Is Seventh-day Adventism headed for a schism?

[Bravus]

Anglicanism has had one, around the ordination of women, between African and Western Anglicans.

NAD has voted overwhelmingly for women's ordination, but the GC is opposed, and the votes from divisions in the developing world will be against.

Despite the calls to knuckle under, I don't think either group will.

If there's a split each group will, of course, claim to be the 'true' church and that the other group is apostate.

I don't ask the question with any glee, but it seems inevitable. Maybe others can foresee alternative outcomes?

[Bravus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_realignment

[Bravus]

This one talks more about issues of same-sex marriage and gay clergy - the issues with ordination of women happened earlier,but split along similar lines, and the article talks about those events.

[ClubV12]

"You will take passages in the Testimonies that speak of the close of probation, of the shaking among God’s people, and you will talk of a coming out from this people of a purer, holier people that will arise. Now all this pleases the enemy. . . . Should many accept the views you advance, and talk and act upon them, we would see one of the greatest fanatical excitements that has ever been witnessed among Seventh-day Adventists. This is what Satan wants." 1SM 179

Many people, groups, other Churches have branched off from the organized visible Seventh-day Adventist Church. Many more will follow. Many who claim to be Seventh-day Adventists often post on THIS web site! You know them, you may not know specifically who they are, but you know them. Some have excellent "sheeps clothing", others are less discreet. But the Lords messenger is clear, there will not be another group raised up to take the place of what the world sees as, what you neighbor thinks of, this visible, organized group of believers known as "Seventh-day Adventists". Imposters are at every hand! In some respects the G.C. is playing "wack-a-mole" with them.

Like Israel, THIS Church IS God's chosen Church for the end times. Like Israel it WILL go through some horrific trials. It WILL appear as about to fall, that is a specific prophecy. If you are seeing that, you are fulfilling that prophecy. The Lord chastens and rebukes those who He loves and the includes His Church. He is no respector of persons and none will escape His sharp rebukes if they are warranted.

The enemies of God may rejoice at the trials this Church will go through. But like Daniel, some will pray for their sins and the sins of their people and plead with God to uphold HIS HONOR in saving the Church. Not for our sake, not for our glory, but to rebuke HIS enemies for HIS glory. While we may well be wearing sack cloth and ashes and confessing our sins that it is us, who has brought this evil upon ourselves.

[olger]

In one the myriad threads discussing the pros and cons of recent events in the SDA Church, I found this post (from someone who strongly favored WO) particularly salient:

"More then thirtyyyyy lonnnnng years we have been asking, begging, pleading for this conversation. And now when we are in the middle of this long awaited conversation we just walk away and do our own thing. That tells me we weren't really interested in having this conversation with our brothers and sisters in Christ, just in having our way. That attitude not women's ordination is what will cause the most offense. We want to be ordained to be Representatives of the meek and lowly Jesus but the taste of this particular action of the California Conferen is neither meek nor lowly. Particularly because as a world church we were in a conversation and We just walked away. There is no good reason why they could not have waited for 2015 and then decided on the next step to take."

[Textus Receptus]

Anglicanism has had one, around the ordination of women, between African and Western Anglicans.

NAD has voted overwhelmingly for women's ordination, but the GC is opposed, and the votes from divisions in the developing world will be against.

Despite the calls to knuckle under, I don't think either group will.

If there's a split each group will, of course, claim to be the 'true' church and that the other group is apostate.

I don't ask the question with any glee, but it seems inevitable. Maybe others can foresee alternative outcomes?

This is why I truly believe that on issues where there is no clear definition, either in scripture or by His prophet, we should remain silent and to hold fast only to the examples found in the written word - regardless if they are not politically correct. God's true message has never been politically correct.

If we have two sides claiming: If God be for us, who can be against us? Rom 8:31 this is a reciepe for insanity.

