When Church leaders fail us...

[Gregory Matthews]

For many, it is not an issue for which they could drop their guns.

I rather suspect that at least one person, whom I will not name, thinks that he/she can hasten the 2nd Advent by sticking to his/her guns.

Yes, there often comes a point when one must accept a given situation and march on regardless.

As I once posted:  I had negotiated an agreement where an employee had all termination actions against her stopped and several thousand dollars was restored to her.  Yet, I sent  the hospital CEO a detailed and specific letter outlining why I had strong disagreements with some aspects of the agreement.

In our spiritual life we sometimes just have to wait for God to act when we cannot.  Just maybe God is acting and we do not perceive it.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson said below:

My comments demonstrated that those services have NOT been required for ordination and we have ordained people who have never performed those services either before ordination or after ordination.

Gregory, I was giving evidence .it wasn't sufficient in itself to prove she wasn't ordained, but it was designed to show that she never performed those  services that required ordination.

0 Like this

• Quote
• Edit
• Options  
  • Hide
  • Split
  • Delete

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson said below:

1)  You are not at fault for your inability to be informed as to what constitutes denominational working policy.  Unfortunately the denomination does not make such easily available.  The result is that most people can not verify the accuracy of statements that are made about our working policy.

2)  The second part of your question as to why a Union would not comply with a vote of the GC in session is much more complex.

a)  The recent vote of the GC in session, in 2015 was to deny the Divisions the authority of determine who should be ordained.  It was not a vote to change the authority of the Unions, as is current, to determine who should be ordained. No vote of the GC in session has ever prohibited the ordination of women.  All votes on that issue have simply been no to take an action that permits such.

'b)  Prior to the establishment of the Unions, the General Conference made decisions as to ordination and/or they were also made by local congregations.  With the establishment of the Unions, that authority was removed from both the General Conference and the local congregations.  You will note that it was EGW who advocated the establishment of the Unions in order to reduce the authority of the General  Conference.

c)  The Union Constitution and By-laws are the official, legal, documents under which the Union operates.  All such have been approved by the General Conference at the time that the Union was established.  All contain language that establishes the process as to how they may be changed is generally by a vote of the constituency.  Such votes had been taken in many cases to amend the respective Union Conference Constitution and By-laws.  The result is that such Union documents are not 100 % alike in how they read.  As an actual fact, they do not all read the same as to compliance with GC policy.  Absent their documents being amended, they are not in rebellion against the GC. 

d)  There is a process that has been established by which the GC and bring a request to amend those documents to the constituency.  There is also a process by which the GC can deal with a Union that is believed to be  rebellion.   There is a process by which the GC can use to determine that a Union is in rebellion.  But, absent that process it can not be said that a Union is actually in rebellion.  NOTE:   This is essentially as in criminal law in the U.S.  One can only say that     another has committed the crime of  murder after that person has been so charged and convicted by a trial in a court of law. 

e)  By the way:  The GC, allows women to be ordained as local elders  The Bible never makes a distinction between a local elder and our clergy.  IOW, if we can validly ordain women as local elders, we can do so for clergy.  This  distinction between local elders and clergy comes from a Roman Catholic background.  In RC theology deacons are a lower level of clergy but are not priests.

 

I am not intelligently informed to argue on the merits of your claim. Let us assume that you are 100% correct. However, in light of the following  inspired message from God to our church,, why would a union not comply with the vote of the GC in session?  

[Gregory Matthews]

The following is a Roman Catholic statement at to their various levels of clergy or as they call them, clerics.

It should be noted that the present RC Church does not allow women to be deacons.  However, Pope Francis has stated that  he would be willing to consider allowing women to be ordained as deacons as deacons do not perform the function of representing Christ as do priests.  It remains to be seen whether or not this will happen.

Catholic deacons, priests and bishops are all clerics; each receives in ordination the sacrament of Holy Orders.

[Gregory Matthews]

Earlier, in responding to Jackson, I said the following quoted below:

I could, at that time have said more.  But, I chose to limit what I said.  I will now expand upon it.

1)  Even in recent times, people who have been elected/appointed to some denominational offices have been ordained as SDA clergy, if not already so ordained.  This has been done, in part, due to the fact that SDA membership often expects people who hold certain administrative offices to be clergy.

2)   In actual practice SDA organizations often, on all levels from the local congregation to the GC itself, operate on an exception to policy that may violate established denomination rules and regulations.  As an example of this, denominational Divisions and  the General Conference itself have ordained people as SDA clergy without obtaining the approval of the Unions, who under policy have the right to decide who should be ordained.

