SooutheasternCalifornia elects female Conference President.

[CyberGuy]

This open letter is a response to the statement from the General Conference Executive Officers regarding the election of Sandra Roberts as Southeastern California Conference President.

General Conference Executive Officers,

I am a pastor and was a delegate at the Southeastern California Conference Constituency Session where I voted for Sandra Roberts to be our conference president. I knew that this decision would be controversial and disapproved of by General Conference leadership.

What I did not expect was the General Conference Executive Officers choosing to frame the issue in terms of who is, and is not, being led by the Holy Spirit. The third paragraph of the official statement clearly reveals this framing and reads as follows:

“Working Policy, which is the recording of our agreements as to how we will work together to do the Lord’s work and mission, serves as one of the practical unifying agents that the Holy Spirit uses to bind the church together. Policy is not inflexible. It can be changed but it reflects the understanding of the collective group, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. When personal convictions are placed ahead of the collective policy decisions of the worldwide church, troubling precedents are set. God works in an orderly way and wishes His church to exemplify this sanctified behavior through the power of the Holy Spirit. Humility and submission to God for the good of the church body as outlined in the Word of God and the Spirit of Prophecy are fundamental Biblical principles for the benefit of the church.”

I have no problem with you disagreeing with the decision we made. However, you have chosen not just to disagree with our decision, but to question our Christian experience altogether. It is clear you believe that you are being led by the Holy Spirit, and we are not. The Holy Spirit is referenced three times in that paragraph to describe current policy but our decision is just a “personal conviction.” Also, the suggestion is made that we acted in an unsanctified manner.

You are choosing to use the Holy Spirit in a manipulative way which is entirely unacceptable for any religious group (particularly one which you repeatedly state has a special calling) to impose on its members. You have placed yourself in a position of judging our characters and convictions.

You tell us that we need to act in “submission to God for the good of the church body.” I guess the GC working policy and/or Executive Officers are “God” in this case? Certainly the way you are acting leads me to believe you view yourselves in this way. You are determining who is led by the Holy Spirit. You are deciding who is sanctified. You are deciding who needs to submit and how. In my reading of Scripture, God alone has this authority. I guess we should add an amendment to Scripture that states the General Conference Executive Officers of the Adventist church also can do this.

Let me state wholeheartedly that I did vote out of personal conviction. However, my life’s goal is for the Holy Spirit to be the source of my personal convictions. In this case, I believe the Holy Spirit led me to my vote for Sandy Roberts.

Please take a few moments to consider that we might have been led by the Holy Spirit to make our decision. Please, just take some time to reflect on that possibility.

I also want to clearly state that while I strongly disagree with your position, I would never question your commitment to God or desire to be led by the Holy Spirit. I trust that you have been praying about the issue, as have I.

So, how do we move forward?

My ultimate dream is that church leadership would actually abide by Fundamental Belief #14 which states:

The church is one body with many members, called from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. In Christ we are a new creation; distinctions of race, culture, learning, and nationality, and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation. Through the revelation of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures we share the same faith and hope, and reach out in one witness to all. This unity has its source in the oneness of the triune God, who has adopted us as His children.

If the church abided by this belief, women would no longer be discriminated against and this would not be an issue. However, if you are going to choose to discriminate based on gender, I would ask that you revise this fundamental belief at the GC Session in 2015 and add this statement to the end: “This fundamental belief applies in all cases except in regards to women in ministry.”

If that is not the path you choose, Paul, in Romans 14, gives us some principles to follow. There were honest believers on both sides of contentious church issues including food and observance of special days. He allows for there to be differences of opinion and practice on these very important issues of that time. His conclusions are fairly simple and would do us well moving forward. His message is simple: We each have to live based upon our personal convictions because we are individually accountable to God (vs 10-12; 23). We should avoid judging others, particularly those who disagree with us, and ensure we don’t place stumbling blocks in their way (vs 13).

I hope you will reconsider the attitudes which underly this message, apologize for the accusatory nature of this official statement, and trust that we are seeking the Holy Spirit’s leading as much as you are.

Trevan Osborn is Pastor for Young Adults at the Azure Hills Seventh-day Adventist Church in California.

[ClubV12]

Having dealt with a few folks deeply immersed in false doctrine, claiming to be Seventh-day Adventists, I come to the conclusion this type of delusion is extremely difficult to escape. Sister White comments lead me to believe she feels the same. That once you enter into this kind of delusion, few are able to recover. And they remain scarred to some degree for life.

They to use the same expressions we hear so often in this debate, they are being led by the Holy Spirit. Both sides of an army fighting each other typically ask for Gods blessing. Quit blaming God for your problems and take a little personal responsibility. It's not always His fault or His guiding that got you into whatever mess you find yourself in. YOU built that.

