Leaderboard

"Power and authority" and "governance." Those are ideas which Ted seems to dwell on which I feel should never be emphasized in a spiritual, church, organization. This is a place for WORSHIP, for INSPIRATION, for POINTING PEOPLE TO GOD. Not any of the worldly types of organizational themes should be dominant. [Although I realize that the organization requires money on which to operate.] I was a denominational employee for the first half of my professional life, beginning right after college and lasting through at least my "mothering" years. I always made it a rule to attend GC Sessions -- mostly because I became inspired there, and because the leaders all across the world field were mostly my contemporaries, and I knew most of them from college or from my teaching career. But now, all those my age have died off or at least retired. But also there's a problem for me -- because our organization seems to have become so preoccupied with NUMBERS, with SCORE KEEPING. I say, Who CARES how many members each conference has?! Who cares who is elected president of which (largest) conference....??! We should spend our convention time in study of the Scriptures, in ministry to the poor on the streets of the city, --and then we should go HOME, and be inspired to do the same things back in our home towns. My local conference president is a shining example of how we trust God to see us through the financial problems which arise. Too bad he'll be retiring this year. He speaks only briefly [in our committee meetings] of the logistical and financial problems our conference is facing, and then brings out Scriptural examples of how God led His people to the brink of a river, but as soon as the priests (who were carrying the ark of the covenant) set foot in the water, those waters parted and they crossed over on dry land. This is what our leader keeps praying for and trusting God for. I'm so inspired by him. This organization is led by mortal men and women. But God is in control. Let us praise God and trust Him, and continue to pray and study and prepare ourselves for the coming crisis. It won't be long now, and He who shall come will come, with all His holy angels with Him. I'm living in expectation of that wonderful event. San Antonio can proceed without my presence. But I'll be praying that it becomes a worshipful experience -- unity in THAT respect only; but no "unity" of belief re: WO. That's not necessary. Let each conference make its own decision on that count. Well, dear Editor, you can please edit this as much as you please. I know I was too long-winded.

I'm not sure why this debate is irritating me. (Not a criticism of those posting here. It's good and important info) I am supportive of WO. It's settled in my mind and I see no Biblical prohibition. I have a few of female colleagues who were recently ordained, I was there and I felt the Lords blessing but I'm irritated. As a family we decided we're not going to GC. The kids said there's too much talking, too much walking, too many people, and "Daddy does too much talking to other people". Also "the pool will be nice but we have a pool in Maryland". So it's settled but i'm feeling frustrated and I'm not sure why. I get it, we need to discuss it, it's important on a certain level but the whole situation has me really turned off. Here's stab a some reasons why I'm irritated. In no particular order or importance. Isn't the WO fight a proxy for other things? Aren't there more important issues (This is what a recently ordained female pastor said to me). This is politics and not about the Bible and Jesus. I think we''ll fudge the issue anyway. After GC both sides will claim victory. No one will get fired. There won't be a shouting match After GC someone will claim there was apostasy. The poor and needy in San Antonio won't get a look in. Someone will say "no clapping". Some speakers will quote EGW more than the Bible. There will be no drums on stage. All the church leaders will wear suits all the time. Tom will be in a suit most of the time. I don't know.

the word "kickbacks" comes to mind...

I have a somewhat different perspective: 1) General Conference officials, generally, are elected to administer the Church. Let them do that job and not compete with local pastors for pastoral care.. 2) Let the administration of the Church be decentralized to lower levels. There are few administrative decisions that need to be made on the world level. 3) If a General Conference, as currently held, costs 10 - 15 million dollars consider how there might be other ways to hold it that cost less. 4) Turn the mission of the General Conference to less in telling people what to do and more to providing support, resources and help AS REQUESTED. NOTE: I am reminded of a recent speaker, from the General Conference, who spoke at a public meeting at the church I attend. This organization of the GC provides some materials that are available to the Adventist public at large. A suggestion was made to the speaker that it might be of value to the denomination if those materials were more easily available and if that agency were to develop materials on current subjects of interest to our members. The response was clear and to the point: Their primary purpose was to provide materials to General Conference officials, not to the Adventist public.

I feel your pain. I have similar reactions/frustrations over this whole issue. And for the record, I won't be going to San Antonio. I will hold down the fort here at home. And I won't have to wear a suit!! Of your list the proxy idea rings loud and clear. But as with so many things it isn't so simple as stated. The question is, "Proxy for what?" Many things, actually. And proxy on many levels. Proxy over fundamentalism. Proxy over governance. Proxy over standards of Biblical interpretation. Proxy for power and authority. Proxy for doctrinal revisionists. Proxy for political ideology. Proxy for cultural differences. Proxy for...

