Saying no to Adventist Colonialism

[CoAspen]

Communism, secular humanism and moral relativity are human in origin, and they exploit people

You forgot another exploiter of people....religion of all types including christianity!

So what is your solution??

[brotherly love]

You forgot another exploiter of people....religion of all types including christianity!

So what is your solution??

Read the wisdom of the Bible on the subject and remove yourself from the culture and you will see how far off we have veered

[CoAspen]

??????????

[brotherly love]

??????????

Exactly!

At this point in time you are hostile. You rely on your emotions, and emotions are misleading and untrustworthy. I did not expect anything different from you at this point. This does not have to be forever, but it is reality at this time in your life.

Someone will come along, and we can discuss it

Edited August 5, 2015 by brotherly love

[CoAspen]

The (?) means, i don't understand what you are talking about! Need further explanation. You were talking about 'exploiters' of peoples and I added one to your list. What are you ideas on that? Just what exactly are you trying to say?

Don't assume what I or others are thinking or believe.

 

Really your reply makes me laugh! It sound rather pious....don't you think!

[brotherly love]

In the past, your responses have been rather hostile and sarcastic with little information to add to the conversation. Not just once or twice either, but continuous. You could have asked me to clarify, but I dont think you really are interested.

I will not discuss this topic in this type of atmosphere, it just fuels the animosity between the sexes...and this is the problem the bible addresses.

Maybe in the future things will change, if this pious, then so be it!

 

Edited August 5, 2015 by brotherly love

[LifeHiscost]

Excellent, LHC. We have made a major issue of this - based on what? Where in the Bible does it say that it is Sunday keeping that is the mark of the beast? You quote Roman Catholic sources for a verification, and our church has seen this as a fulfillment of prophecy for more than a hundred years, and I agree withis interpretation. Now I just wonder if the "or" and "or" might indicate that we should be watching further fulfillments of prophecy? It was the Roman Catholic church which provided us with this clue. Has that church given us any other distinguishiing marks in our days? I'd like to suggest two:

1. In a famous book,  The Keys of His Kingdom,  (if I remember the the title. My copy is in storage) a Jesuit professor indicates the main problem the pope has with churches like the SDA is that we give each individual the freedom of choice if the person will be saved or not. Do you agree that this lack of freedom could also be a distiguishing mark?

2. When the great discussion was in England about female priests and bishops   the Roman Catholic church  invited any member of the church of  England into fellowship with the Roman church if they were against the ordinaation of women. Do you see this as another mark?

Just wondering. . .

This particular scripture seems to indicate a principle for faithful followers of Jesus, not necessarily including all positions holding the same responsibilities, just as God the Father. God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have different responsibilities.

28“It will come about after this
         That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;
         And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
         Your old men will dream dreams,
         Your young men will see visions.

29“Even on the male and female servants
         I will pour out My Spirit in those days.^{...Joel 2}

Just as Jesus is using women to preach the Word with power today, an evidence of the Holy Spirit's being poured out, why would they be restricted from the privilege of ordination. OTOH if men find this unacceptable because of the culture they've grown up in, it sounds to me as if they are taking after the ones who fought so hard to make life difficult for Jesus when He walked the earth.

And I definitely don't think God is through giving all the evidence He can to ensure that as many people as possible, who hunger to be made like unto their Savior, have seen whatever mark is helpful as evidence of whether we choose to serve  God, as Able did, or to give our allegiance to the devil and his angels as Cain did.

I'm of the opinion a scripture evidence for whatever choices we make, is indispensable for our spiritual safety in the confusion of the world we live in today.

39"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.…John 5

I ask myself, is Jesus addressing me in the last part of that statement, and I know without doubt that one of the keys to the kingdom is our willingness to come to Him under any circumstance. Taking this text below as the Truth, I then claim the promise below it.

…4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. 5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.....John 15

31So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."... John 8

Keep looking up!

 

God is Love!  Jesus saves!     

 

 

 

 

[Gerr]

The WO ordination vote was also a NO to continued Colonialism in the church.

Colonialism: the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

The analogy does not extend fully but I'm sure you get my meaning.

For decades Adventists in the western nations have dominated and controlled the rest of the world. The tide has turned. The Global South is saying you have to listen to us now.

 

I have no dog in the WO fight, but I do have some questions.

1) Who is imposing their will on whom?  

2) Are we a democratic world church or not?

3) Is WO a cultural or political issue or do we accept the possibility that there people on both sides who sincerely believe that their position is biblically based?

[phkrause]

Great questions Gerry.

1-I have no idea

2-I've always thought so!!

3-I believe there are people on both sides that sincerely believe their position is biblically based.

[Kevin H]

I have no dog in the WO fight, but I do have some questions.

1) Who is imposing their will on whom?  

2) Are we a democratic world church or not?

3) Is WO a cultural or political issue or do we accept the possibility that there people on both sides who sincerely believe that their position is biblically based?

1. If we were to have women's ordination, with the exception of churches out in the middle of nowhere (where we would have to make accommodations) those who question women's ordination would be free to attend a church pastored by a man, and those who believe that women's ordination is Biblical would be free to follow their beliefs as well, thus both sides would be free to choose and to practice what they believe. The refusal to allow women's ordination takes away that choice and enforces the one view. The Seventh-day Adventist view of religious liberty is to allow individuals to worship according to the dictates of their conscience. The Roman Catholic view of religious liberty is the right to be a Roman Catholic. The anti-ordination are giving us the right to worship as anti-ordinationists.