At it's essence, those who committ to the belief that the Adventist Church is "Babylon", have removed their membership and are actively fighting against the Church, are in rebellion. Refusing to acknowledge the authority of the Church, the local Pastor, Church Board, Conference and on up. Typically their efforts are aimed at what they call the "lost sheep of the house of Israel". That is, anybody who is current a member or just attending an Adventist Church. Some actively make a call to "come out". MOST have learned to be more discreet and operate in the shadows. The cloak of "sheeps clothing" is thus superior to those more easily discovered.

In biblical times rebellion was dealt with by death, in most cases, with a few rare exceptions. It is like the sin of witchcraft because few escape that! Pride is the primary problem. Once you've staked out your position, preached it, believed it, urged others to accept it, how can you face the public humiliation of confessing your mistake? Most can't, they continue in to ever increasing darkness. Even if they do escape, deep scars remain, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for them to EVER achieve the full status and responsibilities within the Church they might have once enjoyed.

Rebellion is a powerful delusion, very dangerous, as dangerous as witchcraft, which has a similiar draw. Theres a good reason they are compared one to another.

[CyberGuy]

Club you are hopeless. Your definition of rebellion is if people openly disagree with the church leaders. Even Paul disagreed with church leaders and reprimanded them. Paul Reprimanded Peter when he refused to sit and eat with the Gentiles but went the jews delegations table to eat.

So I guess Paul was in rebellion.

EGW Does mention that women should be pastors if called of God. Nowhere is it said the women are in rebellion.

I get very sick of tired of people demonizing the other sise because they think God and scripture is on their side. I dare say that if the world church ever does ordain women in the future as they have already approved ordination of women as deacons and elders in the church that you will say the church is backsliding and in apostasy.

[ClubV12]

I'm not defining rebellion Cyberguy. Are you feeling a little guilty? Thats not me, look again, and look a little higher.

I am simply pointing out the very grave danger involved with rebellion. If your a "freedom fighter" and all goes well, no problem. If not, BIG problem.

As I have been saying for some time now, choose carefully your position. That position may be defined by how your actions are carried out in the process of finding your way.

[CyberGuy]

I'm not defining rebellion Cyberguy. Are you feeling a little guilty? Thats not me, look again, and look a little higher.

I am simply pointing out the very grave danger involved with rebellion. If your a "freedom fighter" and all goes well, no problem. If not, BIG problem.

As I have been saying for some time now, choose carefully your position. That position may be defined by how your actions are carried out in the process of finding your way.

Last Thursday Oct31 2013 at SECC a prayer meeting was called for all employees who wanted to attend to pray for the Yearend meetings that the spirit of anger would be checked and peace would come in. The Holy spirit and the Spirit of Christ was asked to coming into those meetings.

I would be curious to know if Ted Wilson prayed about that Letter he sent to the Pacific Union President to read to the delegates of SECC at their constituency meeting.

How much real prayer goes into the GC statements they write on their public websites in answer to this vote.

I would be curious to know that.

[ClubV12]

I sense from your various posts a deep seated hatred for Ted Wilson, but I could be wrong. Elder Wilsons prayer life should not be your concern. I would recommend you stay focused on your own.

I hope this is not a manifestation of the delusion that often accompanies a rebellious spirit.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

I'm not defining rebellion Cyberguy. Are you feeling a little guilty? Thats not me, look again, and look a little higher.

I am simply pointing out the very grave danger involved with rebellion. If your a "freedom fighter" and all goes well, no problem. If not, BIG problem.

As I have been saying for some time now, choose carefully your position. That position may be defined by how your actions are carried out in the process of finding your way.

Last Thursday Oct31 2013 at SECC a prayer meeting was called for all employees who wanted to attend to pray for the Yearend meetings that the spirit of anger would be checked and peace would come in. The Holy spirit and the Spirit of Christ was asked to coming into those meetings.

I would be curious to know if Ted Wilson prayed about that Letter he sent to the Pacific Union President to read to the delegates of SECC at their constituency meeting.

How much real prayer goes into the GC statements they write on their public websites in answer to this vote.

I would be curious to know that.

Probably best to not assume that Ted/GC doesn't pray as much as you do....

Rejoice in the truth,

G

[olger]

I sense from your various posts a deep seated hatred for Ted Wilson, but I could be wrong. Elder Wilsons prayer life should not be your concern. I would recommend you stay focused on your own.

I hope this is not a manifestation of the delusion that often accompanies a rebellious spirit.

Indeed, CV. Jesus said that whatever was in the heart of an individual would reveal itself. In three ways.

og out

[CyberGuy]

I sense from your various posts a deep seated hatred for Ted Wilson, but I could be wrong. Elder Wilsons prayer life should not be your concern. I would recommend you stay focused on your own.