3)  While I am not going to give details, there are some attempts being made at the present time to put into formal policy the authority, in some cases, to do what I have mentioned in # 2.

 

Quote

Well into the 1900s the SDA denomination ordained males who had neither pastored a congregation nor baptized nor married couples.  And, in addition following their ordination they never pastored a congregation nor did they ever baptize nor marry couples.  Many of these were physicians.  However, I could give you an example of a person who was not a physician.

[skyblue888]

All that this boils down to is: THE MATTER OF AUTHORITY

 

"The Testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given as Scripture is explained by Scripture." Selected Messages, vol.1,42.

"In the kingdoms of the world, position means self-aggrandizement. The people are supposed to exist for the benefit of the ruling classes. Influence, wealth, education, are so many means of gaining control of the masses for the use of the leaders. The higher classes are to think, decide, enjoy, and rule; the lower are to obey and serve. RELIGION, LIKE ALL THINGS ELSE, IS A MATTER OF AUTHORITY. The people are expected to believe and practice as their superiors direct. The right of man as man, to think and act for himself, is wholly unrecognized." E.G. White, Desire of Ages, 550.

So it is that for many years, in the professed church of Christ, things have come to the place where God has been put aside for the devisings of men.

"God declares, 'I will be glorified in My people.' But the self-confident management of men has resulted in putting God aside and accepting the devisings of men. If you allow this to continue your faith will soon become extinct." Testimonies to Ministers, 481.

"In matters of conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one [or no committee of men] is to control another's mind, to judge for another, or to prescribe his duty. God gives to every soul freedom to think, and to follow his own convictions. 'Every one of us shall give account of himself to God.' No one has a right to merge his own individuality in that of another. In all matters where principle is involved, 'let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.' Rom.14:12,5. In Christ's kingdom there is no lordly oppression, no compulsion of manner." E.G. White, Desire of Ages, 550.

"The church is God's fortress, His city of refuge which He holds in a revolted world." A.A.11.

"The soul that is yielded to Christ becomes His own fortress which He holds in a revolted world and He intends that no authority shall be known in it but His own. A soul thus kept in possession by the heavenly agencies is impregnable to the assaults of Satan." Desire of Ages, 324.

"The head of every man is Christ. The church is built upon Christ as its foundation; it is to obey Christ as its head. (1 Cor.11:3; 3:11; Col.1:18) It is not to depend upon man, or be controlled by man [through resolutions by vote]. Many claim that a position of trust in the church gives them authority to dictate what other men shall believe and what they shall do. This claim God does not sanction. God declares, 'All ye are brethren.' All are exposed to temptation, and are liable to error. Upon no finite being can we depend for guidance. The Rock of Faith is the living presence of Christ in the church [in the soul]. Upon this the weakest can depend, and those who think themselves the strongest will prove to be the weakest, unless they make God their efficiency. 'Curse be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm.'" Desire of Ages, 414.

Therefore,

"In the commission to His disciples Christ not only outlined their work, but gave them their message. Teach the people, He said, 'to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' The disciples were to teach what Christ had taught. That which He had spoken, not only in person, but through all the prophets and teachers of the Old Testament, is here included. Human teaching is shut out. There is no place for tradition, for man's theories and conclusions, or for church legislation. No laws ordained by ecclesiastical authority are included in the commission. None of these are Christ's servants to teach." Desire of Ages, 826.

 

And, mind you, "The doctrine that God has committed to the church the right to control the conscience, and to define and punish heresy, is one of the most deeply rooted of papal errors." E.G. White, The Great Controversy, 293.

[Raphael]

I think all parties don't have lack of understanding on this issue of WO.. It's obvious and clearly about the unprecedented escalation of fake jewels that EGW cried about.. No matter how right, correct and convincing.. There will always be concealed unyielding stubbornness to rebel.. (very similar if not exactly the same as with mentioned militant stubbornness of the gay movements) Amazing these times are.. Ofcourse all times have their particularities.. 

Once again, the entirery of the Bible shows regular constant leadership of men, while revealing sparce and very rare occasions of women leadership.. The current limitations upon woman ordination that only allows ordination to those extremely out of the ordinary particularly blessed (that includes EGW) and the forbiddance of mass (production and employment) regular leadership of women is already correct..

But looking at how seemingly eternally die hard gay movements are.. One can expect the same of this WO movement..

