Pacific Union and WO

[JoeMo]

Right on, MT!

[CyberGuy]

Unfortunately this womans ordaination has always been a heated subject.

Our conference president prior to 1990 who supported womens ordaintion got a death threat over his support for womens ordaination. He was so rattled he resigned as president of the conference.

Another Confernece president later had a brick with a note attached to it threatening him thrown threw his car window in the middle of the night because of his stand for womens ordaination. Car was parked in his driveway.

He was not rattled and continued to support womens ordination.

Some point to those events saying. "See the spirit that is behind those that oppose womens ordination, That proves our rightous cause." Of course that is nonsence but it goes to show how hot this topic is.

You will always get the mentally unstables coming out of the woodwork in heated religious or political arguments claiming they work for God.

God is dishonored by such actions.

Heated discussion is always going to be with us. Just lets not let it get out of hand. Back off and take a break from the discussion when you get to emotional over it.

[Woody]

Wow. AMazing CyberGuy

[CyberGuy]

If you watch the whole meeting watch Ernest Castillo speech that the PUC and columbia unions are not in rebellion. They are reacting to interference by the GC.

Several months ago the NAD made a decision that would allow a women or commisioned pastor be president of a confernece or Union. Before that only a ORDAINED person could be president or a man.

Ted Wilson stepped in with the GC and forced the NAD to reverse that decision despite the joint decsion of the unions and conferences to support that.

This PUC and Columbia union decision is a reaction to that. This is what Ernest Castillo pointed out in his speech.

If the GC gets dogmatic and act like a dictator you will have a reaction from the laity from the churchs to the conferences to the Unions.

I wonder if the GC came down on Ernest Castillo for breaking ranks with Ted Wilson. I applaud Ernest Castillo boldness and courage.

[Woody]

Yes. This all falls in Ted's lap.

[CyberGuy]

If Ted Wilson starts excercising Kingly authority in direct VIOLATION of Ellen Whites council then this will get ugly very quickly.

This could happen.

1. Laity in the churches starts giving tithe directly to the conference Budget rather than to tithe to keep ALL the money at home.

Already I have heard rumblings of people threatening to do just that if Ted Wilson gets to dictorial about this.

I have read 60 percent of the time comes from the NAD.

SECC has five churches that give 1 percent or higher of the entire world wide Tithe.

Those churches support womens ordination.

As I said this could get very ugly.

[CyberGuy]

The following is Ellen Whites council. Ted Wilson has violated these councils and ignored it.

A Council of Men--Not Just One Man--It has been a necessity to organize union conferences, that the General Conference shall not exercise dictation over all the separate conferences. The power vested in the Conference is not to be centered in one man, or two men, or six men; there is to be a council of men over the separate divisions. The showing by the past leadership of the conference is not after God's order. There has been a work done of a character that has not been approved of God. The result we have before us in the ruins where once stood that large printing plant, [The Review and Herald Office in Battle Creek] with its expensive facilities . . . . {ChL 26.1}

In the work of God no kingly authority is to be exercised by any human being, or by two or three. The representatives of the Conference, as it has been carried with authority for the last twenty years, shall be no longer justified in saying, "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we." The men in positions of trust have not been carrying the work wisely. {ChL 26.2} Christain Leadership

[CyberGuy]

More EGW council Ted Wilson is ignoring

No Kingly Authority in Seventh-day Adventist Church--God has not set any kingly power in the Seventh-day Adventist Church to control the whole body, or to control any branch of the work. He has not provided that the burden of leadership shall rest upon a few men. Responsibilities are distributed among a large number of competent men.--Testimonies, Vol. 8, p. 236. {ChL 49.3}

[CyberGuy]

Basically what God is doing is entrusted to many in the unions and conferences the government of the church. That is why we have excutive councils in conferences to make the decisions of the conferences and Unions and divisions and General conference to make those decisions.

To much power in one man in in a few and they start excercising Kingly authority which goes against Gods plan.

[teresaq]

Unfortunately this womans ordaination has always been a heated subject.

Our conference president prior to 1990 who supported womens ordaintion got a death threat over his support for womens ordaination. He was so rattled he resigned as president of the conference.

Another Confernece president later had a brick with a note attached to it threatening him thrown threw his car window in the middle of the night because of his stand for womens ordaination. Car was parked in his driveway.

He was not rattled and continued to support womens ordination.

Some point to those events saying. "See the spirit that is behind those that oppose womens ordination, That proves our rightous cause." Of course that is nonsence but it goes to show how hot this topic is.

You will always get the mentally unstables coming out of the woodwork in heated religious or political arguments claiming they work for God.

God is dishonored by such actions.