I hope this is not a manifestation of the delusion that often accompanies a rebellious spirit.

Since Ted Wilson is the leader of our church I would hope he does pray before he fires off these letters to conference delegates. It seems he did have put much prayful thought into that letter for it was designed to anger people. No love in that message at all. NONE AT ALL.

No deep seated anger. Just anger at the way Ted Wilson seems to bully other leaders Union presidents and NAD Division leaders and conference delegates. The more Ted pushed like that the more the NAD unions will push back. No one likes to be threated and bullied either implied or in actuality.

[ClubV12]

You might want to put the shovel down for a minute, thats a pretty deep hole your digging.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re; Post 674002 Not the one just above this one.

ClubV12, your post seems to indicate that your response is directed at me? (See the heading: Re Gregory Matthews) Is that so? I am not clear as to whether or not you were responding to me. I would appreciate it if you would be clear in the future.

[ClubV12]

Gregory is referring to this post (I'm pretty sure), the last line of which says...

"Rebellion is a powerful delusion, very dangerous, as dangerous as witchcraft, which has a similiar draw. Theres a good reason they are compared one to another."

It's not directed at anyone in particular Gregory, nor any person or group of persons involved with a pro or con position on W.O.

There were a couple of comments in this thread about "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft" and that is true. God recognizes various degrees of sin, each will receive his reward accordingly. In this life as well as the next. It will be left to Him to determine what constitutes rebellion in the sense of witchcraft.

It's a serious issue though, it something all of us need to carefully consider. Is it rebellion, as the sin of witchcraft, if you disagree with the Church board over some issue? Like membership! It could be, depending on how you deal with it, how you react, what actions you take.

Those "headings", they can sure be misleading at times. I don't understand them very well. Eh eh, I just looked at this post, that heading is STILL there, go figure.

[Gregory Matthews]

I thought that I would ask.

[Gregory Matthews]

AS I understand it, the heading comes from where you hit the <reply> icon.

See. I hit the reply icon from a post that you made and not one I made.

[ClubV12]

I see what you mean, now I guess I will have Cyberguy in my heading for awhile!

I THOUGHT I was going to reply to Olger, but he didn't come up.

...go figure...

[CyberGuy]

No no no no no. Enough said for now. Sandy Roberts has her seat in the Year end meetings and she is a voting member. Nothing more to be said for now.

As far as that GC committee studying W.O. I have been told by people at SECC that Ted Wilson has stacked that committee with a majority of people who are anti womens ordination on that committee so we know it will get nowhere.

People like Doug Bachlor who is a known anti womens ordination pastor.

[Green Cochoa]

Greeen said:

Quote:

Bravus,

How far are you willing to go to support the GC? Would you support the GC and/or the world church if it began teaching witchcraft?

Green, do you think that ordaining females is on an equal level to the sin of witchcraft?

Your statment above may lead some people to think that you do.

Yes. I absolutely believe that "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft." The Bible tells us this. ALL ordinations of women up to the present time have been acts of rebellion, for not one of them is authorized by the world church. The one in Sligo is a clear example, just after the 1995 General Conference Session in Utrecht, the Sligo church ordained women anyhow.

The Bible tells us what rebellion is. If ordaining a woman is rebellion, and rebellion is as "witchcraft," does that make those who are thus ordained and/or those who have officiated in such ordinations equivalent to "witches?"

I don't know. One thing I know: The deceptions and delusions of the last days will be STRONG. We are beginning to see and feel them in our church now. Many who are not attentive to what is happening are already deceived and see no wrong in it. This is sad.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

ALL ordinations of women up to the present time have been acts of rebellion, for not one of them is authorized by the world church.

Several people have made this type of statement. It says a lot about how we view God. It suggest that God is not in control but rather the .org. It also suggest that the Holy Spirit does not lead both men and women. I seem to remember something in my Bible about the misrepresentation of God by the ancient religious leaders that Christ came to correct. I think one should be very careful of calling those ordained by God, sinners and equate them with witchcraft.

(I would suggest a rather tall lightening rod....just kidding )

[Green Cochoa]

Quote:

ALL ordinations of women up to the present time have been acts of rebellion, for not one of them is authorized by the world church.

Several people have made this type of statement. It says a lot about how we view God. It suggest that God is not in control but rather the .org. It also suggest that the Holy Spirit does not lead both men and women. I seem to remember something in my Bible about the misrepresentation of God by the ancient religious leaders that Christ came to correct. I think one should be very careful of calling those ordained by God, sinners and equate them with witchcraft.

