CAP/NPUC Supporting Pastors questions and responses

Question:
How strongly do you think NPUC administrative leaders support Women’s Ordination?
Answer:
Our sense is that here in the NPUC, advocates of WO external to the direct administrative team have been primary in pressing for action. We trust and are praying for our union leadership. We feel that we are showing very strong support for them by upholding the world church’s call to unity and the Theology of Ordination study process already embarked upon by the General Conference. We invite Seventh-day Adventists throughout Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Upper Columbia, Idaho, and Montana conferences to pray for and support these precious leaders. They are the Lord’s anointed. Their work is much more difficult than most realize.

Question:
Why is unity so important?
Answer:
The Seventh-day Adventist Church is not like other churches. We have been called to give a distinct, Bible-based message. As a church we are organized in such a way that all are accountable to each other. We are no mere localized body but conduct a work of worldwide extent. We seek the counsel of heaven and work according to the system of polity Jesus has set up.
The churches and conferences and unions and divisions are intertwined; we work together. If a conference or a union can go its own way regardless of the expressed decision of the world church, then why cannot a pastor or a church or a member within a local church go his/her own way? When the cells in a body stop cooperating with each other, it brings disease or even death.
When a union takes unilateral action, in the words of the General Conference, making “a demonstration of self-determination in a matter previously decided by the collective Church,” we regard this as nothing less than rebellion. “They directly challenge two world Church decisions on the matter of ordination.” “They create doubts about the importance of collective decision-making as a basic feature of denominational life.” “They weaken the fabric of Church life. . .” All these are statements by our General Conference leadership referring to the actions of Columbia and Pacific Unions. They are proceeding “along a pathway that directly conflicts with the expressed will of the worldwide Church.” Again, we concur with the senior spiritual leaders in God’s Church: “A course of action contrary to the will of the whole places the organization at risk” (All of the above quoted statements originate in the October 16, 2012 “Statement of Church Polity, procedures and resolution of disagreements in the light of recent union actions on ministerial ordination” voted by the 2012 Annual Council of the General Conference, passed 264 in favor, 25 opposed).
The above language of our church leaders is neither superficial nor incidental. It is very carefully chosen wording and represents where we are. We are come to a crossroads. This is language of impending separation unless Columbia and Pacific unions relent. The unity of the North Pacific Union with the world Seventh-day Adventist Church is placed at risk by the pathway recently embarked upon in the NPUC. Should the NPUC align with Columbia and Pacific Unions, this Union could find itself joining them in separation after a decision they (Columbia and Pacific) cannot abide in the 2015 General Conference Session. This is precisely why the question of Women’s Ordination is explosive—and unity so important.

Question:
Why don’t you direct all of your responses through the Gleaner?
Answer:
In 1997, North American Division voted to recommend the use of the union papers (The Gleaner is one of nine) as vehicles promoting a pro-Women’s Ordination position. The report recommended that the union papers publish multiple articles favorable to WO, that “advocacy for women in ministry be channeled through the union papers,” that NAD materials be “monitored and audited” for “compliance with a gender-inclusive model of ministry,” “that the NAD produce and endorse only gender-inclusive resource materials,” and so on (The items above are found in “President’s Commission on women in Ministry—Report” (1997), items XIII, A. i, ii, B. i, ii, available in our “Resources” section of this site). None of us can recall even one article opposing Women’s Ordination being published in the Gleaner.
Action through other union papers confirms our concerns. For example, the July 2012 Pacific Union Recorder promoted not two contrasting views but exactly one view: pro-WO. No different ideas were allowed. In July 2012, the theme of the entire issue of the Columbia Union Visitor was to openly advocate for Women’s Ordination. No forum for any opposing view was provided.
The January 2013 Gleaner reports on the renewed presentation of WO appearing there, stating that “. . . such a change in current practice [for the church to ordain women] would no doubt be a significant cultural shift for some members.” The Gleaner asked “concerned” members to send in their comments (p. 4). Here then, before the current “discussion” has really started, the issue of WO is already portrayed by the editor as merely a matter of culture. What’s more, those who favor WO know that those who oppose it do so on the basis of what they see as its failure to comport with the teaching of Scripture—a completely different argument, and the singular basis for virtually all opposition to Women’s Ordination in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Gleaner staff may not concur with that assessment, but they demonstrate bias for their private opinion when they frame the discussion so that the opposite view is demeaned.
Add to this that the Ad Hoc Committee on Women in Leadership was formed without including any participants substantially opposed to WO. Nor has the Gleaner yet found anyone to write an article opposing WO although, as can be seen by the list of NPUC supporting pastors, we exist; we are not difficult to find. Articles have already been submitted but not published. Indeed, there has been no response from the Gleaner.
Considering the above, there should be no surprise. We are not directing our main responses to the Gleaner at this time. The evidence so far suggests that such a discussion might be nothing more than a fake dialogue. We would be pleased to be shown otherwise in a sustained and concrete manner. Until then, it is not our purpose to legitimize a process which, by what we have seen so far, may be intended, at least by some, to be predetermined. We offer the materials published on OrdinationTruth.com to the reader as alternative resources.

Question:
Do all the NPUC supporting pastors hold identical positions about WO?
Answer:
No. Some have chosen to be NPUC Supporting Pastors because they resonate strongly with the unity question. Others find no serious support for WO in the Scriptures. Many feel strongly about both. We have not sought to harmonize every idea expressed on OrdinationTruth.com; this site represents a variety of viewpoints. Under the “About us” menu you will find material where we are in at least rough agreement with each other; in the individual articles published or that will be published, individual opinions are sometimes expressed with which some among us may not fully agree. WE ALL FULLY AGREE that what happened in Columbia and Pacific Unions, or anything like what happened, must not happen in the North Pacific Union.

