George Knight Versus The General Conference

[B/W Photodude]

http://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2018/9/17/george-knight-versus-the-general-conference

George’s wrath is centered against president Ted Wilson, whom he accused of working like Hitler as an authoritarian leader (though now he wants to deny that Nazi reference).  But, Wilson is simply trying to uphold a democratic vote taken in General Conference Session, according to the policies of the church.

In essence, establishing himself as the theological leader of the liberal rebellion, what George Knight proposes is that everyone must act according to his will, that the church cannot work in harmony with the divine guidance when there is disagreement, on the base of what was voted by all the world delegates in GC Session. 

I used to think that we got past rebellions like Korah in the desert. I suspect if the whole of the SDA church were still encamped in a desert, I would be very concerned about the earth opening up and swallowing people right about now! Some also might find a spear thru them and their partner as the one fellow who brought a native girl right in front of everyone and took her into his tent for fornication.

And the clock ticks on and the watchers watch ...

[Kevin H]

The General Conference is when our members or our representatives get together and share evidence and form consensus. Our pioneers were from many different churches. But they had ideas that surpassed creeds and their churches saw the creeds as strict boxes that the members had to comply to. Because they were not willing to be confined to the creeds they were asked to leave.

They decided to form a church to try to prevent what they had experienced in their beloved churches. They formed a church with only a few landmarks and the freedom for them to individually follow the Bible according to the dictates of their own conscience. You had people from the Christian Conextion who questioned the trinity (and if I recall correctly, also believed in women's ordination) and you had people from say Baptists and Methodists who were strongly trinitarian and may have opposed women's ordination.  They formed lists of what they believed, but there was a big difference between their list of beliefs and the creeds from the churches. The creeds were like a circle that everyone had to be inside. The list of what Seventh-day Adventists believed was the intersection of circles, they were specifically written vaguely to be inclusive. They were also defining for say someone who has an Adventist friend and liked much of what this friend believed, but not everything that this friend believed, so he wonders if he joins the Seventh-day Adventist church would he have to believe exactly as his friend does. So the beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists show the intersecting ideas  and if you felt comfortable with these then you were welcome to be a member. They formed a church that believed that everyone who believes that they have a message from the Lord can have their say and the members can evaluate for themselves. Some people believed that there were parts of their circle that was so important that they believed that it needed to be part of the intersection. In the 1890s the trinity became a part of the intersection. But other ideas were did not become a part of the intersection, and the person who wanted to push their view needed to yield to the General Conference.

There were some years, such as 1888, 1922, and 2015 where there were attempts at a sub group of Adventism trying to make everyone else be compelled to making that sub-group be the ONLY true form of Adventism. Mrs. White suffered in putting a stop to this in 1888, but we did not have her to rebel to this non-Adventist spirit in 1922 and 2015.

The idea of people bulldozing through an agenda is telling the Holy Spirit to "SHUT UP" and it NOT a General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Thus cries for reform,, for a return to the type of Church that our Pioneers wanted, and a rejection of Babylon trying to take over is NOT rebellion.

[Lone Ranger]

IMHO:

As I have observed the SDA structure recently (last 30 years-ish) there seems to be a shifting of focus away from the soon coming of Christ and toward an establishment of (political) structures and policies to facilitate a long-term existence. IOW, "Hey, Christ ain't comin' any time soon, but this church thing we got goin' is workin' pretty well." (cf George Knight's book The Fat Lady and the Kingdom.)

It's the same thing the Early Church did in the first few centuries of their existence. Initially driven by a belief in the soon return of Jesus, they eventually realized that they were in this for the long haul, and began focusing power to the top.

[pierrepaul]

Interesting article, I've never heard of pastor Treiyer and I don't know how reliable a witness he is. I've followed fulcrum7 for a couple years now, and many of their articles display a rather tenuous commitment to facts and reality. If pastor Treiyer's essay is accurate, he would have done better to seek a more credible outlet than fulcrum for its dissemination.

