UPDATED: 2013-11-05 01:51: Adventist Review Reports on the NAD TOSC Report here: http://www.adventistreview.org/article/6791/archives/issue-2013-1530/30-cn-north-america-church-leaders-receive-theology-of-ordination-report.

2013-11-04 21:59: As the North American Division Year-end Meeting draws to a close, the NAD has finally come to its Division report for the Theology of Ordination Study committee. They voted to receive the report, although 31 voted “No.” NAD has also launched a new website (NADOrdination.com) with several videos. What will surprise some is that NAD has now come out into the open with a new hermeneutical approach in contrast to the Historical-grammatical approach of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The new approach has been designated by its advocates the “Principle-based Historical-cultural” method (PBHC). Kyoshin Ahn writes positively about the new hermeneutic as a representing “a whole new movement in biblical studies. . . . The overwhelming majority of the [NAD] committee feels that these difficult passages [passages mentioned by those who oppose WO] require the modern Adventist reader to employ a principle-based approach” (North American Division Theology of Ordination Study Committee Report, pp. 23, 31). In the Minority Report, included in the NAD-TOSC Report, Edwin H. Reynolds and Clinton Wahlen ably point out the dangers of unsound interpretive approaches. Warn Reynolds and Wahlen in their minority report, “. . .it is one thing to study the historical-cultural backgrounds to enlighten our understanding of the setting in which the text was written.; it is another thing altogether to suggest that the text was culturally conditioned and that, therefore, a trajectory beyond the text must be constructed for our current more enlightened age. If the latter were true, it would mean that the Bible does not set forth universal principles but only that which was perceieved by the inspire writers to be valid for the local situation at the time or, even worse, reflects then-current prejudices and misunderstandings” (Ibid., pp. 196, 197). No doubt, CAP shall publish more on these developments in due course.

2013-10-31 13:26: It appears so far that the first report below may be correct. Ms. Roberts is said to have been welcomed at the Year-end Meeting by NAD Secretary G. Alexander Bryant. Long applause is reported. The NAD, PUC, and the SECC seem to be jointly aligned in upholding actions which are in defiance of the General Conference in session.

2013-10-31 07:22: General Conference Statement “Moving Forward Together” here: http://www.adventistreview.org/article/6780/archives/issue-2013-1530/30-cn-moving-forward-together. Excerpt from the statement: “Working Policy, which is the recording of our agreements as to how we will work together to do the Lord’s work and mission, serves as one of the practical unifying agents that the Holy Spirit uses to bind the church together. Policy is not inflexible. It can be changed but it reflects the understanding of the collective group, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. When personal convictions are placed ahead of the collective policy decisions of the worldwide church, troubling precedents are set. God works in an orderly way and wishes His church to exemplify this sanctified behavior through the power of the Holy Spirit. Humility and submission to God for the good of the church body as outlined in the Word of God and the Spirit of Prophecy are fundamental Biblical principles for the benefit of the church.

“At the 2012 Annual Council in a voted action entitled, “Statement on Church Polity, Procedures, and Resolution of Disagreements in the Light of Recent Union Actions on Ministerial Ordination,” the world church strongly indicated that it does not recognize as ordained ministers individuals who do not meet the criteria outlined in policy. It deeply concerns the world leadership of the church that recently a local conference constituency elected as a conference president an individual who is not recognized by the world church as an ordained minister. Ordination to the ministry is one of the criteria set forth for being a conference president. General Conference administration is working with the North American Division administration as they deal with the implications of this local conference action, which is contrary to the 2012 Annual Council action.” (This statement appears now here: http://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2013-10-31/adventist-officers-release-statement-regarding-a-local-conferences-recent-election-of-president-1/. The NAD Year-end Meeting begins on October 31 at 1:30 Eastern time.