Heated discussion is always going to be with us. Just lets not let it get out of hand. Back off and take a break from the discussion when you get to emotional over it.

It is probable those same quite mentally/emotionally unstable individuals who had a large part to play in making sure WO has passed so far in the unions...and so overwhelmingly.

They have certainly had a huge effect on me. It has caused me to pay more attention to issues that, had they been more rational decent people, I might have ignored.

The Lord 'works in mysterious ways', often by allowing cause lead to its effects.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Naomi

Which is probably what will happen in due time, but it is not up to just one man or one committee ... the issue is that it is a World Body that all have a say in. ...

If I may Naomi, I would like to flip that around. It is not for a majority to inflict on a minority their world view. In other words a supposed majority have no right to force a minority to live according to the majority's view. Especially when the decision has no effect on the majority.

It seems to me that everyone should be happy now. The unions that want WO get it and the ones that don't want it do not have a GC decision saying it is ok or mandating that it be so.

But then I can be simple-minded at times...I see no need for complicating matters.

Could it be that we are being manipulated by irrelevancies, albeit unintentionally?

Unless the majority is liberal - then the "majority rules baby." We saw this in forming ATS.

G

[Gerr]

Wasn't the GC just enforcing what the world church had voted on two previous GC conference? Give credit to NAD for acquiescing. PUC & CUC not in rebellion? What do you call it when one or two parts of the body go against what the majority voted for?

ESV | ‎Ro 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

[CyberGuy]

Wasn't the GC just enforcing what the world church had voted on two previous GC conference? Give credit to NAD for acquiescing. PUC & CUC not in rebellion? What do you call it when one or two parts of the body go against what the majority voted for?

ESV | ‎Ro 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Not in this case. Yes the world church voted on womens ordination but nowhere did the world church vote that only an ordained MAN could be elected president of a conference or Union. What the NAD was doing was change the wording of their own bylaws so that a commisioned pastor could be president thereby allowing a women become president.

We will have a women president very soon somewhere. Expect Ted Wilson to not allow that women to be on the excutive committee as presidents of conferences are mandated to be by church law.

Remember that quote is talking about individuals.

But in this case it is only voting about who can be president of a conference. Then you have Ted Wilson coming in and excercising kingly authrority in violation of Ellen Whites council to overturn the vote of the body of Christ in North America.

[CyberGuy]

Originally Posted By: CyberGuy

Unfortunately this womans ordaination has always been a heated subject.

Our conference president prior to 1990 who supported womens ordaintion got a death threat over his support for womens ordaination. He was so rattled he resigned as president of the conference.

Another Confernece president later had a brick with a note attached to it threatening him thrown threw his car window in the middle of the night because of his stand for womens ordaination. Car was parked in his driveway.

He was not rattled and continued to support womens ordination.

Some point to those events saying. "See the spirit that is behind those that oppose womens ordination, That proves our rightous cause." Of course that is nonsence but it goes to show how hot this topic is.

You will always get the mentally unstables coming out of the woodwork in heated religious or political arguments claiming they work for God.

God is dishonored by such actions.

Heated discussion is always going to be with us. Just lets not let it get out of hand. Back off and take a break from the discussion when you get to emotional over it.

It is probable those same quite mentally/emotionally unstable individuals who had a large part to play in making sure WO has passed so far in the unions...and so overwhelmingly.

They have certainly had a huge effect on me. It has caused me to pay more attention to issues that, had they been more rational decent people, I might have ignored.

The Lord 'works in mysterious ways', often by allowing cause lead to its effects.

The voting in this case was done in secret. You have this pad that votes 1 for yes and 2 for no. Pad will only allow one vote. When the vote is open you press 1 for yes and 2 for no. No one will know how you vote.

Votes registers instantly on the computer which is displayed on the overhead projector.

No intimidation there. To imply there was any is just wrong and misleading.

[JoeMo]

The kind of intregue and drama like that being discussed in Adventism over WO is exactly what turns a lot of people off to organized denominations. When any religious organization that reaches "critical mass" is led by ambitious men or women who are more motivated by mammon and power that by the Spirit, this kind of stuff happens. Our own congregation was receiving what I would call "manifestations of God's presence" that don't usually occur in SDA Churches. The Conference told us to stop or risk being disbanded. Like we could stop God from showing up? Like we wanted to stop Him? No way! We were disbanded as an SDA Church, although members are still in the "Conference Chuch' (whatever that is). The Conference lost our tithes and offerings, as well.

Mormons, other Protestants, and Catholics have had their wars; and now I guess its Adventists' turn. Why can't we keep our acrimonious debates limited to salvational (rather than political) matters? In fact, why don't we just eliminate acrimonious debates and concentrate on Godly spirituality?

