Unity is important, but should it preempt justice?

[Tom Wetmore]

As posted on Facebook:

"Speaking on this issue [WO] years ago, Charles Bradford, a very prominent black SDA preacher and evangelist challenged this "everywhere at once" notion. He noted that if this principle had been followed, black pastors in the US woudn't have been able to minister before apartheid had ended in South Africa (it ended in 1994). And he asked if people would've been ok with barring black pastors in America and elsewhere until "the whole world was ready". Everyone was silent."

"We cannot then take a position that the unity of the church consists in viewing every text of Scripture in the very same light. The church may pass resolution upon resolution to put down all disagreement of opinions, but we cannot force the mind and will, and thus root out disagreement. These resolutions may conceal the discord, but they cannot quench it and establish perfect agreement. Nothing can perfect unity in the church but the spirit of Christlike forbearance." - EG White

[LynnDel]

A good example.

LD

[Overaged]

As posted on Facebook:

"Speaking on this issue [WO] years ago, Charles Bradford, a very prominent black SDA preacher and evangelist challenged this "everywhere at once" notion. He noted that if this principle had been followed, black pastors in the US woudn't have been able to minister before apartheid had ended in South Africa (it ended in 1994). And he asked if people would've been ok with barring black pastors in America and elsewhere until "the whole world was ready". Everyone was silent."

"We cannot then take a position that the unity of the church consists in viewing every text of Scripture in the very same light. The church may pass resolution upon resolution to put down all disagreement of opinions, but we cannot force the mind and will, and thus root out disagreement. These resolutions may conceal the discord, but they cannot quench it and establish perfect agreement. Nothing can perfect unity in the church but the spirit of Christlike forbearance." - EG White

So; let me see here...this is yet another WO topic, and what you have posted is your fancy way of accusing the Church of "injustice;" with their current stand on WO?

And, I am sure you can provide us with specific evidence the Bradford was indeed speaking about WO when he said this? Who was he speaking to? When? Where? What proof do you have?

If you believe this quote from EGW, why do you have such an attitude with those in disagreement with WO?

[lazarus]

It doesn't matter whether he was talking about WO. The two situations are comparable. An excellent example.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yep. It is a topic that just won't go away, no matter how much the opposers wish it would...

Note the last sentence of the EGW quote. The founders of the Adventist Church were OK with women serving in pastoral ministry and for them to be ordained on an equal basis with men. The forbearance by those supporting women in pastoral ministry on an equal footing with their male counterparts on this issue has gone on for 150 years. Within our lifetime, the renewed efforts in favor of WO began in 1973. We are on the edge of 40 years of this generation's forbearance. How long do you propose that we wait? Until our generation is dead and buried in the wilderness of fear and doubt? Until all of our brothers in the faith from the muslim nations are OK with it? How long shall we wait?

Adventists in China haven't waited (nor asked the permission of the rest of the world church...) and the unity has not been broken. In fact, we seem to be striving valiantly to include and embrace them as a part of the whole denomination rather than pushing them away.

As for Elder Bradford saying that, I would be happy to ask him the next time I see him if he indeed said that. I would even be willing to call him personally if that would satisfy you. I worked with him for a number of years and this is quite believable that he would say that and would have done so publicly with no reservation.

But regardless, it is still a very valid point. Rather than doubting whether he said it why don't you simply address the substance of it. The diversionary tactic of demanding proof that he said it is simply a means of avoiding the point and not unlike the silence with which it was met when he actually said it. On the very point he was making, EGW herself bucked the authority of the brethren regarding the work in the South among the blacks and sent Willy there to do it and even diverted her own tithe to be used in that work. She didn't wait for a consensus of everyone. SHe did what she believed to be the right thing to do despite significant opposition.

And finally, speaking as a moderator regarding your ad hominem characterization, whatever attitude you are assuming I have is ill-founded and with no basis other than your own perception. That more likely reflects what is in your own mind and not mine. You have no ability to ascertain my attitude from where you sit. Remember, we tend to read what others write in our own voice.

[Woody]

Most Excellent Tom.

[olger]

"Hear the pulse and vibration, the rumblin force...."

