Leaderboard

I must admit that I am confused by most of what I am reading here. Here's one point that I need clarification on: You said, Carey: "Preaching, teaching and leadership is one thing. Go ahead and do it. But the mandatory and pre-requisite for women to be ordained first is another thing." It sounds like you don't have a problem with women preaching, teaching, and in leadership. But you follow with words that sound like you have a problem with women being ordained to do those things. However, the Bible verses that anti-WO advocates use are those that address the issue of preaching, teaching, and leadership. I haven't seen verses that say anything about ordination, for or against. What Bible verse leads you to say, "women to be ordained first is another thing"? So preaching, teaching, and leadership is okay, but ordination is not -- that's what I understand you to be saying. Am I following you correctly?

I often wonder why we continue to 'misunderstand' EGW. It seems our study habits of her writings are severely limited to the small picture rather than the larger picture.

That isn't really the whole story regarding our history. Yes, some of that perhaps happened. But many others departed willingly and on good terms. Actually the Millerites fragmented and dispersed after the Great disappointment. Some returned to their old churches, some banded together to form other groups. And even those who remained a part of the Millerites that became known as Advent believers continued to interact with their own churches and other churches. But the Millerites didn't as a whole simply regroup and reorganize. As for "no choice but to form another organization", that is also not really the case either. You do realize it was nearly 20 years after the Great Disappointment of the Millerites that a growing segment of Advent believers finally got together as the Adventist denomination and actually formed a new organization in 1863. But even then there actually was very strong resistence to forming a new and separate denominational organization. You also mistakenly make it sound like that this group of rejects and outcasts from other denominations started all over as a new denomination completely fresh in discovering Truth without any reference to their old doctrines and beliefs. The truth is that they all came bringing those, some of which were not in dispute, others which were restudied and refined. And a few new beliefs and doctrines emerged among Adventists. But much of what we have, including our worship forms, structure, and doctrines are common to various other denominations as a result. As has been said many times before, we have far more in common than we have that is distinctly different. And even after the Adventist denomination was organized, the early Adventists continued to interact with other denominations, meeting with them and preaching in those churches. Ellen White herself was a much sought after speaker by other denominations and often preached in their services on Sunday. I just read an acount from one of her letters from 1891 where she was telling of a large non-Adventist meeting that she and a number of other Adventist leaders were attending. In her letter she made positve reference to a well known, at the time, woman preacher from another denomination that was speaking. And EGW was encouraging others to come to that meeting. I think EGW was more ecumenically minded than many assume. In addition to the above, she encourages Adventists to work "shoulder to shoulder" with those of other churches in activities for the common good, such as the temperance movement and other welfare ministries. She also encouraged our pastors to fellowship with and pray with the pastors of other churches. She also spoke of pastors of other denominations positively, referring to them as fellow shepherds of the flock of Christian believers. She also encouraged coming together with other beleivers on "common ground" which seems to be a basic ecumenical idea.

Hi Gerry, If you Google Asuza Street Revival, this is considered to be the birth of Pentecostal Worship and theology, this occurred in 1906 and went through to around 1915, long after the millerites had ended. When was it that the SDA met with Pentecostals to "comb over" anything?

Tom, Just be careful because the issue right now (pre-GC session) is not about WO anymore but most likely about "The great disappointment" to see the real facts how strong the effort of pro WO to silence the voice of SDA ladies that are against WO. While GC comitee still working on it they just don't understand why the delegates/reps of N. America and Western Europe rejected the request for them to write a statement why the SDA ladies that against WO are banned to speak up. There must be reason behind their restriction...... and there must be certain reason too about their rejection not to publicly write/explain the banned. We shall see the parade of "Success Stories" of Women Pastors @ GC session to tell the world how Jesus loves, lead and approved their ministry as women pastors. Be ready to listen their fantastic testimonies along with the weeping to convince even more---hoping to gain more sympathy. But nobody should be surprised if not even one of SDA women which are against WO would be allowed to speak up at the same GC session. This "success stories" has been already well-prepared with brilliant strategy so that SDA worldwide may accept their view (pro WO) and for us (anti-WO) to feel guilty. The next step is homosexuality. What after that? Promoting Sunday Law by watering down & making fun of the importance of the Biblical Sabbath? I don't know (yet) But I know that my Living God will intervene.

