create and then erase the distinction between "ordained" and "commissioned" ministers. Some of us have studied the matter with considerable care and find this to be unbiblical.1 Question: Where and what is the Pacific Union Conference? Answer: The manner in which the Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA)2 is organized is unique among churches. There are some 12 million of us worldwide divided into 13 sections called Divisions. Divisions are further divided into sections called union conferences ("union" for short). The Unions are subdivided into sections called local conferences ("conference" for short). Conferences are composed of all the SDA churches in a given area. Seven such Conferences compose the Pacific Union.3 Pacific Union is one of seven Unions in the North American Division, which is one of the 13 divisions that make up the world church. Question: Who wants to be part of a fracturing church? Answer: Our church organization is very unique. It has a large representative component. Decisions are made by bodies of elected representatives. Regrettably, those advocating liberal agendas and ideas are, in some places especially, entrenched in the church. California especially is one of these places. Another is Australia. While it might seem an ill thing that the church, the pillar and ground of the truth, is infected like this, we also are reminded of something very important: Satan is especially angry with those who are seeking to live and give the strong messages that these days and hours warrant. His attention is focused here because there is spiritual life and truth and vitality here, else he would have little interest. I wan to be in the church then, where the action is! Question: What, in a nutshell, is the Pacific Union Crisis? Answer: The Pacific Union Crisis, in a nutshell, is that this one Union has stepped out of harmony with the world church which makes these decisions every five years at a group gathering of delegates called a General Conference Session. There, for the past three Sessions (1990, 1995, 2000) the attempt to approve ordained women preachers/leadership has been turned back each time (although the issue has been expressed in various ways). Now this one Union is saying that they are willing to do it anyway. They are in rebellion. The battle over women's ordination which has raged in so many other denominations for so many years has here come to a grave crisis, and may be won or lost based on what the elected leaders do at this hinge-point. We have been urging them that they must not allow the action to stand.4 Right now they are reluctant to make a public statement.5 We are trying to help them. We wish them to know that we will support them in making just such a response.6 Question: What difference can my voice make? I've fought the inroads of liberalism in the church before, but to no effect. Is there anything different now? Answer: The point raised is real. Many of us have stood up at various times, one by one, now here, now there, and expressed in some form or another our concerns. Such expressions have consistently been ineffectual and largely ignored. We have sensed but few advocates for our viewpoints within the employ of the church. Furthermore, we have not been able to network in any strong way to express our views at the same time and to the same places. Things are different now. In recent years some have been led to establish means by which effectual action can be mounted. Today we can network by telephone and internet and assist our church. We will be hard to ignore if we actively express our concerns to those who need to hear them and who are in positions to act to bring reform.7 Make no mistake--even merely a few voices are enough to make a difference! Question: OK, I'm convinced. Now who do I contact? Answer: Start with the North American Division: North American Division General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Pacific Union Conference Question: I received a document containing the following sentiments from a union officer I've written too. What might be said in response? Answer: (The below quoted text was sent to some who have made inquiry regarding this matter. We here take the opportunity to respond to each point while preserving the privacy of the parties who have written. Quoted material comes from a Pacific Union officer, regular text is our reaction to his remarks.) "As is so often the case, those not present at a meeting send their interpretation of events around the world as though it were fact." Those not present have checked their facts with numerous people, including the Union president himself. The question is, are the facts or interpretation sound? What we have then is a pro interpretation versus a con interpretation. "_____ chaired the meeting, and what you describe is so far from what actually happened, I don't even recognize it as the same meeting. Your letter is a gross distortion of fact. You do the church a real disservice to circulate this type of fiction around the country when you have obviously not checked with those present and certainly none of us in charge of the meeting." The items circulated as "fact" are indeed what happened, as numerous participants can attest. Furthermore, if the denominational news services had readily and promptly made this matter from the meeting known to our people, perhaps others would not have been forced to circulate it elsewhere. When an agreed conspiracy of silence is manifest, could it be because there is something to hide?8 "There was none of the women's ordination 'rebellion' in the speeches made either in the Constitution Committee nor on the floor of the session." Who said there was? What has been said is that (1) before the vote the delegates were made aware that adopting the change recommended by the motion would indeed place them out of harmony with both the world church and with their own Bylaws, that (2) it was known and expressed that this matter impinged on the issues surrounding women's ordination, and that (3) in the action taken in the vote of the Pacific Union Constituency, a rebellious spirit was manifest. At no point so far, to my knowledge, has mention been made of an auditorially rebellious "tone" or edge in the voice. This points are mere obfuscation, the making of mysteries where there are none and