`G

[Gerr]

‎ESV ‎‎1 Co 6:7 To have lawsuits [justice] at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?[for the sake of peace/unity]

And did the Bible either in OT or NT directly attack the institution of slavery?

How do you perceive justice vs peace/unity vis-a-vis "everywhere at once" in this statement?

We are to avoid entering into contention over the problem of the color line. If this question is much agitated, difficulties will arise that will consume much precious time to adjust. We cannot lay down a definite line to be followed in dealing with this subject. In different places and under varying circumstances, the subject will need to be handled differently. In the South, where race prejudice is so strong, we could do nothing in presenting the truth were we to deal with the color line question as we can deal with it in some places in the North. The white workers in the South will have to move in a way that will enable them to gain access to the white people. {9T 213.3}

Testimonies for the Church, Volume 9. 1855; 2002 (213). Pacific Press Publishing Association.

[Tom Wetmore]

Thanks, Gerry. That statement by EGW supports allowable variation of practice in the church to accommodate cultural attitudes. But she was clear by her words and her own actions that the prejudice of the South should not prevent doing the right thing in the North where the prejudice was not as much of a barrier. And she also insisted that the prejudice of the Southern white people should not prevent finding ways to work among the blacks of the south and work toward justice. Maintaing the status quo nor imposing it on those that were ready for progress certainly was not what she was advocating.

And that was the point Elder Bradford was making. If unity forces maintaining the status quo until everyone else is ready to move forward, black pastors would have to have been restricted and integration in the church prevented in NAD until apartheid in South Africa ended. And ironically, the consolidation/integration of the black and white conferences in South Africa would not have happened because NAD continues to maintain the regional conferences. (When I was working on a team from the GC helping integrate separate Adventist community services programs for blacks and whites in South Africa, we were asked very pointedly how we could impose that on them when NAD continued to maintain the regional conferences.)

The application to the current WO issue seems clear. If we wait for the rest of the world to get on board with the idea it will never happen. (One has to wonder if that is the intentional strategy of some that are opposed to WO to see that it never happens and to force their will on those in favor of WO.)

Let progress happen where it is acceptable.

[Overaged]

[color:blue]‎ESV ‎‎1 Co 6:7 To have lawsuits [justice] at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?[for the sake of peace/unity]

And did the Bible either in OT or NT directly attack the institution of slavery?

How do you perceive justice vs peace/unity vis-a-vis "everywhere at once" in this statement?

Good point Gerry. "Allowable variation of practice" is a much different thing than what is correct Bible doctrine. At any rate; accusations of "running ahead of the church," or 'adhominem attacking'" or other similar charges certainly do not reflect "allowable variations" in practice." People who do not support WO, actually do not want the topic to 'go away;" they are just asking where it is in the Bible.

[Tom Wetmore]

And the point that perhaps just missed was that the institution of slavery was not prohibited in the Bible, but to contrary was recognized, allowed and even some might say encouraged. The slave owners in the South in fact considered it to be God ordained as being quite Biblical.

But that obviously changed. Even without a "Thus saith the Lord" from Scripture.

So how can change happen at all if someone does not take the first steps in the direction of change of that sort?

Again, it is not a Biblical doctrine at stake. If it were a Biblical doctrine then the church in China should be required to have their women leaders and ordained pastors step down and surrender their ordination as being unBiblical.

As far as "running ahead of the church", that is thinking in the wrong direction. Those in favor of WO are not running ahead but have been continuing on the path and course set by the founders of the Adventist Church. Unfortunately, those who have, for a variety of reasons, felt unable to keep up with that progress or the pace of progress are insisting that those already far down the path stop and wait for all the rest to catch up, or in some instances, turn around and go back to the point long since past.

If you want to press the doctrinal idea, it is as if those mature in the faith are being asked to revert to the old ways and conform to the ways of the spiritually immature so as to make them feel more comfortable. Imagine a new convert, trying to give up smoking and drinking and eating unclean meat demanding that those long in the faith to stop and to join them in the eating and drinking whatever until they mature a bit more and get comfortable with this new idea of being a vegetarian (which by the way is not a Biblical mandate either). And that is another fine example of allowable variations in practice. Vegetarians live and let live with those that aren't and vice versa. In fact, at church potluck overseas and even in many ethnic congregations here you will see meat dishes.

