Pacific Union Crisis:
Action That Could be Taken

Kevin D. Pauson, 9 September 2001

Here is a brief summary of potential action that could be taken by our leaders to remedy the current state of rebellion by the Pacific Union, etc.

1. The North American Division President should call a special meeting of the NAD executive committee, and demand that the Pacific Union reverse the action it took. To do this, the union would have to summon a special constituency meeting for this purpose, since only a body at that level can rightly reverse an action taken at that level.
2. It should be noted by the Division leadership that whatever the motive behind this action, no local union or conference has the right to define for itself the qualifications for one who serves as president. This is the duty of the Church Manual and other official policy statements, which are the exclusive province of the world church in general session. Once any particular body is permitted to stray from the general body in such matters, chaos and the disintegration of our united church will be the sure result.
3. Should the Division refuse to take such action, the General Conference executive committee should be summoned by the president to do this.
4. Once the Pacific Union is re-assembled in constituency session, leaders from higher levels in the church structure must demand the reversal of the recent action, much as when Elder Al McClure demanded the rejection of a proposed clause by the Southeastern California Conference at its constituency session in 1992. I have considerable confidence that if such a demand were made, the decision would in fact be reversed. When the Southeastern California Conference was confronted by such a demand from Elder McClure in 1992, the vote to reject the proposed clause passed by more than 2 to 1.
5. If, however, such a demand were in fact rebuffed by the Union, the Division would be compelled to call a special session for the purpose of disbanding the Pacific Union and re-constituting it anew. As I said, it is most doubtful that such a step would in any way be necessary if leaders at higher levels made their determination obvious early on.

Let us be wary of talk regarding "what hills we want to die on." These matters call for sober reflection, especially when we consider that any number of rebellious actions have called forth no contrary measures from the current Pacific Union president. The illegal ordination services conducted around the North American Division in recent years have evoked no such actions. Earlier still, and much more seriously, the illegal readmission to the ministry of Smuts Van Rooyen at the Riverside church compelled no such action from the union president. Van Rooyen is still employed at the Vallejo Drive SDA Church in the Southern California Conference, despite the fact that both his credentials and his ordination were removed by the denomination in the early '80s. The NAD and the Pacific Union both told teh conference not to admit him to ministry back in the early '90s. But they did it anyway. And the union president did nothing.

Here is a man who was removed from ministry for denial of some of our most basic doctrines. And yet the union president refused to take appropriate measures to prevent his illegal re-admission to the ministry--an action contrary to the NAD Working Policy. Are there any hills upon which we are willing to die?

Other items on this topic:
5 Sept 2001: Pacific Union Conference Defies World Church
6 Sept 2001: Supporting the World Church in Crisis
7 Sept 2001: SDA News Services Hide Union Action
8 Sept 2001: Express Yourself and Lift Up the Hands of Moses and Aaron
9 Sept 2001: Will This be Another Case of Institutional Paralysis? by Kevin D. Paulson
9 Sept 2001: What is at Stake
9 Sept 2001: Action That Could be Taken by Kevin D. Paulson

GreatControversy.org
Y o u    H a v e    a    V o i c e

This document may be freely reproduced, distributed, and spread as the leaves of autumn.