(I would suggest a rather tall lightening rod....just kidding )

It is the epitome of arrogance and presumption to assume God's Spirit would be leading in the rebellion when by the same Spirit we are told that "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft" and "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Perhaps it would be one thing to "rebel" against the devil, by obeying God, but, then, would we presume to say God's church is of the devil?

God has told us expressly that the highest authority of our church is the General Conference in Session, with delegates from all parts of the world. If we rebel against that, Whom do we dishonor?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[ClubV12]

Few dare to call it what it is, but the actions speak for themself.

Rebellion is the only reasonable conclusion.

Perhaps the question should be:

Is it a GOOD rebellion or a bad one? Luther rebelled, rebellion is the very foundation of protestants. Seventh-day Adventists rebelled and were kicked out of the Sunday keeping Churches. Our whole message is based on rebellion, "Come out of her my people".

On the other hand, Korah rebelled and it cost him and his house their lives.

There are righteous and unrighteous rebellions. HOW you respond to a rebellion may be the deciding factor. Are you glad to see your "opponent" squirm? Do you take joy in your victory knowing your foe has been vanquished? Do you dishonor and ridicule the ones you oppose? Do you scoff at the plain, straight testimony warning you of the dangers?

Choose carefully.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

Quote:

ALL ordinations of women up to the present time have been acts of rebellion, for not one of them is authorized by the world church. The one in Sligo is a clear example, just after the 1995 General Conference Session in Utrecht, the Sligo church ordained women anyhow.

This is a clear example of a misstatement of the facts and/or a twisting of the truth.

1) In the SDA Church, local congregations do not have the authority to ordain clergy. That authority belongs to the Unions.

2) Local congregations have the authority to ordain local Elders.

3) The ordination of the Sligo congregation was only that of a local Elder and that is the only authority that it had.

4) That is exactly what has been done multiple times by local congregations.

5) So, what about an ordination approved by the Union. Well, it is the Union who has the authority to ordain clergy. Any such ordination is a valid ordination of clergy.

6) Would such an ordination be rebellion, if of a female? That depends. It might be? It might not be? This is a point of argument and discussion right now. The basic point here is: If the authority to ordain clergy rests with the Unions (true), does the General Conference have the authority to override the decision of the Unions and/or to say "Do not do it."

[olger]

I suggest that the term rebellion is always bad.

A better way to define righteousness resistance might be defiance to evil authority...ie three Hebrew worthies.

[Gregory Matthews]

A general comment, widely directed and a reminder of what I have posted before:

The fundamental issue, as I see it, is not that the of ordination of females. The Bible has little (Note: There is some.) to say about ordination. Much of what we do that is related to ordination comes from extra-Biblical sources. NOTE: I do not say that this is wrong.

However, the Bible has a lot to say as to the role of both males and females in spiritual life. From my perspective, this is the fundamental issue which much be decided in accord with the Biblical view. It is on understanding that Biblical view that the differences exist, as I understand the issues.

[Green Cochoa]

Green said:

Quote:

ALL ordinations of women up to the present time have been acts of rebellion, for not one of them is authorized by the world church. The one in Sligo is a clear example, just after the 1995 General Conference Session in Utrecht, the Sligo church ordained women anyhow.

This is a clear example of a misstatement of the facts and/or a twisting of the truth.

1) In the SDA Church, local congregations do not have the authority to ordain clergy. That authority belongs to the Unions.

2) Local congregations have the authority to ordain local Elders.

3) The ordination of the Sligo congregation was only that of a local Elder and that is the only authority that it had.

4) That is exactly what has been done multiple times by local congregations.

5) So, what about an ordination approved by the Union. Well, it is the Union who has the authority to ordain clergy. Any such ordination is a valid ordination of clergy.

6) Would such an ordination be rebellion, if of a female? That depends. It might be? It might not be? This is a point of argument and discussion right now. The basic point here is: If the authority to ordain clergy rests with the Unions (true), does the General Conference have the authority to override the decision of the Unions and/or to say "Do not do it."

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, I do not take my source of authority in this matter from a newspaper.

A local congregation, whether it is Sligo, Loma Linda or Pennington Gap cannot do what it is not authorized to do. It can only do what it is allowed to do. The fact that it may want to do something does not mean that it can.

The local congregation only has the authority to ordain local elders.

The local conference can only recommend to the Union who should be ordained as clergy.

It is the Union that decides who to ordain as clergy. It could be argued that a Union had ordained a female as clergy, as has recently been done in South Eastern California.

But, any statement, from you or anyone else, to the effect that a local congregation has ordained someone as clergy, male or female, is simply false in modern times.

NOTE: Yes back in the formative days of our denomination local congregations did ordain clergy. They no longer have that authority.

I am not twisting the facts.