Thank God. Your focus is on your mission in your geographical region.
Thank God for your faithfulness and courage!
In my opinion, the Pacific Union Conference would be better to remain committed to God’s right to chose which individuals of either gender shall be in pastoral leadership while distinguishing this from the wrong-headed assertion of their right to ordain women and men equally.
What I plead for is to develop ways of affirming blessing and consecrating pastoral leaders of both genders equally without taking the additional leap of believing that ordaining women is the sole way to achieve that.
The experience of the Norwegian Union of Churches has proved otherwise. They have ceased to use the ‘Ordination’ word, and concept, while at the same time providing a common credential and at an appropriate time having a rite of the laying on of hands at a time, when the individual of either gender has given full proof of their calling into pastoral leadership.
This to me seems a wise and wholly Biblical way to avoid the arguments over ordination while at the same time being able to affirm, bless and consecrate all pastoral leaders.
I would go a step further, and issue a common credential to all individuals who by the rite of the laying on of hands are authorized to serve as deacons and elders. This would go a long way toward breaking down the middle wall of petition between the so called laity and the clergy. I just do not accept that the Bible authorizes the creation of a ‘headship’ class, the clergy, ruling over the lowly ‘laity’.
Good for the PUC! Thank you for your stand.
'while the ministry of the church is local. We are resolved in our continued commitment to ordain women and men equally".
I am troubled by this stated “commitment” as a potential political or cultural agenda, that will include quotas, the likes of which we have many bad examples in the last half century of history in the US.
Should not this comitment be to ordain the “best qualified” individual,not only academically but most importantly spiritually, regardless of gender, color, Etc?
What are you talking about? This statement doesn’t profess anything about quotas; it says straightforwardly that men and women will be considered equally for ordination. That means that they do not use gender as a disqualification for ordination. Plain and simple. Of course, the intent is to ordain qualified individuals to the ministry of spiritual leadership.
All this in 60 words or less!
At this time Pacific Union is NOT concerned with Semantics of TITLES of their Pastors
on their Employment Records.
What is being said is – BOTH men and women are allowed to be chosen as Pastors
with no distinction between them. All will have the same titles – at this time ORDAINED.
As a member in the Union since 1974 You have my support.
Do you always read political statements, which is what this is, in a simple manner or only when you are already in favor of it?
George, this isn’t a political statement (as YOU are reading it); it’s a statement of continuance of their mission strategy–using people blessed by the Holy Spirit to serve.
A political statement would state an intention to shut out people from service to their church.
Pure and simple.
I will ignore your insulting implication that I read statements “in a simple manner.”
The state of being dedicated to a cause, activity, etc.
An agreement/promise to do something in the future.
Commitment is what Transforms the Promise into reality.
I am a bit lost here, If there are three candidates for one position, only one will get it. The statement is all about ensuring that the best person for the role will secure it, not about whether there is balance in gonads. All candidates have an equal chance based on merit.
We clearly have different opinions on what this statement is and what it may be saying; some of it is likely due to personal / emotional commitment about this issue, but considering primarily the issue at hand, which is arguably more cultural than biblical, as well as the times and society in which we live, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
So proud of Pacific Union! May God continue to guide and bless.
We can certainly agree to disagree. God’s blessings on you, George.
Well, that was for the “other George.” I bet he is a “fake” George… LOL - @gdavidovic
Yes, Harrpa, I am proud of my PUC. Not intimidated by the KGC! But focusing on the mission!!!
I applaud this assertive statement from the PUC.
However, it is mere bluster and bravado in the face of GC bullying, unless they do more than issue pious platitudes.
Vigorous legal action,employing the best attorneys that money can buy should be used to consolidate their constituency as a distinct separate entity.from the GC, with as much independence as possible.
Especially as it pertains to the retention of locally derived funds.to be used within the local churches and conferences.
Ordination to the Gospel ministry with diverse gifts is of God and not any man, council, policy or vote. Once this is fully recognized by the entire church, we will all be in compliance with the Gospel and can be truly united without coercion.
Powerful statement . . . three sentences . . . 61 words!! And the PUC keeps moving on. Thank you Elder Graham and PUC Officers.
I agree with that. There is no need to inflame the furor of those determined to forbid the ordination of women. There are still so many in our church that do not have an understanding of ordination that is in harmony with the teachings of Jesus. Better to refrain from the use of the word and simply credential everyone regardless of gender.
The downside to this, I suppose, is that this practice will perpetuate male headship proponents in conference administration as only ordained clergy members are allowed to serve as administrative officers the church. By credentialing everyone, we will not only be disqualifying women for those positions, but we would also be disqualifying the men who would be sympathetic to the idea of women serving in those positions.