I had not intended for so long a time to pass between entries.
First of all, had a wonderful experience at the Ark-La-Tex campmeeting in Jefferson, Texas. Learned much, was much blessed. In every way, that was a lovely time.
Fascinating, how events overtook my most recent blog about women’s ordination. I have written elsewhere that I think this issue, along with a couple of others, is actually a diversion from more important considerations. It it’s a diversion, it’s very successful.
As to the latest series of skirmishes, I will say this. A dear friend of mine, Gary Patterson, has detailed where the authority on ordination lies within the church here, and here.
Gary served on the GC executive committee for years and knows what he’s talking about.
There. Can we finally move beyond this question. Yes, I think the outcome of this issue matters. But the reason we’re stuck here is because it is not a central issue, not a testing truth. In my experience, the difference between a central issue and a peripheral one is one of scope.
Let me ask a question. What other issues does the issue of women’s ordination directly affect? The Compassionate crowd would probably say “inclusiveness” because they usually invoke nice-sounding but vague concepts. The Traditionalists would probably say “authority,” or some variant, because they want to know the rules. But otherwise it has little effect.
By contrast, a central issue affects virtually everything. It changes the way we see worship, grace, the law, mission–you name it.
So, please pardon me if I’m tired of climbing that particular tree. Rumor is there might actually be a forest.
Well Ed, I’m sure you will be thrilled to hear from me again.
As nice as it would be if we could all just be friends and let the issue of women’s ordination go by the wayside, the reality of the situation relegates this notion to wishful thinking. Personally, for me the overriding issue is not WO per se; it is unity in the body of Christ. And this is indeed a central issue in the church as attested to by Jesus’ prayer of John 17. How we handle one lone tree among many sometimes has very serious consequences, even if it seems on the surface an inconsequential issue.
Though Gary Patterson has served on the GC executive committee, he is not the final authority on this. Actually, he has missed a fundamental point: while unions have the authority to ordain whoever they see fit, they must still recognize the qualifications for such ordinations established by higher church authorities. The GC in session is the highest church authority and as such it can establish the qualifications for ordination, just as it has established the qualifications for local elders while leaving it up to the local church to select the actual candidates. In fact, the GC in session can set or amend whatever policy it so chooses to apply at any or all subordinate levels of church government. And this includes denying any division to go its own way on any given matter.
In opposition to Patterson’s views, here is part of what Lowell Cooper, a current General Vice President of the GC, presented at last week’s PUC constituency meeting:
“In recent months the idea that unions are fully entitled to resolve the ordination question on their own has received widespread circulation. Some of those who advocate this view have done important homework on the nature of our denominational structure and the processes and relationships that characterize our life together. Unfortunately, we must observe that there is still more homework to do.
“It is true that authority and responsibility have been carefully distributed throughout our church structure in such a way as to hold us together by bonds of interdependence. This is a key to the strength of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a world-wide organization. However, the idea that the authority and responsibility of one type of organization can be exercised autonomously and unilaterally is a concept alien to the ethos and practices of the church. General Conference working policy speaks about the various types of organizations as being part of the world-wide organization. Whereas each has accepted the privilege and responsibility of representing the church in its part of the world, each is therefore required to operate and minister in harmony with the teachings and policies of the church and the actions of the world church in session.”
Ed, with all due respect to your friend, I think he needs to do more homework.
Cooper’s statement that you cited is long on exhortation and short on both logic and reason. For example, “the idea that the authority and responsibility of one type of organization can be exercised autonomously and unilaterally is a concept alien to the ethos and practices of the church.” It’s interesting that a GC officer, defending a GC action which exceeds its authority, would base his defense on “ethos and practices.”
Reminds me of an extremely dysfunctional congregation that was riding roughshod over the Church Manual, disposing of funds willy-nilly, without reference to what the funds had been explicitly given for, or even actions in the church business meeting. Their explanation, “We’ve always done it this way.” Of course, the more elegant way to describe that is “ethos and practices.”
And then there were conference officials attempting to dictate who would and would not hold certain church offices in a local congregation. When called on it, they gave a similar excuse.
Of course, officials resort to such appeals precisely because “It is true that authority and responsibility have been carefully distributed throughout our church structure,” and the GC keeps trying to exercise authority it does not have.