2013-10-31 00:40: It is being reported that NAD officers and the union officers from the NAD met on October 30 and confirmed that Sandy Roberts will be given the same registration packet and badge as everyone else and will participate in the NAD Year End Meetings the same as every other elected president of a local conference.

If this is true, and if it actually comes to pass that Ms. Roberts will be a voting participant in this YEM, the North American Division will be openly aligning itself with the insubordination of the Southeastern California Conference that elected a woman in a position the world church only authorizes men to fill. If indeed this comes to pass it will mean that the NAD stands in open violation of its own Working Policy. Check E-60.

NOTE: Information in this post is to be considered only tentative until confirmed.

NOTE: This post will be updated.

9 thoughts on “NAD Year-end Meeting 2013 developments

  1. I see a typo. I think it is meant to read “jointly aligned in upholding the will of the constituents within their bylaws after seeking guidance from God. God’s will be done! Amen.”

    Reply
    • Which God did they ask Felix? The One who wrote the bible or the God of this world? Praying and voting doesn’t change the Bible, rather, the Bible is meant to change your prayers and your votes.

      Reply
  2. Chosen in Acts 6:3 and Ordained in Acts 6:6 are Biblical examples of choosing leadership also in 5T page 60 and page 598 EGW mentions men and women….but only men for ministers and those at the sacred desk….

    Choose Wise Men—For years the Lord has been instructing us to choose wise men,-men who are devoted to God,—men who know what the principles of heaven are,-men who have learned what it means to walk with God,—and to place upon them the responsibility of looking after the business affairs connected with our work. This is in accordance with the Bible plan as outlined in the sixth chapter of Acts. We need to study this plan; for it is approved of God. Let us follow the Word.—The Review and Herald, October 5, 1905.

    Reply
      • Ellen White was a Prophet of God who didn’t have/want the role of a minister. No where in her writings have I read where she states that women should be the head of the church body. She never conducted baptisms, weddings, etc.

        As far as the pro-woman’s ordination activist say…. I’m sure they would be looking for a cheap ticket to Australia so they could send her away on a trip….

        Reply
        • Thanks John for your reply. My point being that EGW’ s statement would not pass the editors of the NAD and not be allowed to be put in print in any NAD publication because her strong male emphasis for faithful leaders to look after the affairs of the work of God. She would also be excluded because the NAD Presidents Commission on Women in Ministry explicitly forbids such gender exclusive terminology. EGW, the prophet of God would be exclude her because of her inspired non-gender inclusive language. Read this statement which is so very clear;

          The same principles of piety and justice that were to guide the rulers among God’s people in the time of Moses and of David, were also to be followed by those given the oversight of the newly organized church of God in the gospel dispensation. In the work of setting things in order IN ALL THE CHURCHES, and ORDAINING SUITABLE MEN act as officers, the apostles held to THE HIGH STANDARDS of LEADERSHIP OUTLINED IN THE Old Testament Scriptures. ~Acts of the Apostles p. 96.

          Now READ 1 Chronicles 9, the entire chapter and you will see the God ORDAINED MEN for the “services” of the “house of the Lord” SANCTUARY;

          1 Chronicles 9:13 13 And their brethren, heads of the house of their fathers, a thousand and seven hundred and threescore; very able men for the work of the service of the house of God. . . . 1 Chronicles 9:19-24 19 And Shallum the son of Kore, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah, and his brethren, of the house of his father, the Korahites, were over the work of the service, keepers of the gates of the tabernacle: and their fathers, being over the host of the LORD, were keepers of the entry. 20 And Phinehas the son of Eleazar was the ruler over them in time past, and the LORD was with him. 21 And Zechariah the son of Meshelemiah was porter of the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 22 All these which were chosen to be porters in the gates were two hundred and twelve. These were reckoned by their genealogy in their villages, whom David and Samuel the seer did ORDAIN in their set office. 23 So they and their children had the oversight of the gates of the house of the LORD, namely, the house of the tabernacle, by wards. 24 In four quarters were the porters, toward the east, west, north, and south.

