BREAKING: North Pacific Union Votes to Cancel Ordination Constituency Session

In a perfect world we would all agree on the way to define important words such as “delegated authority”, responsibility" and accountability.
Authority is the legal right of person or superior to command his subordinates while accountability is the obligation of individual to carry out his duties as per standards of performance. Authority flows from the superiors to subordinates,in which orders and instructions are given to subordinates to complete the task. It is only through authority, a GC President exercises control. In a way through exercising the control the superior is demanding accountability from subordinates. If Brother Ted W.directs the Union President to cancel or postpone a meeting, then it has to be done.
Therefore, we can say that authority flows from top to bottom and responsibility flows from bottom to top. Accountability is a result of responsibility and responsibility is result of authority. Therefore, for every authority an equal accountability is attached.
Responsibility is very important. Therefore, it is that which gives effectiveness to authority. At the same time, responsibility is absolute and cannot be shifted. Accountability, on the others hand, is the obligation of the individual to carry out his duties as per the standards of performance. Therefore, it is said that authority is delegated, responsibility is created and accountability is imposed. Accountability arises out of responsibility and responsibility arises out of authority. Therefore, it becomes important that with every authority position an equal and opposite responsibility should be attached.

I believe there are three kinds of power:

  1. Power of position (the weakest form)
  2. Power to decide after considering input
  3. Delegated power

Sadly, I see Ted Wilson using #1. That will work for just so long until those who give him power, constituencies, rise up and say, “Enough”! My perception is that he is doing nothing to heal and protect this denomination and creating discord. Thus, I personally consider him a failed leader.

Sadly, our Union Conference presidents are faced with confrontation and likely loss of job if they don’t submit. So I expect that a constituency somewhere will exercise the courage: the Pacific Union, somewhere in Western Europe?


@JaredWright I think it would be useful if Spectrum would do a little research on the existing structure of the SDA Church. Someone posted here on one of the threads a copy of GC policy on dissolution of subsidiaries such as Unions. However, that is meaningless without understanding how the entities themselves are structured and what their bylaws state. What is the actual legal status of say the NPUC? Is it an independent non-profit corporation established in WA State, or is it a wholly owned subsidiary of say the NAD, a Maryland non-profit corp for example (or whatever NAD in turn is). What is the legal status then of the Upper Columbia Conference, Oregon Conference, etc that are under the NPUC? Are they independent non-profit corporations, in their respective States, or wholly owned subsidiaries of the NPUC? If they are not wholly owned subsidiaries then do the bylaws of the “lower” organizations cede authority (at least of specific functions) to the “higher” organizations? The bylaws of the NPUC for example will have an article on dissolution. Will that article cede power to the NAD or GC, or at a minimum enable that as one mechanism for dissolution, i.e. the NPUC might also retain power of dissolution for other reasons.

I went searching to see if any such info is on the website of the NPUC, but I can’t find any links. It would be nice to have a link of the bylaws of these various entities so members could read them. One would assume the Church has some standard boilerplate for entity bylaws and that there is some degree of consistency between them, including consistent treatment of hierarchy.

I once served on the board of a scientific non-profit corporation that at some point in their history had set up a controlling foundation. The bylaws of the foundation claimed to control certain functions of the non-profit corp (including dissolution) , but they had never revised the bylaws of the corp to reflect that it was controlled by the external foundation. Those bylaws had no mention whatsoever of this external foundation. When I pointed out to the BoD that the foundation actually had ZERO control of the corp. due to the fact that they hadn’t bothered to cede such authority in the corp bylaws, there was much scratching of heads, because they had had a Lawyer setup the foundation and draft its bylaws. I pointed out that I could setup an LLC and claim to control General Motors, but that doesn’t in fact give me control of General Motors.

People have been discussing from a theological perspective what the structure of the Church is, but it is the legal structure of the entities and what their bylaws state that actually determines things. The Church needs to make sure that the legal status and the corresponding controlling documents for all entities are consistent for whatever the desired structure is.

EDIT: Jared I should note that I’m most interested in the structure in the USA. Obviously a deep dive in the world wide church is more complex because entities in other countries would have to reflect laws in those countries. China might be an interesting one there, as I suspect they limit control by external bodies over internal Chinese entities. So just a recap of the legal status of entities in the USA from GC down to Conferences would be nice, with links to pdfs of their bylaws, so that members can actually understand the relationships.

I should note also that there is one lever that I think has a well documented history of legal enforcement by the GC and that is control of the trademark “Seventh-day Adventist” SDA, etc. I believe this trademark is owned by the GC and as such only entities in good standing (per the GC administration?) can use this trademark. That might be one back handed approach to dissolution that the GC has, assuming they have actually failed to correctly structure subsidiaries for GC control, something I suspect might actually be the case.

