Adventist Video

[Gregory Matthews]

In recent times I hve grown tired of posting links to comments made by SDA organizations as to teh current issues of unity and female ordination.

Recently a short video hs been produced and of which the General conference seems to be widely supporting.  I have refrained, until now, on commenting on a video which I consider to be manipulative and lacking in truth  in some aspects.  The following is a comment that says it better than I would say about that video. 

https://spectrummagazine.org/news/2018/norwegian-union-responds-gc-unity-video

 

NOTE:  The above contains a link to the 5 1/2 minute video.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I am in church at this time.  I will review your video later.

[Gregory Matthews]

Win like Paul.  2 Tim 4

[Lone Ranger]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I am in church at this time.  I will review your video later.

I'm at the lake, checking the ice thickness. Ice fishing starts Dec. 11.

Right now there is about 3-4 inches of ice.

[Gustave]

I watched the video, it appears that the GC more or less followed / copied after the "thanks for nothin" famous actors Add that was run prior to the 2016 Election. 

 

Watch it, who else thinks this?

 

[phkrause]

I don't!! Pretty stupid is all I can think of!! Actually this is the first time I've even seen it, so thanks for nothing!! ?

[Gustave]

59 minutes ago, phkrause said:

I don't!! Pretty stupid is all I can think of!! Actually this is the first time I've even seen it, so thanks for nothing!! ?

You think the GC video is wholesome & good? 

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, Gustave, I do agree that the GC video does seem ot follow the style of the video you posted.

I have in the back of my mind, that a lay group produced the video which the GC is promoting.    Anyway, not a big issue as to how it came about.

 

[Lone Ranger]

Well, I got to about the 2:30 mark before I had to shut it off. It offended me on several levels.

[Lone Ranger]

Coincidentally, my daughter just sent me this link:

https://atoday.org/to-mislead-and-manipulate/ 

Curious that they got to about the same place and had to stop watching also. BTW, I have not sufficiently recovered to finish watching the video, and I don't think I'll bother.

[phkrause]

18 hours ago, Gustave said:

You think the GC video is wholesome & good? 

I didn't see the GC video!! All I could get was Amazon selling books!! But I did love the Wanderer's video!!

[JoeMo]

18 hours ago, phkrause said:

I didn't see the GC video!!

There is a link to it in the posted Spectrum article.  I didn't like it.  Making it sound like the issue of WO was crucial to the mission of the Church.  They make it sound like it's an issue of church unity; when it is actually an issue of church uniformity.  It reminds me of the conflict in the early Church between the Judaizers and Paul concerning what Gentiles had to do and believe to be "brothers" in the faith.

WO is a distraction from the mission of the Church , which is to spread the Good News about the Kingdom.  Continued discrimination against women has NOTHING to do with spreading the Gospel; in fact, I think it has the opposite effect.  Notwithstanding, the issue of WO does not affect my relationship with my brothers and sisters in the church.  

[JoeMo]

18 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

They make it sound like it's an issue of church unity; when it is actually an issue of church uniformity. 

Here's what I see as the difference between unity and uniformity.  Since the church is supposed to be a family, I will use my blood family as an example.  We are a family of 5 siblings and our respective partners and children.  We have VERY diverse spiritual and political views; some of which are not discussed because the level of disagreement causes fights.  Our thoughts and opinions are not even close to being uniform.  But let someone come in and try to disrupt or divide our family - all that difference of opinion goes out the window and we band together to help the family member(s) in distress or fight against the forces that would divide us. My dad, who was the patriarch of the family, encouraged us to have our own opinions rather than insist that we all agree with him and/or my mom on all aspects of life; and to respect each others' opinions even if we didn't agree.   THAT'S unity.

Over our 35 years together, my wife and I have discovered several things we don't (and never will) agree upon.  We are not uniform in our thoughts.  Nonetheless, we have no doubt that we love each other deeply and will stay together until death do us part.  That's unity.

As a church family, we all have diverse opinions of certain subjects.  If you are against WO, are you still an adopted child of God?  Do you love and believe in salvation from Jesus?  Me too! We're siblings. We're united in our love of Christ.  If you are for WO, are you still an adopted child of God?  Do you love and believe in salvation from Jesus?  Me too! We're siblings. We're united in our love of Christ.

[JoeMo]

Here's another difference between unity and uniformity - 

London is the capital of England.  Denver is in Colorado.  These are facts.  We are united in this thought - no "opinion" is needed.  What about peanuts?  Are they good for you?  98% of the population of the world would probably agree with that statement.  What about the 2% that are severely allergic to peanuts?  Would they agree that peanuts are good for you when they need an Epi-Pen injection for just walking by an open jar of peanut butter?  Heck no!  We do not all have a uniform opinion on peanut butter opinion on peanuts.  But we are sufficiently united to respect those who disagree with us to the point of respecting those with peanut allergies out of respect for their physical health.  Shouldn't we respect the opinions of others regarding WO for their spiritual health?

In the Catholic Church, it has been an offense punishable by excommunication to practice any form of birth control except abstinence.  How effectively can the Catholic Church effectively enforce this without losing a large percentage of their membership?  They can't; so they don't.  If the SDA Church makes it an offense to have women pastors punishable by functional disfellowship from the GC, how can they enforce this without the risk of losing a large percentage of the membership (not to mention the financial base)?  I predict they will not be able to; so they won't.  In the end, financial concerns will override policy.  After all, the corporate church (no denomination intended) is a business as well as (maybe even before) a spiritual organization.