          Clearly the entire worship services of the Sanctuary were ruled by only men. This is a pattern for the NT Church~SEE EGW 5T 491-500 which directs us to the Old Sanctuary and its service as the standard by which we even have more of a reason to follow the reverence for the house of God, which includes the “rules” for the conduct of men and women IN the Church services (1 Corinthians 14:1-40!). Also see EGW AA pg. 155-166 for a real plain instruction about men as the leaders of the NT Church.

          God has made His church on the earth a channel of light, and through it He communicates His purposes and His will. He does not give to one of His servants an experience independent of and contrary to the experience of the church itself. Neither does He give one man a knowledge of His will for the entire church while the church–Christ’s body –is left in darkness. In His providence He places His servants in close connection with His church in order that they may have less confidence in themselves and greater confidence in others whom He is leading out to advance His work. {AA 163.1}
          There have ever been in the church those who are constantly inclined toward individual independence. They seem unable to realize that independence of spirit is liable to lead the human agent to have too much confidence in himself and to trust in his own judgment rather than to respect the counsel and highly esteem the judgment of his brethren, [BEGIN P.164] especially of those in the offices that God has appointed for the leadership of His people. God has invested His church with special authority and power which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising, for he who does this despises the voice of God. {AA 163.2} [Think GC Vote 1990, 1995]
          White, E. G. (1911; 2002). The Acts of the Apostles in the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; Conflict of the Ages Series, Volume 4; Acts of the Apostles (163). Pacific Press Publishing Association; Pacific Press Publishing Association.

          Reply
  3. The election of Ms Robert shows a lack of strong leadership. The absence of authority is more dangerous than the abuse of authority.
    I am sure God is on control,

    Reply
  4. The NAD ordination committee report could have had more weight if its acceptance had been accompanied with a disavowal and condemnation of SECC’s insubordination.

    Unless the motivation behind the current movement is to fragment and split the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I don’t think everything has been well thought out. Take for example p. 9 from the report where it says that ordaining women elders in some divisions hasn’t split the church. That would justify Recommendation #2 that each division be allowed to do whatever it wants regarding ordaining women to the gospel ministry.

    But the two issues of women as local elders and women as gospel ministers are apples and oranges. If a church 10 or 100 miles from my church ordains a woman elder, and my church believes that to be unbiblical, what they did 10 or 100 miles away doesn’t affect my church at all, and my church doesn’t have to recognize that ordination. But ordination to the gospel ministry and then election to the conference presidency is quite a different matter, and does affect every local church in the entire conference.

    If Mrs. conference president’s secretary calls up a local church that happens to believe that such practices are unbiblical in order to schedule a speaking appointment, how does the church tell her secretary that for biblical reasons they do not believe her to be ordained or to legitimately hold her position of authority? For that matter, how can a church that feels that they can’t biblically recognize the authority of a female conference president be able to be part of a sisterhood of churches while rejecting the authority of its female conference president?

    If each division can really go its own way, why can’t each local church go its own way too? If divisions can have freedom, are we to tell local congregations that they can’t enjoy the same freedom?

    Suppose there is an ethnic congregation from a country where everyone firmly believes that ordination of women to the gospel ministry is unbiblical, and that that congregation resides in a conference with a female conference president. Then what? Must that congregation be forced to accept a practice it believes to be unbiblical, simply because it is geographically located in the wrong spot? Or will such a congregation be able to be part of the division their country is in? Or will anti-WO conferences and unions be organized within the same division to accommodate such congregations, which would work until a woman is elected to head the division?

    The best solution to avoid such fragmentation is for us all to unite on Scripture, but the NAD ordination committee report has made it clear that it is against basing our belief on this topic on the plain reading of Scripture. Can there be unity if the condition for it is an abandonment of the historical-grammatical approach to interpreting Scripture?

    Reply

Leave a reply

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

required

*