Control of subsidiaries is accomplished in general by either controlling the assets (owning >50% of shares in a corp for example) or by some other means of controlling the BoD, in which case you can appoint Directors who will advance your agenda. But my limited understanding of the Church structure is that Unions on down are controlled by their constituents, and the GC has no effective control of electing officers, and the assets are owned by these independent corporations, and the GC does not own the assets. So I think there is effectively no control of the Unions by the GC, other than trademark enforcement.

If this is actually the case, then our Church structure is essentially not a hierarchy and this does have theological implications. We are a Union of like minded groups, that may diverge over time. Of course the like minded groups can always choose to value uniformity even with the existing structure, but the structure itself doesn’t provide any mechanism to ensure that outcome. Such a structure is not compatible with a creedal church, which of course, historically SDAs were not, but they are becoming so, and it precludes any direct mechanism of enforcing a creed, or changing the Church to be creedal.

If it is desired to alter the structure, it must come from each independent entity, choosing to revise its own bylaws and status to cede control to a hierarchy. That could easily be done via constituency meetings of each entity, and this would transform the Church into a structure compatible with how the GC is currently attempting to run things.

It would be helpful if Spectrum could at least throw some light on what actually exists.


Thank you for the suggestion. While time constraints tend to dictate which in-depth stories are being explored at any given time, the recommendation is a good one.


The document is provided in full at the end of this article:

Ted Wilson:

Dear Colleagues: The authority for setting the criteria for ordination is not delegated since that is the purview of the world church as outlined in GC WP L 35 and voted on by world representation at Annual Council.

…This fully-researched policy and historical review document by the GC Secretriat…

…this carefully-researched document from GC Secretariat…

…Total Member Involvement…

Ted Wilson Statement to Clarify the Vote Regarding Women’s Ordination:

Now, there are additional policies and provisions that have been voted by the Annual Council and have been accepted, whether people agree with them or not, they are there. The vote on Wednesday did not have anything to do specifically with women being ordained as local elders. Now, people may have differing opinions on that particular subject, but the vote on Wednesday was not pertaining to that, neither was it pertaining to anything in policy regarding commissioned ministers.

"It is very clear that it is intended that men be ordained."


Annual Council reaffirms General Conference Committee Action that women might be ordained as local elders.

Maybe discretion is the better part of valor for NPU.

Ted Wilson drew a distinct line in the sand with his reference to “authority” and that “fully-researched” and “carefully-researched” document, and his statement on about how “very clear” it is that it is “intended that men be ordained.”

What part of “back off” could any Union not understand?

I suppose there could be a class action suit. But the GC owns the Seventh-day Adventist brand, and they have closed churches and put people in jail over it. Good luck with taking them to court. They have the money to wait out your money, probably.

And, I’ve said this before…Adventist women, do you really want to be part of the Adventist hierarchy?

Also, it might be good to keep an eye on Annual Council happenings. I have a feeling that any kind of ordination for women is going to be targeted as soon as it’s deemed prudent.

Listen to Doug Batchelor, Steven Bohr, and Jay Gallimore talk on this video I recently posted:

ASI: Batchelor, Bohr & Gallimore

It seems from that video that extremist Adventism, with its 3ABN right arm, is now onboard with Christian Nationalism and the whole Gothard-type headship political juggernaut platform (think: the Duggars…and me, times millions). This is grim. And now normative, it appears.

I just wanted to say watch your back because it’s coming down the road, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

1 Like

Constitution and Bylaws of one of the PUC Local Conferences

Bylaws of the PUC

This corporation shall be known as the PACIFIC UNION CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, hereinafter known as the Union, an entity of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. The Union is a nonprofit religious corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the California Nonprofit Religious Corporation law exclusively for religious purposes. The Union is organized exclusively for religious purposes within the meaning of Section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (or the corresponding section of any future United States internal revenue law) (the “Code”). Notwithstanding any other provision of these articles, the Union shall not, except to an insubstantial degree, engage in any activities or exercise any powers that are not in furtherance of the purposes of the Union, and the Union shall not carry on any other activities not permitted to be carried on (1) by a corporation exempt from federal income taxes under Section 501©(3) of the Code; or (2) by a corporation, contributions to which are deductible under Section 170©(2) of the Code.
Note article 4,
The membership of this Union Conference shall consist of such local conferences and missions … This Union Conference in session shall be entitled to dissolve any Mission and to take control of the assets

i.e. can’t dissolve a local conference
Note article 30
The dissolution of this Conference may be effected by a three-fourths vote of the delegates present
and voting, at any regular or extraordinary session of this Conference, provided that, if it is
proposed to dissolve this Conference at an extraordinary session, notice of the proposal to dissolve
shall be given in the call for an extraordinary session.
is an example of a mission showing it can be dissolved by the UC

1 Like