Squashing WO effectively is one thing while handling the unprecedented scale of fake jewels driving this WO and I'm sure would also easily be the source of other troubles in the organization and church is another entirely different matter..

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

38 minutes ago, Raphael said:

It's obvious and clearly about the unprecedented escalation of fake jewels that EGW cried about...

**************

Squashing WO effectively is one thing while handling the unprecedented scale of fake jewels driving this WO ... is another entirely different matter..

Fake jewels??  What fake jewels?  You've lost me.

[Kevin H]

28 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I attended a Catholic Mass recently in the small town where I now live,  with a friend and it was a Deacon (male) that conducted the communion service, or whatever they call it. I did not go to the front and kiss the cross, like most of the people there who were members, but for 'the bread" I went up with my friend. I just thought it was the right thing to do at the time, but I remember being surprised when I found that it was a Deacon, (actually 3 of them) up front, conducting the service. I don't know exactly what their rules are regarding what duties Deacons perform in their church, maybe they also go by the rule of "exceptions" at times too? I dont see any real harm with that kind of thing in our church, or other ones.

When I was at Desert Shield/Storm on Christmas Eve we put on a Protestant service in which I gave the sermon. Then one of the nurses was a deacon in the Catholic Church so was going to offer a Midnight service for the Catholics and he asked me to preach my sermon again and to help him with the service.

[Kevin H]

I'm sorry Raphael, but I find the Biblical Texts used for "Headship Theology" have alternative understandings that appear to fit the linguistics/literary structures; archaeology and culture better than the twist that the "headship" interpretation gives them.  Second I find too many texts where either the actual text would have to be a contradiction in the Bible is headship theology was true, but do harmonize with the other understandings of the texts used for headship theology. Besides the direct passages there are also possible understandings of texts that also contradict "headship" theology interpretation. So thus two sets of texts that I cannot reconcile with "headship theology." Sadly I have not found among the "Headship" people an attempt to deal with the alternative understandings of their texts nor the strong and not as strong texts that contradict their thesis. Also I have not seen attempts by headship people to explain why our early Adventist leaders tended to be for women's ordination. Especially the fact that (and this was out in the more unsettled territories out west, but John Loughborough would ordain either women or men to pastor those churches, depending on who he thought would do the best job,  as he moved on to start churches elsewhere. And that in the early 1900s when Conferences decided to start ordaining women and the Unions agreed, we would have been ordaining women. the only reason why we didn't was because Elder Daniels, while believing that women should have been ordained was concerned that too many of the members thought that the ordination of women was not Biblical and he requested the church to wait until these members could be educated that it is Biblical to ordain women. Now these are two people who were in Mrs. White's inner circle who supported women's ordination and she never corrected them for it. There is even some evidence that she may have supported these views. And since they were in her inner circle, their views could have been a reflection of Mrs. White's understanding. So why did God raise you up to correct Mrs. White's mistake if she made a mistake by supporting those who supported women's ordination instead of stopping them as she did on other topics.

But any way with this issue, there are two understandings of the Bible. Both groups are trying to follow the Bible. It is unfair and unkind, and merely superficial to just summarize "Headship is what the Bible teaches, I follow the Bible and those who don't agree with headship are therefore rejecting the Bible" and thus you can ignore the evidence that you are wrong.

 I believe that the church needs to accommodate those with your understanding. That both sides should be free to express what they understand, allow others to listen and study and to follow the dictates of their conscience in how to understand the Bible. I believe that every church district should allow someone who had problems with women's ordination to be able to attend a church with a male elder without having to drive unreasonable distances. But too many headship people want to FORCE their understanding upon everyone else. The same spirit as Sunday laws. Enforcing your understanding of the scriptures on the rest of us. Too many headship people are making the church into a liar. Mrs. White gave us a few landmarks on which we are to agree. Too many headship people are saying "Mrs. White is a liar, because we need to also agree on headship theology and if you don't accept that then get out!" Due to the freedom in Adventism to follow the Bible according to the dictates of our conscience, the church would make (and revise from time to time) a statement of beliefs which was to clarify what we tended to believe pretty much as a whole vs. beliefs among us that members were free to believe but were minority beliefs that we were free to believe or not believe. Our current list is the 28. And the were purposely written vague enough to allow for different understandings and applications for our different sub groups. The Seventh-day Adventist church has offered a contract: the landmarks and the 28. We have accepted this offer, and therefore have a binding contract. But headship people want to breech this contract and again turn the church into a liar by saying that besides the Landmarks and the 28 that we have agreed to, that we have to  accept something that is not in our contract and demands us to from our perspective reject the Bible for a false teaching.