[pierrepaul]

15 minutes ago, Lone Ranger said:

IMHO:

As I have observed the SDA structure recently (last 30 years-ish) there seems to be a shifting of focus away from the soon coming of Christ and toward an establishment of (political) structures and policies to facilitate a long-term existence. IOW, "Hey, Christ ain't comin' any time soon, but this church thing we got goin' is workin' pretty well." (cf George Knight's book The Fat Lady and the Kingdom.)

It's the same thing the Early Church did in the first few centuries of their existence. Initially driven by a belief in the soon return of Jesus, they eventually realized that they were in this for the long haul, and began focusing power to the top.

Another interesting and relevant book is George Knight's "Organizing to Beat the Devil" which traces the history of the SdA movement organizing into a church and establishing structures and discipline. He outlines the tension between the those who abhorred structure, having suffered under the structure of their former churches, and those who favoured organization for a more efficient carrying out of the work. This book was published I believe in the early 2000s, at a time when George Knight enjoyed the favour of the organized SdA church and appeared to support the current structures.

[R. G. White]

I think we need to be very careful, especially in the current context, about accusing anyone of being a "Korah." As I have so far perceived him, George Knight is a serious, thoughtful Christian man, and a very loyal Seventh-day Adventist. As an SDA historian, he enjoys a perspective on things that few of us possess, and from which we may all benefit greatly.

I do not wish to delve into anything like a complete critique of what happened at the San Antonio GC session in 2015. For one thing, I wasn't there. However, I cannot refrain from suggesting that there are some rather well-founded doubts concerning the depth of sincerity in all those prayers that were offered for the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can only effectively lead when we have no agenda of our own, and it is a well documented fact that the GC delegates can sometimes get things very wrong. I cannot accept that Ted Wilson was "just trying to uphold a vote," when it is so clearly evident that he and his allies had been working very hard to engineer the outcome of that vote in the first place.

Again, I do not wish to launch an overly harsh critique, but I do think that we as a people are slowly beginning to reach a consensus in regard to what the Bible and Ellen White really teach about the role of women in ministry. If we could just get over our latent sacramentalism, perhaps the ordination question itself would be easily solved. Of course, I am blithely assuming that there are no male supremacy tendencies among us.

George Knight is no "liberal," and I do believe we'd be better off not to unnecessarily divide people along those lines.

[B/W Photodude]

2 hours ago, R. G. White said:

I think we need to be very careful, especially in the current context, about accusing anyone of being a "Korah." As I have so far perceived him, George Knight is a serious, thoughtful Christian man, and a very loyal Seventh-day Adventist. As an SDA historian, he enjoys a perspective on things that few of us possess, and from which we may all benefit greatly.

I think you missed a thing or two here. George Knight compared the General Conference President Ted Wilson to Hitler. Seriously? Does a "serious, thoughtful Christian man" do that?

[R. G. White]

30 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

I think you missed a thing or two here. George Knight compared the General Conference President Ted Wilson to Hitler. Seriously? Does a "serious, thoughtful Christian man" do that?

Maybe. I'd have to see the specific comparison that was made. Or maybe he got a bit carried away. One wrong act does not define a person's overall character.

[B/W Photodude]

14 minutes ago, R. G. White said:

Maybe. I'd have to see the specific comparison that was made. Or maybe he got a bit carried away. One wrong act does not define a person's overall character.

To compare someone to Hitler is an intentional effort to in some way damage their standing or reputation. Since I have seen no apologies from the man, I can only conclude that it is still intentional.

[R. G. White]

4 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

To compare someone to Hitler is an intentional effort to in some way damage their standing or reputation. Since I have seen no apologies from the man, I can only conclude that it is still intentional.

Here are your own words:

" George’s wrath is centered against president Ted Wilson, whom he accused of working like Hitler as an authoritarian leader (though now he wants to deny that Nazi reference). "

If he denies it, why apologize? If he did make the comparison, I still want to know why. There is a place for deliberately damaging someone's standing or reputation, if that person is using his standing or reputation to do harm.