And there are many other allowable variations in practice for which Christlike forbearance is exercised in the worldwide body of Christ.

[olger]

But the key question is: Must the ‘final decision-making authority’ of the Union be in harmony with the votes of the world church? Who trumps who? In exercising its authority and responsibility must the local Union comply with the decisions of the world church or must the world church adapt to the decisions of the local Union? As an integral part of the world church, a good case can be made that Unions and Conferences must adapt to the expressed will of the world church - if they wish to be part of it.

`G

[Tom Wetmore]

Kind of like the states rights issue in secular politics. The union conferences are the constituency of the General Conference, sort of like the states of this country making up The United States of America. Ours is a representative form of governance similarly where the control flows upward from the individual members through their chosen representatives to the different levels of the church. Authority both flows downward on certain working policies and in defined doctrinal matters and is also reserved to certain levels to be self governing at the various levels of the church on specifically identified matters.

Individual church membership is reserved exclusively to the local church. Not even the General Conference in Session can disfellowship, discipline, or admit into church membership any individual. Local conferences control local church property ownership, and determine the employment of pastors and teachers for local churches. The union conferences have the authority regarding ordination.

[olger]

The Pacific Union Conference openly admits that according to General Conference policy each Union must operate within the guidelines that have been voted by the world church: “It is to be understood that the exercise of authority and responsibility is done within the context of the belief, values and policies of the entire church. No entity is authorized to exercise its authority and responsibility in a manner that is contrary to the interests of the whole church and and its activities in fulfilling its mission.”

I've listened to all the tired old arguments in favor of WO over the years. No matter how you look at it, this decision of the Pacific Union (and others) is still at variance with the votes of the world church at two General Conference sessions.

Simply put, it is still a sly method of rebellion against the decisions of the world church.

Be not deceived,

`oG

[Woody]

Quote:

The application to the current WO issue seems clear. If we wait for the rest of the world to get on board with the idea it will never happen. (One has to wonder if that is the intentional strategy of some that are opposed to WO to see that it never happens and to force their will on those in favor of WO.)

Let progress happen where it is acceptable.

Excellent Comments Tom. Praise the Lord some here are not deceived by all the militant bluster of the opposition.

[Overaged]

Simply put, it is still a sly method of rebellion against the decisions of the world church.

Be not deceived,

`oG

Excellent "military bluster," bro.

[olger]

[phkrause]

Is that the middle finger that he is presenting? If that's what you intended, which I'm sure you did not, next time check out what you post a little better.

[Naomi]

LOL Only because I can be somewhat OCD at times I went to the mirror and did a salute. If the fingers are held straight you can only see one ... the middle finger. I suppose it is how we choose to look a it. Hope some General doesn't see his troops in a salute and become offended .... Fox News would love that one.

Forgive me I am being silly this morning ...............

[Gordon1]

Olger, if one's position is from the Bible, the vote of the entire world church should not change our belief.

Appealing to majority rule is not safe ground.

[Guest]

Olger, if one's position is from the Bible, the vote of the entire world church should not change our belief.

Appealing to majority rule is not safe ground.

That's a fact.

[Overaged]

Forgiven. lol

[Overaged]

Olger, if one's position is from the Bible, the vote of the entire world church should not change our belief.

Appealing to majority rule is not safe ground.

It is not just "majority rule" when it comes to the Church. They arrive at their decisions, and vote accordingly as a result of in-depth Bible study. When we see a "majority rule;" with The GC we are seeing evidence of the Holy Spirit speaking the same thing to different individuals...That is something we can trust!

[olger]

Fracking the church's unity with NAD theology will likely cause an earthquake.

Rejoice eternally,

G

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

Is that the middle finger that he is presenting? If that's what you intended, which I'm sure you did not, next time check out what you post a little better.

That's the boy scout salute, Peter. Three fingers full!

Love thinks no ill...

Naomi -->

Rejoice always, alleyah