Both you and I are fully unified on the landmarks and the 28. This is why we are both Seventh-day Adventists. I have no right to force you to give up headship theology. I have every right to share why I believe it is no more Biblical than going to heaven at death, and if you find reasons that you find convincing then you are free to change. But without that happening I have no right to force you to my understanding of the Bible. I as believing that headship theology would still welcome you and those who believe like you as brothers and sisters in the faith because we are agreed on the landmarks and 28. On the other hand you have no right to force me to give up my honest understanding of the Bible and Mrs. White and have to accept more than the landmarks and 28 to be a Seventh-day Adventist. This is where the issue is. And it is only a superficial wimping out and refusal to really deal with the Bible to just summarize "The Bible teaches headship theology so all you who don't believe this are rejecting the Bible and that settles it for me and you who don't accept it either shape up or get out!" 

[Gregory Matthews]

I will respond to both the Wanderer and Kevin who have stated that they have attended services in which a female deacon took part.

As I stated earlier, Pope Francis has stated that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) does not allow females to be deacons, but he is willing, for the reason that I stated to consider allowing such.

In general what the RCC allows is contained in their Canon Law, of which  I have such a book in my library.  However, as I am a former military chaplain, I look for the standard of practice for RCC priests to come from the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA (AMS).  The AMS publishes a Priest's Manual which   is posted on the Internet and may be accessed at:

http://www.milarch.org/atf/cf/{1AF42501-01D5-4EF8-BA48-4450AC27EF98}/Priest's Manual.pdf

The following explaination will help you to understand RCC practice in this area:

Cleric:  A RCC Cleric is what we would likely call clergy.  Clerics are limited to Deacons, Priests and Bishops.  Presently these are only males.  These are all considered to be "Ordinary Ministers."  Only Priests and Bishops are allowed to consecrate the bread and the wine and conduct Mass.  NOTE:  A Cardinal and the Pope meet the requirement to be a bishop.

Deacon:  A RCC Deacon is presently only a male.  Keep in mind that Pope Francis might decide to allow females to become Deacons.

Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (EMHC): These may be males and they may be females.  The may not conduct Mass.  They may not consecrate the bread and the wine.  What they may do is distribute previously consecrated bread and wine.  They are not Clerics.  They may distribute communion to people in hospitals and in their homes.  They may distribute such at a Mass, or the priest may be the only one to so distribute at a Mass.

Catholic Lay Leader and Catholic Representative:  These may be males and they may be females. They may conduct RCC services that do not include Communion.  However, proper RCC authority may grant them the authority to conduct a RCC service that includes communion but they cannot consecrate the bread and the wine.

 

[Kevin H]

Oops, the nurse who was the Catholic deacon was a male nurse...

[CoAspen]

Jackson, do you believe in God? 

Do you believe He is dead?

Do you believe He leads humans?

Do you believe the GC.org speaks for God?

Who is in charge, God or Humans?

It matters not what EGW said or didn't say, her claim was not to speak for God and the same goes for the GC.org. If we don't believe that God leads his church/people but only speaks through the ancients, EGW or GC.org than we might as well stop this whole nonsense for we are no different than other humans who created their own Gods. If you claim that everything we know or can know about God has already been given through the Bible or EGW, than you have not truly understood what it means to be God but have put Him in mans image. Which do you want to believe in?

[Kevin H]

I read this on facebook last night. I asked for permission to share it here as I felt that it added to this discussion. It was written by someone named Graeme. I hope you find it useful.

