According to the Rocky Mountain Conference News Nuggets Newsletter, dated December 9, 2016, the executive committee of the Mid-America Union Conference (MAUC) voted the following statement November 12:

The Mid-America Union Conference executive committee, after reviewing the “Unity in Mission” document voted by the General Conference executive committee at the 2016 Annual Council, wishes to express the following thoughts about this action:

We share the need for and pray for worldwide unity and mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

We affirm the document’s call to mutual listening, consultation, and prayer as we work together over differences.

We, as a protestant organization, believe the true authority of our church lies with the local members comprising our churches. Furthermore, we recognize our working policies delegate authority to our constituencies as voted by our church members.

We believe all members and entities in the church should be held accountable when needed by the constituencies to which they are responsible, as has been outlined by our church’s working policies. We see this as paramount, because to do otherwise would be a departure from our protestant heritage. By staying with and following our long-held policies for accountability, the appearance or threat of kingly power is held in check.

We express grave concern with the Unity Document’s establishing working policy as on par with our fundamental beliefs. Whereas policy is made for the organizing of our church for the purpose of mission, our fundamental beliefs speak to the Biblical truths we hold as a people.

We are alarmed by the “Unity in Mission” document and object to the direction it is taking our church. True unity will not be achieved based on voted policies, but rather through our spirit of “Christlike forbearance,” as Ellen White counsels us to do.

“The church may pass resolution upon resolution to put down all disagreement of opinions, but we cannot force the mind and will and thus root out disagreement. These resolutions may conceal the discord, but they cannot quench it and establish a perfect agreement. Nothing can perfect unity in the church but the spirit of Christlike forbearance.” (MS 24, 1892)

One reads the MAUC voted document in vain for affirmation that the world church has any authority in the Mid-America Union. On the contrary, the document suggests that the executive committee admits only that members of its constituency have authority. At this time when a statement of support for the General Conference would have been welcome, Columbia and Pacific Unions, which are acting in open disregard for the authority of the world church, may take the MAUC statement as support for their insubordinate voted actions.

On December 6, 2016, the Rocky Mountain Conference voted to affirm the MAUC statement.

A report on the MAUC voted statement appears here:

http://outlookmag.org/mauc-executive-committee-votes-two-statements/

At the San Antonio 2015 General Conference session thousands of delegates participated. The decision sought was determined after “prayerful study on ordination from the Bible, the writings of Ellen G White, and the reports of the study commissions.” The outcome represented the ground-up process which God in His wisdom instructed His Church to follow for seeking His will on matters in which we must remain globally united. Acceptance of the GC session vote is the proper path to bring unity to His people. The MAUC statement, in so many words, is objecting to the General Conference implementing the decisions of the world church. The General Conference represents the will of the world church and is duty bound to abide by and implement the policies voted—as is the Mid-America Union and the Rocky Mountain Conference. And “In Seventh-day Adventist Church structure, no organization determines its own status, nor does it function as if it had no obligations to the Church family beyond its boundaries” (Church Manual, p. 27).

Order is essential at this time. If the Church in North America becomes a zone operating independently of world church order, it has no future. The General Conference has voted to implement a careful plan to bring order, but NAD entities have united to resist it. The situation in the Division is desperate.

9 thoughts on “Mid-America Union/RMC Vote “Concern”

  1. The Mid America Union Conference Executive Committee voted on Nov. 12, 2015 to require a vote at the Union level for any commissioned pastoral candidates, in addition to candidates for ordination, and in response to the decision made at the San Antonio GC session, stated “The Mid-America Union Conference desires to be in harmony with the General Conference policies regarding ordained and commissioned pastors.” The full text of the statement may be found here: http://outlookmag.org/mauc-executive-committee-clarifies-policies-and-requests-change-in-remittance-flow/

    Reply
  2. The entire problem is that certain ones want their way regardless of what the wishes of the world church is. They feel that NAD has more educated individuals and money so they should get their way. Some not taken into account is that NAD has chosen to interpret Scripture via cultural trends leaving behind comparing Scripture with Scripture and studying from simple to complex. They circumvent the plain reading of the Bible with more vague passages. Sunday keepers do exactly that with Sunday keeping.