"New light" will never flicker, or be so dim that it will leave God's people guessing.

http://egwtext.whiteestate.org/publicati...;pagenumber=169

[CoAspen]

I don't know. But, I do see it as an opportunity to exam the direction the church is going in. As an organization there is always the need to reexam the goals, objectives and evaluate the feed back from your 'emloyees'. It may be usettling to some or even a 'fearful' event, but need not be. If spirituality is a progressive/growth/learning for the individual, then it should be the same for the .org. Are we bogging down or moving briskly forward. Goals and objectives may need redifining over time and should be, if we are going to continue to meet the challenges of an ever changing world.

The future has not happened, but we can shape the future now!

[JoeMo]

I think the schism (or schisms) has already occured; it just has not yet been officially recognized by the corporate church or any unrecognized off-shoots. A thread posted a few months ago by another CA Member explicitly identified me as one of those wolves in "sheep's clothing". Some who equate EGW's writings with scripture and hold to historic/traditional views (i.e., refuse to consider the plausibility of any alternative views)concerning any single issue like WO, salvation of gays, evolution vs. creation, spiritual formation, the nature of grace, the sufficiency of the atonement of the cross, the trinity, "day for year" principle, 1844, etc. ad nauseam would call anyone who disagrees with them "wrong' at the very least, "doomed" at the most. Many would have us "wolves in sheep's clothing" disfellowshipped. I thank God that the denomination tolerates at least some debate on these issues.

[Gregory Matthews]

Maybe?

We may be comming closer to it than we have been in the recent past.

In the recent past, this denomination has operated on the "big tent" principle. I agree with that.

Denominational pundents have said that the present SDA denomination is composed of five (5) different groups. I tend to agree with this.

The events taking place before our eyes may result in a more formal split than we have seen in recent history.

NOTE: I am well aware of our history and the splits that occured in the late 1800s and early to middle 1900s.

[ClubV12]

The line between those who question the inspiration of Ellen White and those who fight against it can be difficult to ascertain at times. Belief in the SOP is not a test of faith. Many people have questions and that is OK. Others openly fight against it, this is a class Ellen White warns against as being on very dangerous ground. This class can rise to the level of consideration of being disfellowshipped. In effect, at that point, belief in the SOP becomes a defacto, "test of faith".

There are wheat and tares. The tares may well find themselves in the fold in time! We cannot know for a certainty what actions, if any, are warranted. Short of "open sin" which the Church is obligated to deal with. Tares may annoy, disturb, disrupt, but they are to be treated kindly, draw warmth from their coldness is the counsel. "Kindly treatment" is also delivering the straight truth as may be required! They should not be "enabled" by false sympathy that will lead them to a spiritual death.

Wolves in sheeps clothing are in nearly the same class as those openly opposing the inspiration of the SOP. Depending on the circumstances the local Church needs to meet this crisis. Those actively engaged in calling people out of the organized Church, calling the Church Babylon, directly opposing pillars of our faith and teaching false doctrine should be and have been considered for removal of membership. Many have already done this of their own accord, other have been removed by the Church. Still others have been removed from Church property, by police action if reguired!

[olger]

God's true message has never been politically correct.

may I say...

AMEN

[phkrause]

This is why I truly believe that on issues where there is no clear definition, either in scripture or by His prophet, we should remain silent and to hold fast only to the examples found in the written word - regardless if they are not politically correct. God's true message has never been politically correct.

There is no politics in Gods word, so being politically right or wrong has no bearing.

[lazarus]

My mind says there is a strong possibility but my heart says no-way.

IMHO, I think the 2012 Union votes (CUC and PUC) made more visible a division that has existed for a long time. In the past, the church has papered over the cracks when other denominations have split. Regional conferences are an example of this. The church would not integrate so it developed an administrative alternative. This is the only option, I think, that will save the church from a painful spit. Allowing certain Divisions and even Unions to make their own decision on this issue seems to be the only path. If we find it acceptable to be separated along racial lines in NAD why not on WO.