I remember sitting through a business meeting where a dishonest and extremely irregular (read “borderline illegal”) action was being challenged. A member who was in favor of this deceptive issue declared that, because some opposed it, “Angels in heaven were weeping.” Such blatant attempts at maniipulation were also part of the “ethos and practices” of that sick congregation. I thought, but did not say, “If the angels in heaven want to transfer their membership to this congregation, they can vote on this issue. Otherwise, their emotional distress–or lack of it– is something none of us are privy to, and not an appropriate subject for this discussion.”
What the Adventist church currently lacks, and has lacked for some time, is real leadership at all levels. I won’t go into it further in this reply. I do want to make it clear, however, that I’m not saying there are and have been no real leaders. They do, however, tend to get cut down– and usually by the existing “ethos and practices.”
Are you saying that the authority and responsibility of any type of Adventist organization can be exercised autonomously and unilaterally without limits? If autonomous and unilateral organizational exercises are the true “ethos and practices” of Adventism, please give me an example or two that has set the precedent for the recent actions of the Columbia and Pacific Union Conferences regarding women’s ordination. It seems to me that the actions of these unions are unprecedented in our church history and conform more to the ethos and practices of congregationalism than of Adventism.
You say that the GC keeps trying to exercise authority it does not have. This is the nub of the whole debate, isn’t it? On my part, I concur entirely with Elder Cooper that it is the unions and conferences moving ahead with women’s ordination who are trying to exercise authority they do not have; and I could just as easily equate their actions with the examples of misuse of power you have cited.
Ed, help me understand. If you object to Cooper’s comment about “ethos and practices,” then am I to understand that you want to limit the debate regarding organizational authority to the precise language of church policy? That is, you and Patterson seem to say that, since church policy does not explicitly forbid the ordination of women as pastors, then to do so is not a violation of church policy and the GC therefore has no grounds to interfere in Union practice. Do I have the essence of your argument correct?
“I concur entirely with Elder Cooper that it is the unions and conferences moving ahead with women’s ordination who are trying to exercise authority they do not have”
Actually, Cooper makes no such claim. He does not claim they lack the authority to take such actions, nor does he argue that the GC has the authority to stop them. If he had a bylaw or other authority, he would cite it; actually, if such authority existed the GC would simply cite it and declare the union actions null and void. But he has no such authority, and so he can only refer to vague notions such as “ethos and practices,” and “teachings and policies of the church and the actions of the world church in session.”
It’s a worthy effort, on Cooper’s part, so far as it goes. He’s making the most of a bad hand. But take note: if an action of the world church in session actually prohibited ordination of women, that would be one thing. But the only action simply failed to endorse it. In effect, the GC in session refused to speak to the matter. Failure to say “yes” does not mean “no.” In the face of GC silence on the matter, authority reverts to where it was originally placed: the unions.
What all this amounts to is some people, some in high office, do not favor women’s ordination. But we are not a hierarchical church; we have no Pope, no Curia. The members and their representatives vote.
As I have indicated, I think this whole issue is a distraction from important matters, a distraction made worse by political ham-handedness. The GC does not have the authority to reverse these votes, and by making such a fuss, they highlight their powerlessness. The recent Columbia Union meeting was a self-inflicted wound by the GC.
A wiser way to handle the objections of some divisions and unions would be to direct them to the bylaws, and suggest they take their objections to the officials in the unions which took the votes they dislike. That way, the GC steers clear of matters it cannot control in any case, and avoids demonstrating incompetence.
Dialog between equals–the union officials–might actually yield something of value. Even if not, the GC does the right thing in not trying to exercise authority it lacks, and doesn’t look impotent.
OK. Technically, what Cooper claimed is that unions cannot act contrary to voted policy of the GC in session. But since the GC in session voted to deny the NAD request for a variance regarding ordination criteria, for NAD unions to now ignore this decision and proceed anyway is exercising authority the GC specifically denied them.
Since when is “teachings and policies of the church and the actions of the world church in session” a vague notion? What is vague about the fact that the world church in session has always been held as the highest church authority and that its actions should be respected?
It was Elder Wilson who referred to the GC Working Policy book — specifically, policy L-45 and B-05. He said these sections specify the ordination approval process only and do not give unions the authority to set the criteria for ordinations. This remains within the purview of the GC, and thus the GC indeed has authority to express itself in this matter.
