If it was your wife...

[Neil D]

Neil,

You have a right to change your own wording whenever you like.

As for having "prayerfully wrestled," I wonder what sort of prayers those were, and who it might have been to answer them. Mrs. White has told us that "Satan is the instigator of all rebellion."

"change your own wording"? There was no changing of wording...Deliberate violation conveys a knowing attitude, same with the biblical word "transgression"...You either misread or you interpreted or something....

I would hate for you to fall into that category that you place on other people...

And regarding that concept of "rebellion"...tell me, how do you see "reformation"? perhaps it's an orderly change from the top of an organization down to the grass roots...what if the top of the organization doesn't want to change? then how does reformation proceed?

[Green Cochoa]

Tom,

I would follow Mrs. White's counsel, and would recommend that every man do so. She says that a man is to "maintain his position in his family with all meekness, yet with decision." She further defines that position as the "head of the family." This means that he is to maintain his authority over his wife. If she chooses to go independent of her husband, and leave the home, divorce him, and find her own life, I suppose as a free moral agent she can do this. But most women secretly desire to have a man who will actually play the man and be firm. If she does not respect him, there are likely reasons for this, many of which might go right back to the fact that he never was the man of the home that he should have been.

Many men today are weak and irresponsible. When the wives do not respect them, it is hardly surprising. Yet the Bible tells wives to respect their husbands, and husbands are to love their wives. I guess the Bible knew where the needs and weaknesses of each lies.

No, I would never tell a man that he should force his wife to believe a certain way. That would be in violation of the wife's individual freedom to serve God according to her own conscience. But it is the man's duty to be the head of the home and to educate his wife when she departs from a plain "thus saith the Lord." He is not only the head, but the priest of the home. As Mrs. White puts it, "The father should be the faithful high priest of the home, the house band of the family." In another place she says "The father is in one sense the priest of the household, laying upon the altar of God the morning and evening sacrifice, while the wife and children unite in prayer and praise."

How many Adventist men today lead their families in morning and evening worship? It is because of their neglect that the present rebellion of women has seen such rapid growth. Women want to be spiritually led and fed. If they are not led, as they should be, in their impatience, they desire to commit a similar sin to that of Saul who did not wait for Samuel the priest to officiate.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Green Cochoa]

Either God knowingly allows Satan to influence people without thier knowledge...

...and for people to worship Satan from a position of being deceived is from thier having violated a Command from God and taken themselves from God's hand. Just like Eve did.

[ClubV12]

Tom mentioned my fear that this issue could split the Church. Yes, I believe the potential is there. Will it be over W.O.? Will it lead to "divorce"?

It's another step in the direction of divorce! Not W.O. specifically, but the anger, resentment, insubordination that will continue to pile up. When the spouse denies sex to a partner over a long period of time this issue is not about sex, it's about more fundamental issues within the marriage. Anger, resentment, frustration. A couple may go for years in this turbulent condition, but in time, if not resolved, divorce is imminent.

I believe SECC and NAD have continually thumbed their nose at the authority of the G.C. and have been doing this for years. If it is not resolved, divorce will be the outcome. If not soon, in due time. A house divided cannot stand.

Neil, that you cannot grasp how a Christian can be unknowingly serving Satan instead of Christ is a strong indicator you are already deceived on some points and do not realize it. It is absolutely true many Christians are serving Satan, are in delusion and know it not. Those who have killed Christians in the past thought they were doing Gods work even as they took life! I suspect this will anger you and leave you confused, for that you have my sympathy. How you react to the truth is between you and God.

[Tom Wetmore]

But which side is doing the dividing? Which side is so quick to put that on the table?

Really, I have lived with this issue for 40 years. I can think of very few examples of those in the pro-WO camp who have threatened to leave or suggested that those who do not agree with WO should leave, or even talked of it dividing or splitting the church. Those who actually have had exposure to and experienced women in ministry see its value and blessing to the Church. It is most frequently the rallying cry or threat of division that is coming from the anti-WO camp.

Both you and Green responding to the OP scenario the same way by adding a feature to it that was not implied by my question. You both added the apparent likelihood that the wife under such a conviction would leave, that this could only end in divorce unless the wife capitulated to her husbands POV. That was not a part of my thinking or even an option offered. My assumption was that the two would stay together as husband and wife. In fact, in view of my concept of marriage leaving or divorce would not be an option. (Do you honestly see this as the equivalent of marital infidelity that divorce should even be on the table? Or physical abuse requiring a separation?) So short of that, how do you resolve the situation?