[CoAspen]

Interesting thought! Accomodations are already made in parts of the world on certain issues. Why is this one so difficult?

[Textus Receptus]

Originally Posted By: Textus Receptus

This is why I truly believe that on issues where there is no clear definition, either in scripture or by His prophet, we should remain silent and to hold fast only to the examples found in the written word - regardless if they are not politically correct. God's true message has never been politically correct.

There is no politics in Gods word, so being politically right or wrong has no bearing.

Correct, God is not political. "Thus saith the Lord" does not leave any room for discussion, debate or politics, but the world is. So yes, there is a bearing.

When we as a people understand that 2 beast (governments) will control the world, and will use political influence to destroy God's word, it is a bit myopic to assume politics is not involved. Just my humble opinion.

[lazarus]

Let me add that I think that Ted Wilson's actions will be key in this situation. The way he chooses to handle this issue will be the deciding factor. I just re-read the division of the Israelite Kingdom, 1 Kings 12. Both Jeroboam and Rehoboam were at fault in that schism but note that EGW says this:

Rehoboam made a mistake at Shechem that was irreparable. Unwise and unfeeling in the exercise of power, he and his chosen counselors revealed the pride of position and authority. Had they understood God’s purpose concerning Israel, they would have listened to the request of the people for decided reforms in the administration of government. R &H 1913 July 10.

[Bravus]

[ClubV12]

Rehoboam made a mistake, insensitve to the desires of the Northern kingdom, he raised their taxes. A split was the end result.

So what happened to those tribes who, for whatever GOOD reasons, denied the authority of the King, their God appointed leader? They suffered much worse and much longer than if they had paid the tax and come into submission. They would have fared much better had they trusted God to resolve the matter rather than themselves.

This story is a double edged sword as it concerns ignoring Gods appointed leadership. However erring and backward those leaders may be. However insensitive and dictatorial they may appear, they are in that position because God placed them there. Perhaps, in this case, to bring to fruition the hidden desires of the Northern Kingdom. To reveal to the heavenly host their true heart condition.

The evil doer will always make sure you have a good reason to rebel, he aint stupid.

[olger]

It was predicted 15 years ago that the NAD would split off of the Seventh-day Adventist church. By a Review editor in private conversation.

g

[phkrause]

Haven't seen a split yet! They are still with us??

[olger]

You missed the point. What he said was that he "saw it coming in the future."

THANKS !!!

[ClubV12]

Since we KNOW the "Church will appear as about to fall", how will that look? What actual events may take place for it to appear as about to fall?

Andrews University, La Sierra, others, removing themselves from Church authority? Loma Linda? Various Unions/Conferences removing themselves from the authority of the Church?

If SECC removes itself, the Conference would be reorganized, ownership of it's local Churches would be removed from the existing "title holder" and be moved to the newly restructured Conference as title holder. Many of those presently in leadership positions would be fired, if not disfellowshipped!

Will the G.C. itself fail? If so what do we have that represents an organized, visible Seventh-day Adventist Church?

It's coming, there is no doubt, prophecy doesn't lie. The question is: What will it look like?

Understanding this, prophecy, it could be said we are indeed headed for a "schism" of some kind. But it is also prophesied, the Church will NOT fall. No other group, no new "coming out" will take place.

[Textus Receptus]

Great points to ponder on ClubV12!

[Gerr]

If the leaders opposing the world church policy of non-ordination of women would rather see the church split than submit to the will of the world church, then I know for certain by what or whose spirit they are being led. Even the ruler of the universe submits to human will even when it is hell-bent headed to destruction.

[Textus Receptus]

If the leaders opposing the world church policy of non-ordination of women would rather see the church split than submit to the will of the world church, then I know for certain by what or whose spirit they are being led. Even the ruler of the universe submits to human will even when it is hell-bent headed to destruction.

The 'church' will always be unified. However, church organizations will always fracture. I say, let the shaking begin! Jesus is coming!