2. No and yes: We are a Bible based church. We are members of groups such as the Society of Biblical Literature and we evaluate our teachings with discoveries in archaeology and Biblical literature. Now we may not always side with the majority view but our views at least have credibility. (Hey, even though we are the only "church" who believes in 1844 and the investigative judgment" others have bits and pieces of it, so we are not alone we are the only ones who have it all pieced together.) Yet we are a democracy in that we can listen to the evidence that others present and if we as a group say "This does not make sense" then the minority does not have the right to push their ideas on the rest of us. Even the no-pork eating had a time where the majority said "No" and it was a "no" until it became clearer from scripture and the health message.

3. Yea right, I want to burn in hell [lets take a moment to forget how I understand the Bible and Mrs. White to teach about hell fire], I want to be lost, I don't care about the Bible, I just think it will be cool to have women ministers because it is an affront to God and I only live to displease him and what better way to displease him than by supporting women's ordination... Well, isn't this what the anti-ordination people want to picture us as thinking?

[Gerr]

Kevin, if we are indeed a democratic church, then until we have a clear revelation from heaven as to which position is correct, the majority as voted by the world church in the GC session should be taken as "the voice of God."  Several conferences in the West have rejected that notion and have gone on to ordain women on their own.  So contrary to Laz' contention that there is now a reverse colonialism, the West is still trying to impose their will on the rest of the world church who are largely from the third world which were previously the subjects of western colonialism.  I have no problem with WO, but I find it very troubling that conferences have gone contrary to what the world church has voted, thus engendering and abetting disunity.  I have no problem with people agitating for change, but going against a democratically agreed upon policy is anathema to me.

[Gerr]

Kevin H. Would like to hear what you think.

IMHO another unintended and perhaps unseen consequence of the NO vote is increased white flight from the church. In my experience whites tend not to remain in environments where they are no longer dominant. This is true for the local church and perhaps true for the world church. There seems to be more and more talk about this  "not being my church anymore".

I say this as someone who has seen dramatic white flight in my own country. 

 

I saw that flight in one church in CA where we have visited many times.  The first few times we visited, the majority were Caucasians.  Then there was a heavy influx of Asians and now I understand most of the Caucasians are gone.

[Gerr]

That is one of the strange ironies, or logical disconnects in this whole matter.  These areas are asserting their voting strength to push back against NAD running the Church and telling them what to do.  Not learning from that domination by NAD, they turn around and repeat the very same mistake by essentially asserting that they are in charge and and free to do their own thing according to their own ways, but insisting that NAD and the other pro-WO Divisions cannot do likewise and attempting to force their point of view on those Divisions in favor of women in ministry.  Backlash against colonialism by creating a new form of it.

Please see my comment to Kevin's post above.

[Kevin H]

Kevin, if we are indeed a democratic church, then until we have a clear revelation from heaven as to which position is correct, the majority as voted by the world church in the GC session should be taken as "the voice of God."  Several conferences in the West have rejected that notion and have gone on to ordain women on their own.  So contrary to Laz' contention that there is now a reverse colonialism, the West is still trying to impose their will on the rest of the world church who are largely from the third world which were previously the subjects of western colonialism.  I have no problem with WO, but I find it very troubling that conferences have gone contrary to what the world church has voted, thus engendering and abetting disunity.  I have no problem with people agitating for change, but going against a democratically agreed upon policy is anathema to me.

But Gary: While Stan, Tom or Greg might be able to give a better answer than I can, from what I understand the power to ordain was removed from the General Conference to the conferences and the unions in the 1901 restructuring. When they decided to start ordaining women in the first decade of the 1900s all that Elder Daniels could do was ask them to wait a little bit until the church members could be educated in the fact that women's ordination was indeed Biblical.

None of the other votes have changed this situation. The first two votes just decided to push an official General Conference decision into the future and the last vote was to remove the authority to ordain from the union and give it to the division.

The conferences had already decided to ordain women over 100 years ago as it was their right to do. General Conference President A. G. Daniels agreed with them but only requested a short postponement so that he could teach church members that the ordination of women was indeed Biblical. It probably would have been done except that Daniels soon there after was seen as an enemy of the church and the issues that lead to the 1919 Bible conference and 1923 General conference put a stop to the education that he wanted to do. The issue just fell by the way side, The people involved died off and when it was brought back up the General Conference only voted to postpone making a decision and this last vote only kept the power in the hands of the unions and conferences instead of moving it to the division.

To allow the unions and conferences to exercise their power is not going contrary to what the world church voted. The only thing that you can say that they are going contrary to is the Daniel's REQUEST to wait A LITTLE BIT to allow time for the members to be educated that women's ordination does not go against the Bible. But we are no longer finding the church giving that education that was the reason for Elder Daniel's request, and they have been waiting well over a hundred years how is that a little bit?

Therefore the democratically picked decision goes back to 1901 where the conferences were to work with the unions to make all decisions on ordination. The General Conference has voted twice to postpone making a decision about women's ordination thus they in default made no changes to the 1901 vote that gave the decision making choice to the conferences and unions. And they said "No" to the taking it out of the hands of the conferences and unions and to be put into the hands of the division. So the conferences and unions exercising their rights that was given them in 1901 are not going contrary to what the church voted and they are following their democratically voted rights from the General Conference of 1901.