confusion where there wasn't any.9 "In fact, that was not the main reason the suggestion came up in the first place. Because treasurers are often not ordained today, and this Union and others have in the past and at present Union presidents who were treasurers, it was felt we should make allowance for any qualified person to serve as president." This is interesting, for the same language had been proposed already in 1997 by the NAD for inclusion in the Church Manual in 2000, and was there voted down. At that time the issue of commissioned treasurers had not been publically canvassed. This is simply a new argument since the previous ones haven't worked.10 This one won't work either. "It is true that would also open the door to women with the same credential." Yes, it is! One of the few factual admissions in the above missive. This is exactly what we said.11 "Since the meeting some women's activists have focused on the that aspect of the action." We gather that he means some opposed to women's ordination and/or women occupying positions of the male-headship role. Of course we have. "But few at the session were trying to make a statement about women's ordination nor trying to put pressure on the General Conference in taking the action they did. It was not the underlying issue as you report. In fact, it was just not a big issue one way or the other with most delegates, rather just opening the door to qualified people to serve. Thus it was strongly voted." So this was a mere coincidence of interests? This is difficult to believe. If the matter were more coincidental and of minimal import, then why was it voted? Why was it put in when its inclusion was KNOWN to place the Bylaws out of harmony with themselves? What we hear in the above is one person's opinion, and not one accompanied by facts. "What your letter failed to note was the action also proposed as a bylaws change that would have removed the president of the North American Division as chairperson of the nominating committee, instead leaving it open for the committee to choose their own. That is also not according to the church policies. Why did you not report that that was strongly voted down?" Simple. Because none of us were opposed to what was voted down. We are glad that that was voted down. The point you raise is obfuscation. We know this was done, and we also know that it is this item that will be broadly publicized while the other will be aired only in connection with how strong a reaction against it sets in and how widely known it becomes. No one is taking issue with the matter that you raise. It is a side-point and a diversion. "If the delegation wanted to defy the General Conference as you would indicate, why not go ahead with this action. But of course to report that action would be to dampen the false point your letter is trying to make, namely that the delegates were in a mood to defy the General Conference. Nothing could be further from the truth." No one has suggested that this was meant as an across-the-board rebellion toward the General Conference, but rather that women's ordination and kindred issues in particular were the point of rebellion. No one has suggested that there was a mood of anger or controversy in the meeting. We are simply addressing what was voted, what was manifest, what action was taken. "There was a wonderful spirit in the meeting all day long, and no amount of false reporting can change that." There has been no amount of false reporting--until your response. The facts have been checked, the documentation has been given. We have never said that there was not a sweet spirit at the meeting. "In fact, there are many variations from General Conference policies by Unions and Conferences around the world. We are not alone in making some decisions that are different than the guidelines." As noted, there are some differences around the world. But the errors of another unit of the world church are no excuse or shield for the Pacific Union to hide behind. The Working Policy makes provision for limited variation of certain sections of the varied Constitution and Bylaws documents. Such potential for variation within the policy as set by the world church does not extend to the items here addressed. These are NOT "guidelines." They are commanded, required wordings, "essential to the unity of the world church."12 "The only difference is that we are close to the General Conference and more in the spotlight than Unions on the other side of the world. But so long as the church is working together on the big issues and has a united spirit of mission, the Lord can work through all of us to accomplish His will." This is one of the big issues. So big that it has been brought to General Conference Sessions in one form or another on every occasion for the past 15 years. So big that the Pacific Union is willing to go against the Church Manual. So large that the Pacific Union is willing to go against the Working Policy. So strong some are willing to gut their own Bylaws. So deeply-laid that they will delay and even hide news of these matters from the constituency that elected them. So irrevocably determined that Pacific Union risks the unity and the harmony of the world church, daring NAD/GC to respond. "Please, in the future check your facts before you share false information and judge motives. This does more to play into the devil's hands by dividing the church than any host of bylaws changes ever could." How can our people check the facts unless they are published? This we have done, documenting the matter for anyone caring to check the facts. The information is true, not false. As for judging motives, we will leave that to others. What has been done is simply to apply the same standard as the Working Policy does when it says that rebellion is expressed "by a constituency meeting action." Working Policy, p. 51, B 11 15.13 All of the points made fall to the ground against the facts. Let us together wonder why obfuscation is employed, why so many of the facts are side-stepped, while we notice the admission made: "It is true that would also open the door to women with the same credential." That is, "Yes, guilty as charged." For the Church Manual plainly states, "ordained minister" on page 135, refusing the wording "ordained, or commissioned."
Other items on this topic: GreatControversy.org
|