Quote

Remove

Joy-Marie Butler "Isn't it ironic that at a time when two movies about Adventists are hitting the world and being used by the church to attempt to draw people in, the GC men are marching to a tune that repudiates the very message of these films.
"One film is about a hero who refused to go against his conscience no matter what and was willing to risk his life for his internalized and externalized faith principles. The other is the in house movie that tells the story of a church with its most prominent human influencer and leader through its history being a woman, about a spiritual community emerging from mostly young people being forced out of their churches because they stood by their consciences and scripture as they best understood it. And at the same time we are being told that if the General Conference of the Adventist Church has a policy then no one is allowed to deviate no matter what their conscience says.
"What an irony. Can they not see it?
"I have always known the church was flawed because of the human element, but this is no mere human mistake: highly placed GC leaders are turning on their head some of the core principles and values that underlie what we were taught from a young age: including that Jesus, the early Christian church, the reformers and early Adventists lived by conscience, would not sacrifice conscience in the face of what any man, leaders or powers said or demanded.
"These administrators act to keep women in their place while uplifting their most famous woman and giving her goddess-like status. They demand conformity and obedience in the present and the future while praising those in the past who conscientiously disobeyed and wouldn't conform.
"I do not recognize this church at the higher level. It's not the highest form of Adventism that I know. If this conformist and punitive mentality keeps up, the church will leave many people - it won't be that the people have left the church.
I'm wondering where the way of Jesus is in all of this. The church faces complex and challenging dilemmas and choices - and to face them in the spirit of Jesus is the biggest challenge and opportunity.
"I don't know anyone in my life beyond Adventism who would have any interest in joining a religious organization that treats women as second class in its DNA and attempts to be dictatorial, demanding and conscience denying. Yet this is claimed to be for enhancing the mission and growth of the church?! I'm thinking that some of what has been coming out of the GC could be written word for word on the Barely Adventist website, because it is barely Adventist.
"The president wants us all to pray for and seek revival and reformation. Revival I understand. But he wants reformation? Does he know what Reformation looks like? It is all about the existing order being shaken to the core, of those in power and control being on the wrong side of it, of the old way crumbling and new beliefs, structures and ways of being emerging. It's not about reshaping an organization from top down with control and a predetermined outcome. A reformation in Adventism is the antithesis of what some key 'leaders' are seeking. I pray for Reformation!
"God help the Adventist church, because no one else can!"
- shared with permission and permission is given to share.

 

[Kevin H]

Well the purpose of the G C Sessions was to bring about consensus and define the limits of Adventism. Our pioneers belonged to different churches and were kicked out of them for their love of Millerism. They decided to form a church where the would agree on a hand full of landmarks, and outside of that, as long as it was not fanatical, the members could individually believe what they understood the Bible to teach. The would have the freedom to share what the believed and if someone else liked what they said then ok, and if they did not like what they said that was fine too.

Over time there was some confusion over what we taught. People would hear what brother so-and so over here who was a Seventh-day Adventist believed. Would I have to accept his view on that topic to be a Seventh-day Adventist? So we made a general list of fundamental beliefs on how we generally believed. And with our fundamental beliefs we would try to write them vague enough to include as many sub groups as we could. For example when we formed our latest list, the 27 (which became 28) the part on the atonement was written so that our more forensic and our non-forensic members could both say those words even thought they would be applied in different ways.

A large number of our leaders questioned the trinity. Our pastors were encouraged to preach against the trinity. However there was a wide variety of views about the trinity. So while pastors were pressured to preach against it, our fundamental beliefs did not have an anti-Trinitarian statement. Our members were free to believe in the trinity or be free to question the trinity and still be members. As time went on the trinity became more accepted by the church so Trinitarian statements were added to the fundamental beliefs.

Some Adventists ate pork, other Adventists said that we should not eat pork. The first decision was that if someone did not want to eat pork that was fine but that the should not push that on the rest of the church. You were welcome as a pork eater or a non-pork eater. But as time went by and the Health message became a fundamental belief then the pork eating was discouraged. There were different times we started Sabbath. Some from sunset to sunset, some from 6:00 pm to 6:00 pm, some from midnight to midnight, some from sunrise to sunrise. For about 10 years the General Conference decision was that it was up to our understanding. But as the sunset to sunset became clearer then we went to sunset to sunset.

The General conference was to allow our members to have a lot of freedom in our individual beliefs yet define for other Adventists and people interested in Adventism as to how much of this person who claims to be a Seventh- day Adventist that I have to agree with and where we can disagree.

[Kevin H]

Mrs. White tells us a story of a General conference decision. Now this was not an ordinary group of people like our General conference is. The people who composed this general conference membership at that time were as individuals were Apostles, Prophets and Bible writers. Talk about authority. Talk about being the voice of God. The were discussing what to do with the Apostle Paul. They made a decision. Mrs. White in Acts of the apostles tells us that they made the wrong decision. If a general conference that consists of Apostles, Prophets and Bible writers can make a wrong decision, what about our General conferences?

