NPUC Gleaner Urges Non-Compliance

The Gleaner is the Union paper of the North Pacific Union in the North American Division, and is funded by Seventh-day Adventists in conferences in Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana.

The March 2017 Gleaner carried an editorial penned by editor Steve Vistaunet on page 4 titled "Protest."

The editor's twelve paragraphs come in three segments. The first describes his protest against his mother's "totalitarian" decisions when he was four years old.  But "some protests are far more worthy," and "confront us with moral choices that cannot be compromised."

And so, in the next segment he quotes from Ellen White's discussion of the protest of the princes, who exclaim, "If we must choose between the Holy Scriptures of God and the old errors of the church, we should reject the former."  Vistaunet adds, "Rejecting compromise, the princes instead drafted a solemn response that declared they would not 'consent nor adhere in any manner whatever to the proposed decree in anything that is contrary to God, to his Word, to our right conscience, or to the salvation of souls.'" 

These lines prepare the reader for the final segment:

"Union conference presidents in North America have been summoned by world church leaders to seek a way through a maze of principles, politics, and policies.  The health of our collective unity hangs in the balance.  What could the princes of long ago teach us by example?"

The author concludes desiring that the Church "move beyond the status-quo and be fully re-engaged with our Father's business."

Later in the same Gleaner we find another article featuring an interview with the new NPUC president, titled "John Freedman: A Prayerful Journey" (pp. 8-11). (Freedman, while chairman of the Washington Conference executive committee spearheaded that Conference's adoption of its present non-compliant commissioned minister policy). Freedman says this about the NAD stance toward our world church:

I'm working closely with union presidents from around the North American Division (NAD) and our NAD leadership to determine how we can most effectively support our world church structure. We had a thoughtful meeting with world leaders on January 19. We hope to draft our vision for a suggested way forward to deal productively with the issues of governance that will be reviewed by the NAD administration and approved by the NAD executive committee before being presented to General Conference officers. These are important steps. Our church is not designed to be run by a few people at any level. It is a collective effort involving the priesthood of all believers in doing God's will in every corner of our world. I hope we'll soon be able to move beyond these current concerns so that all of us---male, female, young and old---can fully be about our Father's business" (p. 11).

Wait a moment!  It is because the church is not "to be run by a few people at any level" that the Church has addressed the question as it has. The spirit of the women's ordination faction put itself on display in unilateral action by conferences and unions in North America which disregarded the previous decisions of the church.  And so, the world church engaged in a study process and handed the ordination question--yet again--to thousands of delegates to the San Antonio 2015 General Conference session.

This was the third time that delegates to our highest earthly decision-making body have been asked to address questions whose outcome would open or close the door for women to be ordained.  On those three occasions, the answer has been No, No, and No, respectively.  Can anyone call to mind any topic the world church has addressed so many times?  

No comparable issue has been brought before so many Adventists in the history of the Church, or received so consistent an answer.  God has spoken to His people, first in the Scriptures, and then patiently, in session after session of the General Conference.

If we would speak of decisions impacting the whole body made by but a few people, we need look no farther than to the insubordinate decisions of conferences and unions and executive committees which have defied their God and His Church.  God has, through the Body, given the same decision again and again: "No" to the practice of women's ordination to the gospel ministry.

The "governance issues" Freedman speaks of are not complicated.  If the ordination of women was insubordinate before San Antonio, afterward, it is positively rebellious.  Leadership in the North American Division is in rebellion.  If these leaders wish to advance with mission and "move beyond" these concerns, the only way to do so is to accept the decision of the world church: No to the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.

Rather than inciting NAD leaders to rebel against their world church, or insinuating that our General Conference leadership's humble request to these entities to respect the decisions of the world church is equivalent to the Papal suppression of truth and religious liberty, the Gleaner editor and union leaders should submit their contrarian agenda to the decision of the body.  Rather than drawing a line of conscience in the sand and claiming the mantle of heroic progressives, won't you respect the combined decision of delegates gathered from across the globe, a decision you are called and conscientiously bound to uphold?

The NPUC leadership, if these two articles offer any indication, is bent on pushing the women's ordination agenda even to the point of fracturing the Church.  What extraordinary shame.
It will not stand.

 

See more here
NOTE: The Gleaner editorial, "Protest" is available online here

The interview of John Freedman from which we quote can be read here

We also noticed that the editor asked Freedman "How have you addressed the concerns of your Northwest constituents about these issues, and the president made no reply about his constituents other than he wanted them to "move beyond these current concerns."  The reply is not surprising and is consistent with the tone of the constituency meeting which elected Freedman, in which concerns about his nomination as union president were repeatedly suppressed.