“In effect, the GC in session refused to speak to the matter. Failure to say ‘yes’ does not mean ‘no.’ In the face of GC silence on the matter, authority reverts to where it was originally placed: the unions.”
I agree that the GC has thus far not taken a definitive position for or against women’s ordination. But the GC has taken a definitive position that the church will resolve this issue unitedly, and until then no part of the world church can act independently. And this puts the Columbia and Pacific Unions out of compliance with GC actions. And no, the authority to set the criteria for ordination was never placed with the unions.
“if an action of the world church in session actually prohibited ordination of women, that would be one thing. But the only action simply failed to endorse it.”
What do you mean by saying, “that would be one thing”? Do you mean you would actually respect such an action by the world church?
Since a process is now in place for the world church to take a definitive position for or against women’s ordination, and since this process is scheduled to be complete by the next GC session in 2015, if at that time the church actually prohibited the ordination of women, what will then be the proper course for the unions and conferences who have prejudged the decision and have already ordained women? Will these ordinations then be revoked? What would be your position in such a case?
This unhappy scenario, which is entirely possible, could easily be avoided if the WO proponents would simply exercise some patience and wait till the world church makes a final determination. As the GC leadership conveyed at the PUC meeting, this is really not too much to ask.
“OK. Technically, what Cooper claimed is that unions cannot act contrary to voted policy of the GC in session.”
No, he did not. He merely cited “ethos and practices,” “teachings and policies.” As for “policies,” see below. The claim that it is contrary to “actions of the world church in session” is incorrect. The world church in session granted this power to the unions decades ago.
Since you apparently think “ethos and practices,” and “teachings” is not vague, perhaps you can define the church “ethos” in a way that applies to the church in every world field. For example, when I was in Sweden, the people were strict vegetarians, but they wore more adornment that here in NA. By contrast, in Hungary, their dress was very plain, but I was served meat in every venue. I want to emphasize that I found them all to be delightful Christians and devout Adventists. I simply point out that the Adventist “ethos” can be different things in different places.
“t was Elder Wilson who referred to the GC Working Policy book — specifically, policy L-45 and B-05. He said these sections specify the ordination approval process only and do not give unions the authority to set the criteria for ordinations.”
Yes, and our Church Business Meeting has never acted to give the GC authority over it’s working policy–oh wait! That doesn’t matter, because we don’t have authority over the GC Committee.
The 28 fundamental beliefs, the Constitution and Bylaws, and the Church Manual are determined and modified only by a vote of the General Conference in session. The General Conference Working Policy is determined and modified by vote of the Annual Council of the General Conference Committee. This means that the GC Working Policy cannot override actions taken by the GC in session. Wilson can quote “The Rules of Golf” if he wants to, it doesn’t affect the Constitution and Bylaws, which place the authority for ordination with the Unions.
“But the GC has taken a definitive position that the church will resolve this issue unitedly, and until then no part of the world church can act independently.” There are two mistakes (at least) in this statement. First, there has been no resolution of the GC in session to that effect. Second, you conflate unity with uniformity. If the Columbia Union has three year sessions, and the Hungarian Union four-year sessions. they are different, but not “disunited.”
“Do you mean you would actually respect such an action by the world church?”
Really. That’s needlessly invidious and provocative. Are you trying to provoke me? That would be unworthy. To belong to any organization implies that one will abide by its rules, something I recommend.
“This unhappy scenario, which is entirely possible, could easily be avoided if the WO proponents would simply exercise some patience and wait till the world church makes a final determination. As the GC leadership conveyed at the PUC meeting, this is really not too much to ask.”
This “unhappy prospect” could also be avoided if the GC Committee simply decided to abide by the bylaws as they currently exist. “Exercise patience?” It’s been more than twenty years. Perhaps those holding the other position should exercise some restraint.
Ed, I am currently at a retreat at a remote location, but I will try to respond in a timely way as best I can.
The world church in session has never granted unions the power to set the criteria for ordination. If we cannot agree on this we will have to agree to disagree.
Adventist “ethos” can be different in different places, but it does have its limits. For example, the ethos that a man cannot have more than one wife at one time is a universal Adventist ethos. In the same way, it is currently the position of the world church that the criteria for ordination be common throughout the world. Of course, this could change in 2015.