Question:
Who are the leaders of OrdinationTruth.com and the NPUC supporting pastors?
Answer:
Review the list. We are all pastors serving or who have served Jesus through His Seventh-day Adventist Church. Among ourselves we have appointed no particular leaders; we look to the guidance of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a world body. We look to all our duty-bound overseers, from our conferences, to our union, our division, and General Conference leadership. We seek to work in consensus with each other and the world church. We are united in accepting and sustaining the collective decision-making authority of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in General Conference session.

Question:
Have you given thought to how some might be wounded by your stating your position?
Answer:
Others have stated their position; others have started this conversation. We want to love others as Jesus loves them. We have been invited to have this discussion, and expect that in our having been so requested, unless that request be inauthentic, is included the desire for us to respond with our actual views. We wish neither to wound nor be wounded.
Many of us understand that the pre-Fall creation order included gender-specific role differentiation. Such differentiation would not be modified by redemption, since it is innate within the created order. Hence, it continues, divinely intended for our happiness as God’s creatures today. Resistance to this order, or our setting it aside, would be a rejection of our Creator just as rejection of His created order with reference to the week and the Sabbath would be a rejection. All our ideals must be subject to the Word, even anticipations of justice, egalitarianism, and entitlement. God’s Word is always the corrective, and we must bow before its ultimate rightness. There are no privileged positions before God’s Word.

Question:
Should you pastors not be busy baptizing people, and leave the administrating and the policy and the theologizing to administrators and policy-makers and theologians? Are you not distracted?
Answer:
We have been busy baptizing those prepared to follow Jesus. We continue to do so. The issue of WO has not been a dominating theme for us. Unfortunately, the question of WO has now been thrust upon this Union, and yes, it is a distraction. Hours and energy that otherwise would have been more directly invested in soul-winning must now be spent to better understand these questions and reiterate the necessity of unity with the world church.
The call to conduct a special constituency meeting of the NPUC was a mistake. We serve on the front lines. We know our members. We understand what the adamant pro-WO faction within NPUC may not—that no strong consensus to ordain women to serve in primary leadership roles exists within the NPUC. Meetings at union constituencies, and the outcomes some situations can produce, do not change on-the-ground realities in the field. Membership in the church is voluntary and personal and financial support is effectively just as voluntary. In such a setting, legislating Women’s Ordination without a depth of consensus is perilous.
The radicalization of WO advocacy in the past two years has changed the situation. First, there was disordered leadership at the NAD level and the E 60 debacle. Then came extraordinary independent action by Columbia and Pacific Unions, action outside the counsel of the world church. Within the NPUC, motions were passed, committees created, papers written, and a decision made to schedule a special constituency meeting of the NPUC. Pro-WO papers were published in the Gleaner, and finally in January, non pro-WO views were labeled as issuing from a fear of cultural change.
Only now have we responded. Only after the radicalization of a pro-WO faction whose actions threaten to place at risk the relationship between the NPUC and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, only now—at last—have we acted. We reject the argument that we have moved precipitously or that—at this stage of the situation—we are misspending our energies. We admit that an argument could be made that we have acted too slowly. When administrators, policy-makers, and theologians operate within the scope of our shared mission and Bible-based vision as a church, we are glad to work side-by-side with them. But when private personal agendas bring results as seen in 2012 in Columbia and Pacific Unions, for the safety of this vineyard, we act.

Question:
The world church has invited unions to have input on the WO question. Why then stop NPUC from offering such input?
Answer:
We do not oppose having a fairly-conducted conversation about Women’s Ordination within the NPUC. So far, only one-side of the question has been published through official channels. Are pro-WO advocates in the NPUC really interested in conversation?
In any case, the November 2012 action by NPUC goes further than initiating a conversation. It promotes a particular view, it mandates a discussion, and it primes the pumps for a union-level constituency meeting to vote on and enact an official union position in favor of “ordination without regard to gender.” All this, while in 2012 Columbia and Pacific Unions acted similarly, opposing leadership and opposing their brothers and sisters in the world church. The leaders of the world church asked unions not to take similar kinds of actions at this time.
In this light, the action of the NPUC Executive Committee in November 2012 was a mistake. We invite the administration of the NPUC to abide by the urgent counsel of the leaders on October 16, 2012: “General Conference Session decisions (1990 and 1995) did not authorize ministerial ordination without regard to gender, either globally or regionally. Any change in this practice requires action by a General Conference Session.” And, we remind every NPUC member of the appeal the leaders June 29: “That until such time as the Church decides otherwise, your union refrains from taking any action to implement ministerial ordination practices that are contrary to the 1990 and 1995 General Conference Session actions.”
The world church is explicitly opposed to unilateral action by unions. In this light we stand with the world church. NPUC must act neither unilaterally nor defiantly. We are part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. We act side-by-side with our brothers and sisters in this world church and appeal to the leaders of the NPUC to do the same.

Question:
What if the Seventh-day Adventist Church votes to approve the ordination of women in the 2015 General Conference session?
Answer:
We would do just what Samuel did when Israel wrongly voted for a king. We would respect the decision of the General Conference. We would cease to make an issue of this topic, and do our best to prevent division in the church. Ordination has urgent ramifications; are we following God’s order or making up a human one? But Ordination is not the Sabbath, Creation, the State of the Dead or the Sanctuary message—pillars of God’s movement for which we would go to war were even one pin removed.