[ClubV12]

I don't have the answers to many of the questions Tom. As to who is doing the dividing there is little question on that front, it is NAD and the Conferences under it who have and are taking action that directly challenges the authority of the G.C. The "spirit" of the law, if not the actual laws of the Church.

Obviously the justification for this "rebellion" is that it is essential that we recognize women by ordaining them. This "revolution" (perhaps a better word than rebellion) must be done in order to force the issue on the G.C. While I sympathize with the length of time involved and the loss of patience of some, I cannot justify this method to bring about change. Open disregard for the authority of the leadership of the Church.

Especially in view of the committee formed by that same leadership to study the matter and due to turn in that report for the 2015 Conference.

But whatever terms we may use to describe the players and their actions, one thing remains true. A house divided cannot, will not, stand. Divorce, restructuring, reorganization, something will happen in due time if the parties cannot resolve these important issues. Important issues like the chain of command, with W.O. simply playing a supporting role in this larger, more important issue.

Our country is a Republic. The law of the land is supreme in all regards. It is not majority or minority rule. It is not mob rule, it is law. Whether the law is good or bad is beside the point, law runs the land, period. If the law is bad, we have to work through the system to change it. What we have here is a "civil uprising", a protest of significant proportion, designed to force the government to change the law. Is that protest, the civil uprising justified? I don't think it is, but thats just my opinion.

[olger]

I wouldn't be an issue, Tom if the prowo crowd didn't keep pushing it. You know this.

It is divisive because it tampers with people's confidence in the Bible.

[Tom Wetmore]

And quite obviously for those of us to have continued to press for that change all of our adult life, and for the generations before us, it is born of a conviction, not just an opinion, that the sought after change is justified.

Is it pressing for reformation, or as you keep insisting, "rebellion"? That is an important distinction. As long as you continue to see this as rebellion, it is more likely to end badly, since your have prejudged it as bad, wrong, evil, or something equally negative. But if change is seen as reformation, which is more like those of us on this side of the question see it, it does not end badly, but results in improvement, we end up better off for the change.

Let's not forget that the current theme being pressed by the GC administration is revival and reformation. Be careful what you pray for. Sometimes the reformation prayed for may be unexpected change that takes you far out of your comfort zone.

What is needed and helpful is to stop using inflammatory labels and judgmental terms, like rebellion, that defeat continued open dialog, and ultimately resolution, on the issue.

[CoAspen]

I seem to remember a multitude that complained to Moses about being lead out of Canaan and how they were going to die and how God had abandoned them seeing only the giants. God heard them and let them wonder in the desert until those who could not see the vision that God had presented them died off. It seems that has been happening with in the church on the issue of women equality, not just WO which is more current. Now that we have progress, some which to tie it to homosexuality, extreme feminism, etc. Those that fight against equality are not going to give up and in a sense are the ones calling for a split. The extreme small minority are the ones calling for this as a last ditch effort while blaming it on the pro equality group. They are hoping for a self fulfilling prophecy, forgetting that God is in charge. When asked a direct question, such as you did, we get equivocate. Makes one wonder what they would truly do as they do not want to go on record instead hiding behind quotes of others.

[ClubV12]

I don't see "rebellion" as an inflamatory term, it describes exactly what is happening with NAD's response to the G.C. The same response NAD has had for a couple of decades.

Perhaps YOU see it as inflametory because it reveals the truth? I don't know, but it is, what it is.

If you support the actions of NAD in denying the authority of the G.C. and charting their own independant course, why are you embarrased to call it what it is? Embrace it! Show some dignity, be proud of what you support. Open defiance of the authority of the G.C. What else COULD you call it? Revolution? Well then, Viva le Revolution!

Come, bring your family, stand in front of your tent for all the people to see and proclaim you will NOT submit to the authority of leadership because they are wrong!! Fight for your right to be independant and call your own shots. Go get 'em tiger.

CoAspen, read this part real slow:

"There is a difference between calling for a split and recognizing a split could occur, WILL occur, if the authority issues are not resolved in due time." Such a split, should it occur, will fall directly on the heads of those who denied the authority of the Church. That would be YOU in this case.

No one is CALLING for a split.

[Tom Wetmore]

Wrong on all points. Not being able to see that perhaps is a fault you have to bear.