Opposing WO is not really about unity. Those who raise that issue are actually more concerned about uniformity. Here is an EGW quote especially for you, carey -

I have known people who were from other denominations who were very kind and loving, and I think this is something we (I) need, not because we need to transplant it out of someplace else, but something we need ourselves. I agree we ought to go to the churches and give health programs- I plan on going to a Baptist church this January and do just that. I also like the little book "Sharing Together" by Mark Finley about how to reach out to and have meaningful dialog with individuals with other beliefs without offending them, but without compromising our conscientious convictions or blurring our theology. There are areas such as Righteousness by Faith where some Adventist theologians feel we could learn from some in other denominations, even though they may not be aware of other things. Dialog can be meaningful. The late George Vandeman shared that there is a very prominent Protestant evangelist who is convicted on the Sabbath and does not do regular work then but only sermon preparation. While we should be willing to listen about some things, like dialog about the health message, care about their lives, and the testimony of how the Lord has helped them, we need to be aware there is a lot we cannot have in common with them. We cannot forget the Sabbath to do secular things with them on that day. We cannot participate in worship that prays to dead people, or privately go with them to those who claim to talk to the dead (not a part of Protestant worship, but still a common belief.) We cannot endorse cheap grace- "He may be living crazy now, but at least he was saved." Not to judge others, but assuming once saved always saved is a hazardous path. We have a message of Christ living in us and giving us His power before His soon second coming. Those who do not believe in a literal second coming, or who believe the dead are already in Heaven, will not see this this way. While I believe in being personally tactful, we don't want to sit on the platform and tacitly endorse that someone's dear departed is now in Heaven looking down on us. So I think we need the lovingness, the being willing to reach out, the being willing to speak and sharing the health message and general devotional themes in their churches. In the past I have been blessed by some general devotional programs, but that is changing into a whole new subject recently with the problem of many churches following meditation themes borrowed from Eastern religion.

I hope you have already told your boys to always be very respectful in any encounter with anyone, but ESPECIALLY with law enforcement officers. I seriously doubt that they would ever have a problem if they do this.

I just saw your post Joshua. Wow; I have had hard times too but just let dumb things crowd out time with God and let myself get distracted. You know you could always make a lateral move to a different place and make a fresh start where you could feel the basics of God caring about you again. He is your friend and he doesn't turn his back on his friends. Remember when Jesus told the disciples they were more than servants they were friends. You probably couldn't imagine it the first time, and it happened. Not sure how the crying and sighing fits in although know it will happen ultimately. Right now it sounds more like you need a Friend. You already know where this road goes- it is nothing you will ever need.

You know I heard Lavonne Tucker give an example of speaking in tongues when he was in Africa witnessing to a woman of the evening- long story but it was providential. he knew no Swahili and she knew no English, but she understood him. This was like the original gift of tongues at Pentecost, where each man heard the disciples speaking in the language of the hearer. Often when people claim to speak in tongues they say it is some unkown language, but the early believers had the gift of being understood in languages spoken at that time.

I'm the only african american that comes to this board. i can't blame all the rest for avoiding this place. Why come here? To hear anonymous bigots spew their half baked understandings of prophecy one minute, and their racist bile the next? They might as well go someplace else. Any other place can't be any worse. Since I am the only one here allow me to re state my stance: me and the police get along. I realize all too well that, like everything else the police force is a microcosm of society at large, some are good, others aren't. Some care, others don't. It is just like the convenience store robbers. Some are black, some are not. If they do wrong they most certainly will pay. America is good at that. The police officers that do wrong, who ever they are will pay also. No need to march. It will all come out of the wash. The robbers will pay, the traffickers in beer, and wine and tobacco will pay. So what's all the fuss about? i don't watch fox news or anything else. The so called race pimps don't influence me one way or another. If i didn't come here I would not know what they are up to. Last I checked they still have the right to protest. 70% of the protesters here are white, whatever that means. There are black police officers and state troopers, also hispanics as well. I work with them everyday.