God is not trying to force his church. Radical Islam want's God to force them. The problem with the way some of the Pharisees were applying the Bible in Jesus' day was they became very strict and forcing tradition on others. The false Messiah's around the fall of 70 AD were all trying to force compliance and ended up fighting against each other instead of the Romans and this lead to the fall of Jerusalem. With the exception of stepping in to save a life, force is a tool that is not one of God's major tools and one that he does not like to use and is very careful with if he needs to use it. Force is one of Satan's favorite tools. God wants to lead us and guide us. He wants us to learn from our mistakes. While there were a couple people where Jesus came right out to say that he was the Messiah, he tended to want to let people come to it on their own. (and even the few times he did tell they were probably catching on quicker). Mrs. White had pressing matters, telling people that the Millerite movement was from God and that we should not give up our experience. Then the formation of the church, then the formation of the health and education work, finally the issues of the Great Controversy. When the New York Conference and Atlantic Union wanted to ordain women ministers in the first decade of the 1900s, Elder A. G. Daniels on the one hand agreed with them. On the other hand he asked them to wait a little bit. The reason for waiting was that there were people who did not understand that women could be ordained. He did not want to confuse these people until they were better educated. Since he worked very closely with Mrs. White and was a good friend of hers, and her hand picked and trained leader for our church, odds are that he discussed this with her. (Especially when NY and the Atlantic Union was going to start ordaining women). This sounds like something that she would say. And Mrs. White had a chance to simply stop us. She wrote articles about women in ministry that the anti ordination people study like a lawyer studying the law for loopholes. She had a chance to tell Elder Daniels that he made a mistake in only asking NY and the Atlantic Union to wait a little bit while they try to educate the church. She had the chance to not write the articles about women in ministry and just write how God did not want women to be ordained. But she did not do this. I think that it is quite telling in how Elder Daniels believed that women should be ordained but wanted to educate our members. How Mrs. White wrote gentle articles encouraging women in ministry and to try to soften people's prejudices towards women in ministry and how she missed the opportunity to prevent us from being where we are today.

I really like Shane's proposed solution: if there are people for whom you'd prefer not to provide a commercial service, keep handy the business card of a competitor who is willing to do so, and pass it on. It makes a lot of sense to me... and means being willing to 'put your money where your mouth is'. To make a sacrifice of your own profits to back up your beliefs, while not unduly inconveniencing the client. And yet... would we be cool with it if it was black people you preferred not to serve and referred on? I imagine not... yet the 'curse of Ham' was a *religious* reason used to support such discrimination in the past.

Simply to make it easier for EGW and other women to be able to travel!?!? The historical accounts make no mention of that. That seems to be a notion invented in more recent times to diminish the significance of the reality that there were proportionally far more women active in pastoral ministry doing evangelism during EGW's lifetime. And perhaps the reason more women were not ordained during her lifetime was the same reason that other things seemed to have stalled in the Church during the latter part of her lifetime and after she died. She certainly felt their should have been more women involved in ministry. She employed a favorite expression in context of women preaching the gospel - "if there were twenty where there is now one..." She proclaimed that amazing results would happen. Perhaps she was reflecting God's desire then. Why it didn't happen is perhaps the same as why many other great things didn't happen.

M.T., if I might add another little thought on this... Jesus knew what He was getting in to, when He committed Himself to working for us. He knew that His name would suffer as a result of misrepresentations by Satan and misrepresentations by His own people. But it strikes me that Jesus' willingness to go through with this, really says a lot about Him and His "persona". He was willing to be an object of ridicule and jest, willing to be made out to be a "crutch for weak-minded people"... but He went into it with His eyes open. Having sat down and "counted the cost", He committed Himself to the work of recovering us. In the end His name will be more honourable than ever for His willingness to be "dragged down" in the estimation of worldly wise-men and mockers.

We are not talking about personal beliefs but rather religious beliefs. Should we force a Catholic urologist to perform vasectomies? I think as Seventh-day Adventists we are very in tune with not forcing our beliefs on other people because we don't want others to force their beliefs on us. That is great. I am in total agreement to that. But now when some other Christian denominations feel that providing certain services (like a urologist performing a vesectomy) makes them guilty of the sin, we are inclined to force our belief (that it does not make them guilty of sin) on them. The compromise is simple. Instead of forcing people out of business because, when they have a religious conflict, they simply must direct the presepective customer to where they can find the service without a significant financial burdon.

Sweetie, you forgot to push the "Like This" button of that message.

mrs white was human, and frail and weak and faulty and a sinner as we all are. we do not follow e.g.white, neither do we follow apostle paul, or peter, and barnabas... or john for that matter. all of these people were erring vulnerable sinners, serving the Lord. The bible can be hard to understand and conflicting, but we do not depend on our ability to interpret the bible, or our ability to perfectly obey. God speaks to us and guides us through the Spirit speaking through the scripture. get grounded in the word, in hope and love. Love the truth and it will keep you. continue to be sincere and honest, and let the word cut away everything that the Spirit reveals is not right. we have the mercy of God and we follow a savior who is touched with the feelings of our infirmities. We hope in one who has all power and authority in heaven and earth, who is able to teach us and lead us, and empower us to follow where he leads. if you are looking to your church to lead you then you will be in trouble, you are not to follow erring people. look higher. we are living in a time like never before.... it is true. The attacks on faith and growing your faith are real and not getting lighter. debjm

I predict that your previous post will be heavily edited. You can't quote anyone on these yellow forums - not even me. Without taking the time to dissect each specific response seperately, I will simply say that I don't generally agree with your premise that the SDA Church is Christ's chosen instrument to get the gospel to the world until He comes. Lots of denominations are introducing people to Jesus and the gospel - just not all in accordance with SDA doctrine. That doesn't automatically make them tools of satan. What's more important - getting people into a relationship with Jesus or making sure they understand the performance provisions of the denominational contract? I believe that I am answerable to God - not the SDA Church. I would be committing the sin of lying if I said that I accept everything the church(or what any particular sub group of the church) currenly teaches as the carte blanche truth. Come to think of it, we as SDA's don't even agree on what is the truth. Take your comment on 1888. There are lots of SDA's that think that era was a time of great enlightenment for SDA's.

Absolutely, Gail; the Holy Spirit (Rhema), together with God's Holy Word (Logos) trumps all other sources of inspiration and dogma. So, If you truly believe that you have received a Word from the Holy Spirit and you can find confirmation in Scripture, but it goes against SDA culture or your interpretation of the Fundamentals, what do you do? Do you automatically go with the denomination or do you silently incorprate it into your belief system; even though you know that it goes against - say for example - the writings of EGW?