When before the Diet of Worms, Martin Luther freely confessed that some of his words might have been harsher than was becoming to a Christian, yet he maintained that he could not take anything back lest the enemies of truth be emboldened thereby.

You haven't convinced me that George Knight is a bad man, and you will have to bring more facts to the table in order to do so, not just harp of this one criticism that someone has managed to dig up.

Edited April 28, 2019 by R. G. White
posting mistake

[R. G. White]

4 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

To compare someone to Hitler is an intentional effort to in some way damage their standing or reputation. Since I have seen no apologies from the man, I can only conclude that it is still intentional.

Here are your own words:

[B/W Photodude]

10 hours ago, R. G. White said:

Here are your own words:

" George’s wrath is centered against president Ted Wilson, whom he accused of working like Hitler as an authoritarian leader (though now he wants to deny that Nazi reference). "

You must read more carefully. My "own words" were a quote from the link.

[R. G. White]

17 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I've said before on this forum that Luther was a "potty mouth" dude that I had trouble "supporting" as a public witness for Christ (same goes for Jonathan Edwards). I have trouble calling that kind of stuff "revival."  I recall being told I need to "understand" him better. While I dont know what GK has actually said or done, I do know that in his "retirement" he is changing.

I don't know about this particular alleged incident either, my friend. I only know that George Knight has long been well respected, and that I've personally appreciated his valuable contributions toward educating Seventh-day Adventists in regard to our history and doctrine. I'm not about to receive a railing accusation against him on the basis of one thing that he has supposedly said, when (if he did actually say it) it may very well have been justified, or if unbecoming, more or less necessary to maintain.

[R. G. White]

21 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

what is that?

The papacy has long been a promoter of the idea that the church has the role of administering the grace of God to the believer, through its sacraments. This would make God's grace unavailable to those not approved by the hierarchy. Protestants supposedly do not accept this doctrine. We believe in the priesthood of all believers, and that Jesus is our only Mediator, allowing us access to God, so we can come to Him directly, without the mediation of the church. We believe, for instance, that baptism is merely symbolic of something that the Holy Spirit has already done in the candidate's heart and life. It does not actually convey any virtue, in and of itself. The same goes for ordination. There are not two classes of people, the clergy and the laity, with the clergy having authority to rule over the laity. We are all equal, at the foot of the cross, and the greatest is the one who serves.

If we all really believed this doctrine, as taught by Christ Himself, then it's hard to see how allowing women to participate in serving the church, in any capacity, could be a problem for anyone. It seems we want our "ordained" ministers to lord it over us, contrary to the teachings of Jesus, and we don't want women in that role. It seems we expect the act of ordination to convey some kind of authority that some are not comfortable giving to women. Maybe we need a whole new Protestant reformation among us.

[pierrepaul]

On 4/27/2019 at 8:48 PM, B/W Photodude said:

I think you missed a thing or two here. George Knight compared the General Conference President Ted Wilson to Hitler. Seriously? Does a "serious, thoughtful Christian man" do that?

Pure unadulterated codswallop. What George Knight did was quote the well-known words of Martin Niemöller and only those wishing intentionally to besmirch George Knight's reputation and to bear false witness against him would have uttered such nonsense. [Please see note below]

There is plenty to criticize in George Knight's pronouncements (for those who disagree with him) that there is little use (in my opinion) in resorting to such sophistry.

Note: I am most emphatically NOT suggesting that B/W Photodude has made any such misrepresentation. B/W Photodude accurately and correctly cited an article posted on Fulcrum7. However, Fulcrum7 is not exactly known for its fact-checking and commitment to truth. As I have posted before, a good rule of thumb is to take any allegation posted on Fulcrum7, cut it in half and only believe a third of it.

Note II: As a general rule, articles posted on "Spectrum" are (again in my opinion) no better in terms of fact-checking and accuracy.