It is not the GC Working Policy that is out of harmony with the GC in session, it is the unions who unilaterally change the criteria for ordination who are out of harmony with both the GC Working Policy and the GC in session. Why do you think the PUC wanted to change its bylaws to read that the PUC would only be in compliance with GC policy “in general”? This attempted move is a blatant admission that what they are doing in respect to ordination is out of compliance with GC policy. This is like a golfer wanting to follow the golf rules “in general.”
If you can’t see that the world church has taken the position that, at this time, the world church will address the issue of ordination unitedly, then this will have to be another point on which we must agree to disagree.
I can assure you that I was not trying to provoke you by asking if you would respect a GC session decision to not allow the ordination of women. Coming from the perspective that I think I share with thousands of others that the recent actions of the Columbia and Pacific Unions are in clear violation of the GC decisions of 1990 and 1995, my question was an honest and sincere one. I am very glad to know that you will in fact honor any such decision if and when it should come. It would be nice if the Columbia and Pacific Union leaders would publicly give the world church the same assurance.
The GC Committee is indeed abiding by the bylaws as they currently exist. Doing nothing in a crisis is the worst kind of leadership.
Bro. Yoder,
We can agree that the moon is made of green cheese. That will not change the moon’s composition. Authority for ordination is assigned to the union level of church governance as indicated by General Conference Working Policy L 45 05. It states, “After favorable consideration the local conference committee will submit the name of the candidate with its findings and convictions to the union for counsel and approval.”
The world church has not taken a position; it has refused to take a position. Failure of a motion to explicitly approve something is not the same thing as prohibiting that action. That’s logic 101. The GC Committee is not the world church.
If you think women’s ordination is a ‘crisis’–words fail. The church is bleeding more than half our young adults, and you think whether men or women preside over the funeral constitutes a crisis!
The poliicy you cite does not give unions the authority to set the criteria for ordination, and as I believe Elder Wilson explicitly said at the PUC meeting, it should not be assumed that this authority is implied in the policy. You seem to be turning a deaf ear to this point.
The world church is now in the process of making a decision on women’s ordination, but it has already voted that this process will be taken as a world church together, and that the final decision will be implimented together. This seems to be another point that you refuse to recognize.
The crisis is not women’s ordination. After all, the world church may just decide in 2015 that women’s ordination will be permitted. The crisis is the disrespect shown GC authority by certain unions and their attempt to take “final authority” status to themselves. If this attempt should succeed, our church would become fragmented and would no longer be a world church.
“Elder Wilson explicitly said at the PUC meeting, it should not be assumed that this authority is implied in the policy.” Nor can it be assumed that it is denied. Failure to approve does not constitute prohibition. I’m not turning a deaf ear, there’s nothing to hear. Let me state once again a simple logical truth. Failure to approve does not constitute prohibition.
“The crisis is the disrespect shown GC authority.”
One word: irony
The church is bleeding more than half our young adults, and you think disrespect to a committee overreaching its authority is a crisis!
“If this attempt should succeed, our church would become fragmented and would no longer be a world church.”
If we keep losing our own children we won’t be a church of any kind.
The NAD asks the world church for a variance in the policy of ordination, and when this request is denied the response is, “Well, we didn’t need to ask anyway, so we will ignore the denial and do it anyway.” At the very time the world church has begun a systematic study on ordination with the intention of coming to a consensus by 2015, the response of certain NAD unions and the “failure to approve does not constitute prohibition” argument is disingenuous and immature.
Do you think that a committee’s decision in 1975 to approve the ordination of women as elders was also an overreach of authority?
To conflate the problem of young people leaving the church with women’s ordination is merely an attempt to detract from the weak justification to disrespect GC authority. Both issues are serious enough problems to be described as a crisis, and both should be addressed. The subject you have raised here, however, is women’s ordination.
I am not conflating the issues; I am contrasting them.
As far as a weak justification for women’s ordination, it beats no authority and no justification for denying it. In my experience, whenever a demand to respect authority is issued, it comes because of a lack of leadership. Leaders don’t demand respect for their authority, they lead.
The concern about ‘authority’ strikes me as more papist than Adventist. And that anyone can attempt to elevate that as being of equal concern to the loss of generations of our children is frightening.
The discussion in the church will no doubt go on. This discussion is closed.