[Kevin H]

Anyway, the General Conference tends to be the voice of God by allowing the different voices have a say and see what the evidence lies and come to some sort of compromise where maybe you do not get fully what you want but we work out a compromise that we can all live with. It is then the voice of God. But sadly in San Antonio ideas were pushed through. As the different voices tried to have their say, they were basically told to shut up. This refusal to listen and bulldoze ideas through was basically telling the Holy Spirit to "Shut up" This was not allowing the General conference to be the voice of God. Close votes does not show that we generally believe this thing here, but shows a points that are important to all of us for one side or the other and that some compromise and consensus was to be worked out. The consensus that could have been worked out would have been the voice of God. The bulldozing ideas through was telling God to shut up.

[Tom Wetmore]

On 11/6/2016 at 0:56 AM, jackson said:

...the General Conference Association...

Not sure why you highlighted that particular word. That seems not to be a particularly relevant issue.  At the time that was the name of the organization that was the highest denominational body, the same as now.  If the reason is to highlight it to emphasize its qualitative meaning, the GC always has been an association, that is a collection of persons or organizations associating themselves together for a common purpose under a common name. If you are dwelling on the precise legal structure or meaning as if it was somehow different regarding the key point under discussion, again that is a temporal matter, an artificial distinction for the essential fact that we are still talking about the same fundamental entity, regardless of the legal form by which it is defined or organized.  It is along the lines of those that get preoccupied/sidetracked by the Church as a corporation vs. being an unincorporated entity.  Not really a matter of ecclesiastical significance.  It is a human construct.  A temporal tool by which we function in a civil environment of laws.   

[LifeHiscost]

On 11/5/2016 at 11:03 PM, Kevin H said:

I read this on facebook last night. I asked for permission to share it here as I felt that it added to this discussion. It was written by someone named Graeme. I hope you find it useful.

 

   

The church is composed of imperfect, erring men and women, who call for the continual exercise of charity and forbearance. But there has been a long period of general lukewarmness; a worldly spirit coming into the church has been followed by alienation, faultfinding, malice, strife, and iniquity. {2TT 16.4}

Should there be less sermonizing by men who are unconsecrated in heart and life, and were more time devoted to humbling the soul before God, then might we hope that the Lord would appear to your help and heal your backslidings. Much of the preaching of late begets a false security. Important interests in the cause of God cannot be wisely managed by those who have had so little real connection with God as some of our ministers have had. To entrust the work to such men is like setting children to manage great vessels at sea. Those who are destitute of heavenly wisdom, destitute of living power with God, are not competent to steer the gospel ship amid icebergs and tempests. The church is passing through severe conflicts, but in her peril many would trust her to hands that will surely wreck her. We need a pilot on board now, for we are nearing the harbor. As a people we should be the light of the world. But how many are foolish virgins, having no oil in their vessels with their lamps. May the Lord of all grace, abundant in mercy, full of forgiveness, pity and save us, that we perish not with the wicked! {2TT 17.1}

   

God is Love!~Jesus saves!  

[CoAspen]

Deflection.......

[Donato]

On 8-10-2016 at 10:08 PM, Gerry Cabalo said:

When your conscience contradicts the conscience of another, then what?

At the latest GC session conscience about this issue was around 40% yes 60%nay. Then what ? one of the reasons  in favor for WO was: God agreed with a king for Israel. . .  I asked myself : why take this undecent proposal so serious if one does not know who to read and use scripture ? 

[Tom Wetmore]

On November 10, 2016 at 0:25 AM, jackson said:

Tom asked,

Not sure why you highlighted that particular word. That seems not to be a particularly relevant issue.  At the time that was the name of the organization that was the highest denominational body, the same as now.  If the reason is to highlight it to emphasize its qualitative meaning, the GC always has been an association, that is a collection of persons or organizations associating themselves together for a common purpose under a common name. If you are dwelling on the precise legal structure or meaning as if it was somehow different regarding the key point under discussion, again that is a temporal matter, an artificial distinction for the essential fact that we are still talking about the same fundamental entity, regardless of the legal form by which it is defined or organized.  It is along the lines of those that get preoccupied/sidetracked by the Church as a corporation vs. being an unincorporated entity.  Not really a matter of ecclesiastical significance.  It is a human construct.  A temporal tool by which we function in a civil environment of laws. 

I highlighted the word Association, because it was referring only to a group of Adventists in N. America who were structuring policy etc.Gregory stated that the Unions were formed to not be so dominated by the GC. I added that the Unions were not to be independent of the GC in session but rather to the General Conference Association. They are two different entities.

