The Mid-America Union Conference Executive Committee convened on Nov. 12, 2015 at the union’s headquarters in Lincoln, Nebraska for its regularly scheduled session at the conclusion of the union’s Year-end Meetings. Mixed in with votes to receive the presented reports was a healthy dose of discussion ranging from topics regarding the distribution of tithe dollars to credentialing of commissioned pastors to an analysis of the church’s organizational structure presented at the North American Division Year-end Meetings by a specially formed Governance Committee.
While several motions are currently being revised and will be voted on by email, the MAUC Executive Committee unanimously voted the following motions:
1. Voted: To formalize our current practice of voting at the union level to include requests for both ordaining and commissioning pastoral candidates. Though NAD policy does not currently require our union committee to vote on commission credentials, it has been the custom to do so. This vote simply formalizes what the Mid-America practice has been.
2. Voted: Statement of affirmation of women in pastoral ministry as follows:
In the wake of the July 8, 2015 vote by General Conference Session delegates regarding the world divisions’ ability to decide for themselves whether or not to ordain women to the gospel ministry, the Mid-America Union Conference Executive Committee affirms the following clarifying statement on women involved in ministry:
A. NAD Policy L32 10 states: “A commissioned minister is authorized by the conference to perform substantially all the religious functions within the scope of the tenets and practices of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for the members in the church or churches to which the minister is assigned and elected as a church elder.” This policy applies to both men and women commissioned pastors and has been in place for over 30 years. The vote last July did not change this policy.
B. The Mid-America Union Conference desires to be in harmony with the General Conference policies regarding ordained and commissioned pastors. Therefore, we affirm and support the needs of our conferences to credential and authorize their ministry team to perform their assigned pastoral responsibilities.
3. Voted: To ask the North American Division for a change in the flow of remittances from the conferences with the purpose to cease the “up and down” movement of tithe dollars earmarked by the NAD for education and evangelism. The request is that a proposal to accomplish this goal be presented at the 2016 NAD Year-end Meetings for implementation January 1, 2017.
Explanations and Affirmation
The purpose of this motion was not to change the amount of dollars each level of the organization has to carry out its ministry. This is only referring to dollars that, by policy and practice, are sent to the NAD and then come back in the form of subsidies. This was one of the suggestions given to the NAD Executive Committee by the Governance Committee.
In regard to the vote for affirmation of women in ministry, MAUC president Gary Thurber said, “The July 8 vote caused a great deal of confusion. Many people thought it was about the theology of ordination—it wasn’t. The question was whether or not divisions could decide individually on the issue of women’s ordination to best move their mission forward.”
Thurber added that some people thought it meant women could no longer serve as pastors. Hence, the Executive Committee voted the statement of explanation and affirmation intending to bring clarity regarding the current Seventh-day Adventist policy and practice.
As
indicated in the article, there is no reason for the GC vote to have caused confusion
since it merely reaffirmed existing policy regarding women’s ordination. But there is certainly plenty of legitimate
confusion, the source of which lies elsewhere.
The
principal source is the over 30-year policy of recognizing two positions in the
pastorate (commissioned and ordained) without distinguishing between the scope
of their respective authority and function or between their criteria for candidate
qualification. In this muddled policy, women are prohibited from serving as
ordained pastors but permitted to serve [in precisely the same capacity] as
commissioned pastors. This contrived distinction-without-a-difference policy quite
naturally creates confusion.
A
secondary source is the futile attempt to resolve this issue at the policy
level before coming to a resolution on its underlying theology. Though the
Theology of Ordination Study Committee was tasked with studying this theology,
it served only in an advisory capacity and held no official administrative
authority. All it accomplished was to identify three different positions on the
subject. Until Adventism takes an official position on the theology of
ordination, the church will flounder in endless debate on what church policy
and practice should be. And there will be endless confusion.
Engel Yoder Thanks for commenting. You have summed up the situation precisely and accurately. Unfortunately, it seems that although the TOSC engaged in a thorough study, the results of their study did not have much impact on the understanding of some of our church administrators, or members at large.
brendadickerson Engel Yoder Since the TOSC study resulted in three diverse
theologies on ordination, what impact should this have had on our
administrators and members?
Engel Yoder brendadickerson Since two of the three reports basically concluded that there was no scriptural objection to women being ordained to serve as ministers, it seems like that should have been a clear message supporting the option for each division to establish its own policies.
brendadickerson Engel Yoder And two of the three reports concluded that it is God’s
ideal that the office of the ordained minister be reserved for men. TOSC
position 3, however, holds that God sometimes allows for a variance in His
ideal plan, equating the present demand to ordain women to the demand of
ancient Israel for a king “that we also may be like all the nations” (1 Sam
8:20) — a demand that God granted.
In the case of ancient Israel, God’s faithful servant
strongly objected to the people’s demand, but God told him, “they have not
rejected you, but they have rejected Me” (v. 7). Equating this with the current
scenario as argued by TOSC position 3, it should not come as a surprise that
God’s servants today, like Samuel of old, would not give their assent to the people’s
demand, even if it did come from a majority, since the demand is not in harmony
with God’s plan. Thus, the TOSC report was hardly a clear message to our
administrators to support the option for each division to establish its own
policies, since two of the three reports concluded that it is God’s ideal that pastors
be men.
Besides,
we should expect God to hold His remnant people (having the advantage of
learning from the mistakes of the past) to a higher standard than He did for
ancient Israel. Thus,
a variance from God’s ideal plan at this late hour of earth’s history is
entirely unwarranted. Of all people in the world — indeed, in the history of the
world — Seventh-day Adventists should be the last to settle for anything less
than God’s ideal, for God intends to bring from them the firstfruits who, with
Jesus, stand on Mount Zion “without fault before the throne of God” (Rev 14:5).