<Finished with today's rant>

JoeMo

[CyberGuy]

Let me point out what happened in 2005 GC session.

Women were divorcing their husbands due to spousal beatings and the church was disfellowshiping these women for non biblical divorce.

The item before the GC session in 2005 was to allow divorce in cases of spousal beatings and the church could not disfellowship the women for that.

The african and latin american divisions would not allow that to pass so it was tabled.

However on Friday afternoon when most of the african and latin american delegates had left for home early the item was brought back by the north american and European division delegates. It passed with barely a legal quoarum.

The churches in Latin america and africa said they would not abide by this vote as it was unbiblical.

So you see here we have a vote voted by the delegates at the GC session and you have a portion of the church saying they will not abide by this vote.

You do not see Ted Wilson threatening action against these divisions do you? NO because these people are the ones who put him in office.

[Woody]

Let me point out what happened in 2005 GC session.

Women were divorcing their husbands due to spousal beatings and the church was disfellowshiping these women for non biblical divorce.

The item before the GC session in 2005 was to allow divorce in cases of spousal beatings and the church could not disfellowship the women for that.

The african and latin american divisions would not allow that to pass so it was tabled.

However on Friday afternoon when most of the african and latin american delegates had left for home early the item was brought back by the north american and European division delegates. It passed with barely a legal quoarum.

The churches in Latin america and africa said they would not abide by this vote as it was unbiblical.

So you see here we have a vote voted by the delegates at the GC session and you have a portion of the church saying they will not abide by this vote.

You do not see Ted Wilson threatening action against these divisions do you? NO because these people are the ones who put him in office.

Excellent example of why the WO issue is just one of power - power to keep TED and his supporters in office. He has to maintain his base.

[Gerr]

Yes. This all falls in Ted's lap.

If Calif & Utah or any state were doing something contrary to the Constitution, what would you expect the president to do?

[olger]

`ole Gerry

[CoAspen]

How can it be called rebellion when WO has never been declared wrong by the GC, just failure to recognize it? Do we follow the world church or the leader of the church....God? That I see is the real issue, as I have stated before, unity for the sake of unity not seeking all means and individuls to spread the Good News. Is God going to wait until the GC makes a decision of WO, one way or the other, or does He simply control through His H*S. Lets not bog down into, 'well, if the H*S is leading, then why did this... or that take place'. Does the H*S only lead corporately of individuly?

Are we making a statement that the GC Pres is the voice of God or is the H*S the 'voice' of God today? WO is simply bringing that question forward and has not been answered up to this point. Concentrating and taking sides of the issue is not the primary question....who should be in charge of, God or man?

[Woody]

Quote:

who should be in charge of, God or man?

CoA - you have hit the heart of this issue.

So many are being sidetracked as to what is the real issue. But you have hit the nail on the head.

Who do we want to follow - man or God. Unfortunately - many have made Ted into a God that they wish to bow down to.

But Ted's voice is not the voice of God. We must as Christians follow the voice of God.

Who is in charge of this church - Ted or God?

[olger]

Let me point out what happened in 2005 GC session.

Women were divorcing their husbands due to spousal beatings and the church was disfellowshiping these women for non biblical divorce.

The item before the GC session in 2005 was to allow divorce in cases of spousal beatings and the church could not disfellowship the women for that.

The african and latin american divisions would not allow that to pass so it was tabled.

However on Friday afternoon when most of the african and latin american delegates had left for home early the item was brought back by the north american and European division delegates. It passed with barely a legal quoarum.

The churches in Latin america and africa said they would not abide by this vote as it was unbiblical.

So you see here we have a vote voted by the delegates at the GC session and you have a portion of the church saying they will not abide by this vote.

You do not see Ted Wilson threatening action against these divisions do you? NO because these people are the ones who put him in office.

First, it was the 2000 Toronto GC session.

Second, it was not just Latino & African delegates that had left the area. The motion to rescind was rammed through by 150 delegates out of about 2,000.

Rejoice always,

G

[JoeMo]

CoAspen and Woody,

AMEN!!

[Tom Wetmore]

Facts - The Session had not been adjourned. The work was not finished. THose who voted were where they were supposed to be, finishing the agenda. If delegates leave before the meeting is over and after the quorum has already been declared the quorum still holds. The action was legitimately passed.

Those not present where they were supposed to be were just as responsible for the outcome as those who were present and still doing what they were appointed to do. They have no basis on which to complain since they were the ones shirking their duty. The millions of dollars spent by the Church to transport, house, and feed the delegates is not so they can have a paid holiday and shopping trip, especially during the time when they were suppose to be on the floor doing what they had been brought there to do. Shame on them.

[JoeMo]

Awesome post, Tom - I agree 100%