I don’t find the author’s arguments to be compelling. Note: I support WO. However I find that in general people who support WO cite evidence that bolsters their viewpoint, while those who don’t cite different supporting and evidence and neither side is willing to concede that this is not about evidence, it’s about opinion.
The author cited the following: “B 50 05 Lines of Responsibility.
2. Union Conferences/Missions – Union Conferences/missions are responsible to the respective division section of which they are a part, and are administered in harmony with the operating policies of the General Conference and of the division.”
He also cited: “B 15 05 Authoritative Administrative Voice of the Church…It is, therefore, the authoritative voice of the church in all matters pertaining to the mission and to the administration of the work of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in all parts of the world”
He then cited other passages to note that Unions have the authority to ordain and from that draws the conclusion that the GC is exercising undue authority over the Unions in the manner of women’s ordination.
Mr. Tyner suggests that the GC argues that it’s policy does not mean what it says. That is Mr. Tyner’s opinion. The GC would argue that statements like “Unions must operate in harmony with the GC” and “that it is the Authoritative Body” mean that based on the San Antonio vote, they are correct in that Unions do not have the authority to ordain women (the GC is not arguing that Unions have the authority to ordain. Just not ordain women).
However, the first two passages I copied notes that the Unions are to be in harmony with the GC and that the GC is the authoritative voice. And, the GC in San Antonio voted that the Unions do not have the authority to ordain women.‘’
Since Mr. Tyner is an attorney, I would respectfully suggest that if this was a matter of a court of law, that the court would find that the GC acted within it’s authority to restrict the Union’s blanket authority in the matter of ordination of women.
However, I also think it’s possible that a similar court of law would find that the since the GC allows commission of women pastors (and ordaining of women elders) and that the duties between commissioned and ordained pastors are functionally similar except the following (commissioned pastors cannot: 1. Preside over business meetings involving member discipline. 2. Commissioned pastors cannot ordain elders, deacons or deaconesses and they can’t organize churches 3. Cannot serve as Conference Presidents - because it requires ordination to be a President), that therefore a court of law would find that women are being unfairly discriminated against without merit since the items they are not allowed to do are within the scope of women’s abilities. Meaning that the GC will allow women to serve as pastors but not as ordained pastors when there is functionally no difference between the two positions, and that is a matter of discrimination against women. A court may be reluctant to step into a religious dispute, but that doesn’t mean the GC is in the right.
This issue will not go away.