    Reply
  3. First, the MAUC executive committee represents itself as being duty-bound to be “accountable” to its constituency, which it merely presumes is calling for women to be ordained. But by so doing, the committee denies that the GC executive committee need concern itself with being accountable to honor a voted resolution of its own constituency at a duly called GC Session. The contradiction of standards here is evidence of a seriously flawed position.

    Second, whether the MAUC executive committee realizes it or not, it is not the church-government principles of Protestantism that their statement upholds as much as it is the principles of Congregationalism which have, from the very beginning of our church, been distinctly un-Adventist. Thus, while professing to not want to depart from “our protestant heritage,” the members of the committee are departing from their Adventist heritage.

    Third, by unilaterally renouncing the MAUC’s subordinate position to the GC and claiming sole accountability to its constituency, the executive committee is itself guilty of exercising the kingly power it professes to want to hold in check.

    Fourth, the committee expresses a profound misconception when it insinuates that upholding the voted action of the 2015 GC Session regarding WO violates one or more of our fundamental beliefs. Neither this voted action nor the Annual Council’s Unity in Mission document are out of harmony with our fundamental beliefs. But to the contrary, in the official judgment of the world church (which many of us in the Mid-America Union affirm) the proponents of WO misinterpret Scripture and it is they who are out of harmony with the inspired writings, the committee’s selected EGW quote notwithstanding.

    Reply
  4. Unity is what it’s all about do we choose Gods unity and how He set up the universe. Or do we choose the wordly unity which is flawed disgusting and full of transgression. Need I say more?

    Reply
    • The GC is obligated to uphold whatever the world church votes in GC session. That is not optional to them. Likewise, the non-compliant conferences are obligated to be in harmony with what the world church votes. There is no other option. As a world church we agree to be subject to the judgment of one another by decisions made in GC session and by the GC executive committee between sessions.

      It is true that popular votes do not determine what truth is. But in a representative system of governance, the vote of duly elected delegates obligates all parts of the church to comply with decisions made.

      Reply
      • I see your excellent point; the G.C. has a mandate to carry forward what is voted in session, which is in essence, the popular vote. My hope is with the counsel of the SOP that God will not allow His church to fall so far as to warrant “another coming out”. Our Republic has certain “safety valves” built in to counter mob rule, the popular vote in some cases, elected POTUS, etc. Strictly speaking, it does not appear the Church has such a thing to prevent even the most radical rule/law being passed in session.

        But wait, we have an even better way, our Father has prepared for every emergency!

        Reply
  5. > “True unity will not be achieved based on voted policies, but rather through our spirit of “Christlike forbearance,” as Ellen White counsels us to do. ‘The church may pass resolution upon resolution to put down all disagreement of opinions, but we cannot force the mind and will and thus root out disagreement. These resolutions may conceal the discord, but they cannot quench it and establish a perfect agreement. Nothing can perfect unity in the church but the spirit of Christlike forbearance.’ (MS 24, 1892)” <

    Forbearance here can be interpreted in one of two ways:
    1. Continuing to look the other way while portions of the church continue to stubbornly act in opposition to church policy as duly voted in worldwide GC session, or
    2. Forbearing to perform an action which one may personally feel is OK, even desirable, but which is not in conformance with such church policy.

    I believe it is the latter variety of forbearance which would result in perfect unity in the church.

    Reply
  6. What would help clarify matters for the world church is whether the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE trully represents MIDDLE AMERICA ADVENTISM. Can we trully have that put to a vote in a constituency meeting!? Is there a mechanism for the MEMBERSHIP to be heard on this? One is tempted to consider the possibility of the Executive pushing an agenda to which the membership are not privy and which has never been put to a constituency vote. One has to be impressed by the ingenious and ingenuous appeal to the sacred principles of PROTESTANTISM to support war with the same. What could be more at war with the cause of truth in the world than to establish traditions that have no foundation in scripture but have clear spiritualistic origins and bring in among God’s people the anti Christ spirit of “INSURBODINATION” AND FAMINISM to disorganize us in power struggles at a time we need unity the most.

    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

*