Why is that the Adventist Church has lost its original progressive spirit? The full particpation of women in preaching, teaching and leadership in the Church was clearly evident from the very beginning of the Advent Movement. After the death of EGW it seems we began a slide into conservative fundamentalism and slowly relegated women to traditional roles only, until the 1970's. The opportunity was ripe then to regain our original footing on this issue, but it seems that conservative fundamentalism had become so deeply entrenched that the opportunity was squandered, forcing us into another 40 years of wandering in the wilderness of doubt and resistance to the idea. We have spent decades dithering over this. We stand on the banks of the river. Will we be able to cross over, or will our fears force us backward once again?

I appreciate this perspective. I think it goes well too with what Gerry has been sharing. There are various levels of sin. Making poor health choices may not be a sin that leads to damnation but rather a sin that leads to physical disability or an early death. I think it fair to say Ellen White was talking about the caffiene as the problem. It is addictive and comes in these dark liquids like coffee and cola. Too much of those can cause problems. I know. I have felt the pains of kidney stones. There are many in society that never drink water. Caffiene creates an addiction and they only drink coffee, tea and cola. That can easily become a health issue. Now there is an aspect to coffee that we miss out on as a church. Many evangelistical churches have put in a Starbucks-style coffee shops and use it for Bible study and prayer groups. Our denomination cannot copy that as coffee and cola does run against our health message but coffee drinking can create a warm social atmosphere. I have often went out with friends for coffee. I do, of course, look for the decaf coffee but too much of that will cause kidney stones as quick as the other. I will touch on the alcohol issue once again. I am a recovering alcoholic and sobered up at the tender age of 16 after living on the streets and running with a gang. Most addict-alcoholics that sober up in their teenage years do not stay sober. I believe one of the reasons I am now going on 30 years of sobriety is because of the abstainance position in the Adventist church. I think it would be so much easier to relapse if I were to see my Christian brothers and sisters drinking socialabily without any problem. The temptation would be for me to say if they can live a good Christian life and drink,,,, so can I. God has people in all churches but Adventists are called for a special purpose and I think the vow of abstainance to alcohol, like that of John the Baptist, is consistant with our purpose.

The Desire of Ages states, "The wine which Christ provided for the feast, and that which He gave to the desciples as a symbol of His own blood, was pure juice of the grape." (page 149) The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary states, "This was 'pure juice of the grape' (DA 149) Jesus would act consistentl with principles revealed to earlier Bible writers (see Prov. 20:1; 23:29-32; cf. 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19. See on Matt. 26:27)" When we read John chapter two today it is easy to assign today's meanings to terms still used. Good wine today is wine taken from the finest vineyards and aged to perfection. No one today would claim that Welch's grape juice is good wine. However in ancient times grape juice quickly started to ferment and become wine. There was no mechanical refrigeration to perserve fresh grape juice for a long period of time. It is quite plausable the "good wine" was 100% fresh grape juice. It should have been served at the beginning of the feast before any of the fermented wine was served. That would have allowed the guest to enjoy the rich flavor before fermented wine giving them any sort of a buzz. Also, as a note, while we are off topic... while it seems clear that fermented wine was not forbidden by the Bible authors, drunkeness clearly was. That is hard to understand until we realize the amount of alcohol in most of these ancient wines was less than what is typically found in most beer today. One would have to drink a few glasses of wine in a short period of time to get drunk. The wine we have today is comparable to what the Bible calls strong drink. The process to distill liquor was not discovered until the Middle Ages. As Seventh-day Adventists, we do not drink any alcohol because we live during the Anti-typical Day of Atonement. We teach to be totally abstainant as John the Baptist was. Just as John prepared the world for Christ's first advent, we are preparing it for His second advent.

Dude you have racial issues.