The following may help you see the difference:

 IN 1894, THE GENERAL CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION CONSISTED OF TWENTY-ONE MEMBERS OR TRUSTEES. THE REVIEW BOARD OF DIRECTORS WAS COMPOSED OF SEVEN MEMBERS. THE PRESIDENT, TREASURER, AND AUDITOR OF THE REVIEW BOARD WERE ALL MEMBERS OF THE SIX-MEMBER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION. THUS THERE WAS A SORT OF INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATE OF MEN IN BATTLE CREEK WHO CONTROLLED AS FAR AS POSSIBLE THE CHURCH AND ITS INSTITUTIONS. IT WAS AGAINST THIS CONTROL BY A FEW PERSONS THAT ELLEN WHITE PROTESTED. AT THE 1901 GENERAL CONFERENCE SESSION, A REORGANIZATION WAS EFFECTED THAT LARGELY CORRECTED THIS TYPE OF "KINGLY POWER."  {PM 143.1

So you see that the General Conference Association is not the final authority on church policy. It is the General Conference of worldwide Adventists in session whose vote all are to submit to. Some Unions refuse to do this.

 

My point is simply that you misunderstand what you are reading and are making unwarranted assumptions. The General Conference Association of the 19th Century was the same organization as the General Conference which was reorganized and reconfigured in 1901 that still exists today and is still known as the General Conference.  They are not different organizations, but rather the same organization reorganized. The  General Conference Session in functional relationship to the General Conference Association was essentially the same functional relationship as the GC Session is  to the General Conference now. It was and is the gathering of delegates representing the worldwide representatives of Adventists. The Trustees know known as the Executive Committee were and are the governing body between Sessions of the full delegation of worldwide representatives of Adventists. The changes added a layer of structure the unions of conferences as a buffer between the local conferences of churches.  The difference is that the representative or constituent connection was directly from those local conferences to the General Conference. Now the constituency of the GC is the union conferences around the world rather than all the local conferences from around the world. The constituency of each Union conference is the local conferences in its territory.

Think of the Trustees of the 19th Century GC and the Executive Committee of today as functionally the same as a board of directors of a corporation. The delegates meeting in Session are functionally like the stockholders of that corporation.  The delegates in Session, like shareholders, meet less often and delegate responsibility to run the entity between their Sessions (meetings) to the Executive Committee, like the board of directors of a corporation. 

[Kevin H]

49 minutes ago, jackson said:

My point was that the GC Association as a governing body is not the final voice of of the entire worldwide GC delegation. When in session the vote of the worldwide GC should be the final authority on a matter voted on, and any union, conference, or church should surrender their own view on the matter if it is at odds with that vote. That is the counsel God gave to the Adventist Church. Is it not?

Yes this is HOW IT IS SUPOSED to be. But this assumes that through the many minds assembled that they would be able to work something out. Maybe a small minority might hold some ideas that the group as a whole does not see at that time. That small group can't focus on their minority view to be used by the church as a whole in their outreach and evangelistic meetings etc. For ideas that are closer and good sides it is to see what can be worked out. It is not to be two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

Sadly at the 2015 General Conference there were items that were bulldozed through the church. When Pilate asked who he should release, scholars have pointed out similarities and relationships between Barabbas and Jesus. Therefore  Pilate knew which one he was going to release he only gave the choice to toy with everyone (which was his custom). The motion was a "Heads I win tails I loose" situation.  I'm sorry but the guidelines for how the General conference should be held was not used in 2015. When people wanted to raise points they were quickly shot down. I'm sorry but the behavior was an attitude of telling the Holy Spirit to "Shut up."

There is also a disregard for our church's history. When A. G. Daniels, who worked with Mrs. White in the restructure of the church was General Conference President; and the conferences and unions wanted to ordain women. He did NOT tell them that they were not authorized to. He recognized and respected that they had that right and that he did not have the right to stop them. He felt that all he could do is request them to wait until the members who thought it was unbiblical could be educated into learning that it was indeed Biblical.

In the court system there is statute law and case law. Case law is based on the outcome of former cases. And what we find in both our statues and in case is in 1902 you had the restructuring of the General Conference which Mrs. White and A. G. Daniels were deeply involved in. They gave the power to ordain to the conferences with Union approval. That is our statute. And we find in our case law that Elder Daniels (who worked directly on the statute) saw the Conferences and Unions as having the right to ordain women and that he could only request them to wait before carrying out that right. This is what the General Conference both in session and in application worked out over 100 years ago. While the topic got put on the back burner this is still what the General Conference worked out as God's voice.