[Neil D]

Neil, that you cannot grasp how a Christian can be unknowingly serving Satan instead of Christ is a strong indicator you are already deceived on some points and do not realize it. It is absolutely true many Christians are serving Satan, are in delusion and know it not. Those who have killed Christians in the past thought they were doing Gods work even as they took life! I suspect this will anger you and leave you confused, for that you have my sympathy. How you react to the truth is between you and God.

Oh, this is funny.....I am "unknowingly serving Satan instead of Christ, and am decieved on some points and don't realize it"...

OOokay,....So, what points am I decieved on? W/O?

What area?

I am open, so tell me.....

[Neil D]

Perhaps YOU see it as inflametory because it reveals the truth? I don't know, but it is, what it is.

If you support the actions of NAD in denying the authority of the G.C. and charting their own independant course, why are you embarrased to call it what it is? Embrace it! Show some dignity, be proud of what you support. Open defiance of the authority of the G.C. What else COULD you call it? Revolution? Well then, Viva le Revolution!

[snip]

No one is CALLING for a split.

How do you see "reformation"? In your own words, please...

As for "calling for a split", I don't think that there will be a split over this...However, I did see that YOU were one of the first to dwell on the possiblity of a split....and sometimes your tone gives an indication that you might desire a split over this issue....

[ClubV12]

You will have to work this out with fear and trembling Neil. Or, as you might call it, "groveling".

Well Tom, if it's NOT "rebellion" what term WOULD you use to describe NAD ignoring the repeated requests of the G.C. for law and order for so many years?

Perhaps the G.C. is the one in rebellion? I mean SOMEBODY is something, this is not some minor disagreement and it is not some new thing. And it is not private.

[Neil D]

You will have to work this out with fear and trembling Neil. Or, as you might call it, "groveling".

[ClubV12]

Reformation, like Martin Luther did you mean? Yeah, OK, "reformation", another word for "rebellion". How about "freedom fighter"? Perhaps it just depends on what side of the fence your standing which word you use,,, while you load your gun.

Who says we NEED a "new policy"? Auntie Ellen warned us to be careful with such things. She didn't say don't change, she advised caution. I echo her words in that regard. The G.C. has formed a committee, now kindly drop the gun and quit threatening them.

[Neil D]

The G.C. has formed a committee, now kindly drop the gun and quit threatening them.

There is no gun on this side of the computer screen. And I am not threatening them...where are you seeing that I am holding some gun and threatening people?

....and you say that *I* am deceived....

[ClubV12]

The "gun" is the rebellion, the reformation, the freedom fighter, expressing his disregard for the authority of the Church. Denying the repeated requests of leadership. It is a protest, a civil disobedinace action. Call it whatever you like, thats what it is.

You can embrace it or you can sweep it under the rug, but it's not going away no matter WHAT the G.C. rules in 2015. ASSUMING they rule ANYTHING! Perhaps they will simply table the issue and take no action?

If so, you can be sure the NAD is going to kick the "freedom fighters", the "Adventist Tea Party", the "reformation", the "rebellion", the disregard of Church authority,, they gonna kick it up a notch. Neil and others are going to be mad as,,, uh,,,, a hot burning place, and aren't going to take it anymore!

That being the case, "divorce" is imminent.

[Tom Wetmore]

Well Tom, if it's NOT "rebellion" what term WOULD you use to describe NAD ignoring the repeated requests of the G.C. for law and order for so many years?

Perhaps the G.C. is the one in rebellion? I mean SOMEBODY is something, this is not some minor disagreement and it is not some new thing. And it is not private.

A very significant part of your mislabeling is the mischaractization of what has happened between the GC and NAD. First of all, you have not been a part of any of the meetings in question. Nor have you been privy to any discussions among leadership from NAD and GC nor have you had any personal conversations with them about it. At best you get your information second or third hand, filtered through other's (mis)perceptions. Second what you describe is wrong. No ignoring. Not about law and order. Not repeated for many years. There has been far more cooperation than you seem to want to believe. Until the last few years, there has been very little significant conflict between NAD and GC over this issue. Likewise, your conclusion of a spirit of rebellion is wrong.

[ClubV12]

Your opinions are noted Tom. I see a form of cooperation in some words and deeds. The obvious actions taken for years tell a different story. That story is not one of "opinion", the facts are clear. NAD has embraced W.O. and even a women President of a Conference, against the requests of the G.C.

Whatever "show" they put on in meetings, how ever sincere they may have been or are, it doesn't erase the obvious actions and steps they have taken.