The vote in San Antonio as I said was a "Heads I win, tails you loose" proposition.  It would have removed the role of ordination from the union to the division (in which it is easier to move in a few people who can stop the ordination)  and where church leaders could use that as an overthrow of what was set up in 1902.  The vote in San Antonio being defeated did not change things. Thus we are still under the 1902 General Conference policies and the case law of Elder Daniels applying the statute as the conferences and unions having the right to ordain women. This is what the General Conference in session voted in 1902 and how it was applied back then. Thus the conferences who are ordaining women are following this precedence. Just because a law has not been used and someone discovers it and starts to use it does not put that person in rebellion.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson:  There is a fundamental issue here.  Some of us believe that some current leaders of the denomination are in rebellion against the God-given advice of EGW:

1)  This is based upon a belief that God gave EGW a role in guiding the developing SDA denomination.  I agree with this as I have so stated a number of times.

2)  As part of that advice, EGW spoke out against "kingly power."    I believe that EGW would speak out today against a "kingly power" that is exercised in the ability to appoint people to fill positions and to be  members of committees.

3)  As part of that advice, EGW advocated the establishment of the Unions in order to move decision making out of the hands of the General Conference and into the hands of people who were actually working in the affected geographic areas.  It was as a part of this that the Unions were given the authority to decide who should be ordained.  I believe that the attempt today to restrict this authority of the Unions is simply rebellion against God-given advice.  As such  it should be resisted.

 

Jackson, in brief, I Believe that if EGW were alive today she would deliver a strong rebuke to certain of our denominational leaders.

    

[Myron]

On 11/1/2016 at 11:09 AM, Kevin H said:

I wish that they had explained their evidence clearer but I had 2 or 3 professors  of Old Testament and Archaeology that say that there were women priests in Old Testament times. That they continued without controversy until about 200 years before Christ when on the one hand they were being confused with pagan cult prostitutes and on the other hand some Rabbis has poor marriages and did not like the equality the Hebrews tended to have and started to long for the male headship of the pagan nations.

 

Kevin, 

I had not been aware that this teaching had found its way into SDA circles at all until I was discussing it with Dad last week, I was listening to the attached file and he mentioned that his Sabbath School teacher had been discussing this some in the last few years.  Unless you were taking your OT classes as a non-traditional student it was probably around during my college days, but I never heard of this from anyone until about 3 years ago.  

I have studied the Nazerites in some detail from the bible, but not at all from historical documents.  It is impossible to get this understanding from English translations of the Bible; it is very difficult to get it from the Hebrew text since it is never explicitly stated anywhere, even in the Hebrew, that Nazerites are priests of the Melchizedek order.  As I said, you have to go to historical documents, and among the most "conservative" (a serious misnomer) Adventists if Ellen White does not say it, and if it also cannot be found in scripture, it is necessarily an absolute falsehood, so I am surprised to see the idea come out in SDA circles at all.

Case in point:  archaeologists have been telling us for a number of years that God has a wife and the temple practices in Jerusalem prove it as do the home shrines that archaeologists are actually able to study.  Adventists are extremely offended by this claim but we don't need archaeologists to demonstrate this to us because that information is in the Bible throughout the books of Kings and Chronicles.  Throughout most of the history of Solomon's temple the Asherah pole was in the courtyard next to the altar of burnt offering and the people worshiped Asherah as God's wife, the queen of heaven.  This is also a major theme throughout Jeremiah.  We should not be whining about the conclusions of the archaeologists, we should be reading our Bibles and acknowledging it.  This heresy was there and part of why God sold Judah to "his servant" Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:9, 27:6, 43:10).  As you study into this, you see that most of the reformers in Judah did not remove the Asherah pole from the temple, and even if they did remove it, it was quickly brought back after that reformer's death.  Interestingly this Queen of Heaven doctrine is quite common in Adventism today says that God had nothing to do with Judah's captivity, he simply did not prevent it because of their sin, and Nebuchadnezzar certainly was NOT God's servant in this.  So we are worshiping God's wife too, even though we claim she does not exist.

So people such as Jackson will still not accept this doctrine even though it is there and clear enough if you get into the original languages and set aside your idols of the heart and is even easier to see if you also study some of the historical writings that discuss how this law was applied by ancient Israel and Judah.  

The study in the attached mp3 file can be found at http://gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/audio/ under Individual recordings, The Nazerite Law, but there will not be much other information anywhere on this site regarding women in priesthood.

 

Nazarite.mp3