[Neil D]

If so, you can be sure the NAD is going to kick the "freedom fighters", the "Adventist Tea Party", the "reformation", the "rebellion", the disregard of Church authority,, they gonna kick it up a notch. Neil and others are going to be mad as,,, uh,,,, a hot burning place, and aren't going to take it anymore!

That being the case, "divorce" is imminent.

To reflect what you have posted, divorce from the GC is soon coming and I am a few others are going to be mad and are not taking this bureaucratic cow manure any more....

My reply:

If you believe this, you are far more deceived than I am...As I have seen, you have mis-characterized the meetings of w/o,

mis-characterized some of the leaders....and sounded as if you were actually there.....and you weren't....

If I were to characterize you,... well, I think I will keep this to myself for now....Let me know when you want a divorce...

[Tom Wetmore]

Your opinions are noted Tom. I see a form of cooperation in some words and deeds. The obvious actions taken for years tell a different story. That story is not one of "opinion", the facts are clear. NAD has embraced W.O. and even a women President of a Conference, against the requests of the G.C.

Whatever "show" they put on in meetings, how ever sincere they may have been or are, it doesn't erase the obvious actions and steps they have taken.

Once again, you know not whereof you speak. Nope. Not at all. Worse than an armchair quarterback. Not in the game. Not even in the stadium. Don't even know how to put on the uniform. Could not throw a pass or call a play to save your life. Confused as to what the rules of the game are anyway...

[ClubV12]

I did have to chuckle over your excellent assesment of my quarterbacking.

I won't bother to post portions from the Church Manual that clearly lay out the structure of the authority of the Church. The required steps to deal with appeals and resolve disputes, as I'm sure you are aware of the "rules" outlined in the manual.

No one need be confused as to the rules. The Church Manual and the working guidelines are readily available on the web.

It is not my "opinion" these rules have been violated, that is a direct statement of fact made in print by the G.C. Now who am I supposed to believe as it concerns the facts? You or the printed official word of the G.C.? The answer is obvious.

[Tom Wetmore]

Church Manual defines the rules primarily for local church governance. It is not the primary source for rules for the internal operation and governance of the General Conference itself. That would be a different set of books, a different set of much more detailed rules called the Working Policy. The General Conference Working Policy and the NAD Working Policy combined total over 1800 pages, compared to about 200 pages for the Church Manual. (Good luck find those on the web.)

The Division is a part of the General Conference, not a separate entity, or level of governance or organizational structure. That is why division presidents are also known as Vice Presidents of the General Conference for their division. This is not an issue that follows the outline of appeals and conflict resolution outlined in the Church Manual since it is not a local church matter but rather one part of the General Conference dealing with another part of the General Conference. And the Union conferences are the constituent parts of the General Conference under its Constitution and Bylaws, so yes it covers them too. (Of course each of them also have their own governance documents and working policies, not to mention so do the local conferences.) So basically that means it's only "appeal" is to itself and its own set of rules.

That you did not account for the volume and complexity of all that already shows your lack of knowledge of the relevant "rules". (We call them policies... Also not "church law" as you have also called it before...) Not being familiar with any of that could put you at a bit of a disadvantage understanding-wise when reading the statements to which you refer issued by the GC Executive Officers (president, secretary and treasurer). There really has not been an official GC ruling on any violations of policy on these recent events to which you are so preoccupied. If you want to be technical, the one relevant "ruling" several years ago regarding NAD WP E60 by the GC was promptly rectified by the NAD Executive Committee within a matter of a couple weeks. (Sound rebellious to you?)

As I said, you know not whereof you speak.

[ClubV12]

It is ridiculous to suggest Church law is so complicated that Church members can't possibly understand why some Conferences and NAD have disregarded the G.C.'s authority.

I will let the leadership of the Church speak for itself. While you scramble through a couple of thousand pages of legalize looking for another loop hole and finding just the right "spin" to justify the ongoing rebellion.

Here is just ONE such example of a rogue Conference. Note the word "violation".

“Administrations of all organizations and institutions within a division’s territory shall be responsible to their respective executive committees/boards and operate in harmony with [the] division and General Conference Executive Committee actions and policies.” 2 For the above reasons, the recent action taken by the Columbia Union Conference Constituency Session to approve ordination without respect to gender represents a violation of these policies."

“God has invested His church with special authority and power which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising, for he who does this despises the voice of God.” AA 164

Policy, Church Law, rules, guidelines, whatever you want to call it Tom. The fact remains violtions of "it" are despising the voice of God. That is a very serious violation!