Stan

If there was one change the Church could do in 2017

55 posts in this topic

If there was one change the Church could do in 2017, what would that be?

AND PLEASE, NOT about women ordination...  that is covered elsewhere.?

 

Jeannieb43 and The Wanderer like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stan said:

If there was one change the Church could do in 2017, what would that be?

 

I'd say Downsize..

CoAspen and Stan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stan said:

If there was one change the Church could do in 2017, what would that be?

AND PLEASE, NOT about women ordination...  that is covered elsewhere.?

 

I've continually heard that it is not Jesus being unwilling to return to this world but that it is the church who are not ready. Since only those who do not know Jesus are the only ones who cannot enter the Kingdom, it would seem to me since Jesus leaves no stone unturned to make sure all have opportunity to become acquainted with Him before He comes and since all humanity have free choice under His rule, the bride of Christ should concentrate on introducing Jesus to whoever will listen as primary and walk as closely as possible as Jesus would have us walk, discontinuing the sense of needing to be politically correct, all the more so as we see true Christianity falling into disfavor world wide.

13But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24

God is Love!~Jesus saves!    :happysabbath:

Magnolia and Stan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LifeHiscost said:

concentrate on introducing Jesus to whoever will listen

hasn't evangelism been the #1 priority of the church since its inception?  (just wondering... maybe that's *not* been the priority)

Stan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

hasn't evangelism been the #1 priority of the church since its inception?  (just wondering... maybe that's *not* been the priority)

Perhaps the stated goal at the leadership level, however from the heart level, what could we say about this example.

6Whoever claims to abide in Him must walk as Jesus walked....1 John 2

34A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so also you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”…. John 13

We are told many will come into the church in the end days (which I believe we are in) while many will also leave. The church I'm happy to belong to (SDAdventist) has expressed their love to my wife and I with tangible loving expressions and acts over the last four years that has made some very difficult times much more endurable. Each incident or event we attribute to the grace of Jesus.

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God....Hebrew 12

God is Love!~Jesus saves!  :D

The Wanderer, Stan and Magnolia like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#1) Stop supporting and participating in the killing of unborn human beings.

Stan and Ron Amnsn like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

I'd say Downsize..

When you say downsize, what do you mean?

Stan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phkrause said:

When you say downsize, what do you mean?

I think the church is too top heavy.  The church needs to be given back to the people.

Ron Amnsn, GayatfootofCross, Sojourner and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To restart the Seventh-day Adventist Jewish movement and start a Seventh-day Adventist Muslim movement. To reach out to people with the good news about Hell and God's love and help people where they are in their growth, rather than just on a hunt to find new tithe paying church members.

JDS and GayatfootofCross like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that if the Church fails to make certain changes that need to be made, in a time  when they could be made, God will intervene in a manner to bring them about that will not be easy and fun.

Having said the above, I believe:


That the change most needed is to make the local congregation the primary focus of mission and ministry and that all other "higher" organizations should have as their mission and ministry that of helping the local congregation to   identify their needs and to equip them for meeting those needs.

That present focus of the Church, as I see it in practice today, is for each "higher" level of organization to bring all "lower" levels of organization into line so that all march in "lock step."

As I come from a military background, let me illustrate from that background.

Believe it or not.  There is a science to the study of military operations and combat.  Dependent upon their rank and position, all U.S. military officers are trained in the science of such.  As part of their training, U.S. military officers are trained as to how a presumed enemy force is going to operate.  The result is that during the so-called "cold-war" in any given situation the U.S. forces would be able to accurately predict how the Soviet forces  would operate.  This was because Soviet forces operated in strict accord with their doctrine.  They did not deviate. 

The U.S. military also has clearly stated doctrine.  That doctrine is under  constant evaluation and changes as circumstances change.  U.S. military forces are trained in that doctrine.

But, on all levels, U.S. Commanders are expected to do what is needed to accomplish the mission.  When it comes to a 4-star, that officer has total ability to disregard doctrine and to accomplish the mission in any manner that the 4-star choses.  If a 4l-star issues an order that violates doctrine and policy, that order is put into effect.

The classic case of this is our invasion of Iraq.  The 4-star in charge was so successful, in part, due to the fact that the 4-star deployed U.S. forces in  manner that was not in accord with the  doctrine.  I could give you other examples of such.  W hen such happens, the President can remove the 4-star and such has been done.  But, while the 4-star is in the position the 4-star can do what ever the 4-star thinks should be done.

We need to put the local congregation into the 1st place.  It should be the highest level of organization, not the  General Conference.

 

  

 

 

 

JDS, CoAspen, Kevin H and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gregory...the last paragraph in your post sounds strange...what would that actually look like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I believe that if the Church fails to make certain changes that need to be made, in a time  when they could be made, God will intervene in a manner to bring them about that will not be easy and fun.

Having said the above, I believe:


That the change most needed is to make the local congregation the primary focus of mission and ministry and that all other "higher" organizations should have as their mission and ministry that of helping the local congregation to   identify their needs and to equip them for meeting those needs.

That present focus of the Church, as I see it in practice today, is for each "higher" level of organization to bring all "lower" levels of organization into line so that all march in "lock step."

As I come from a military background, let me illustrate from that background.

Believe it or not.  There is a science to the study of military operations and combat.  Dependent upon their rank and position, all U.S. military officers are trained in the science of such.  As part of their training, U.S. military officers are trained as to how a presumed enemy force is going to operate.  The result is that during the so-called "cold-war" in any given situation the U.S. forces would be able to accurately predict how the Soviet forces  would operate.  This was because Soviet forces operated in strict accord with their doctrine.  They did not deviate. 

The U.S. military also has clearly stated doctrine.  That doctrine is under  constant evaluation and changes as circumstances change.  U.S. military forces are trained in that doctrine.

But, on all levels, U.S. Commanders are expected to do what is needed to accomplish the mission.  When it comes to a 4-star, that officer has total ability to disregard doctrine and to accomplish the mission in any manner that the 4-star choses.  If a 4l-star issues an order that violates doctrine and policy, that order is put into effect.

The classic case of this is our invasion of Iraq.  The 4-star in charge was so successful, in part, due to the fact that the 4-star deployed U.S. forces in  manner that was not in accord with the  doctrine.  I could give you other examples of such.  W hen such happens, the President can remove the 4-star and such has been done.  But, while the 4-star is in the position the 4-star can do what ever the 4-star thinks should be done.

We need to put the local congregation into the 1st place.  It should be the highest level of organization, not the  General Conference.

 

  

 

 

 

There is an SoP quotation that says when God will intervene

"When men, being in power, oppress and spoil their fellow men, and no earthly tribunal can be found to do justice, God will interpose in behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. He will punish for every act of oppression. No earthly wisdom can secure wrongdoers against the judgments of heaven. And when men put their trust in earthly powers instead of their Maker, when they become lifted up in pride and self-confidence, God will in His own time make them to be despised"  (Letter 122, 1900). { 7BC 946.6 } 

Which is my way to introduce my thoughts of what needs to be changed in 2017, there is no accountability because the process which holds church leaders accountable is ignored. This emboldens people in positions of trust to do things their own way, even if it violates proper procedure. On Oct. 11, 2016 the Annual Council approved a statement they called 'Unity in Mission' which is a procedure to deal with non-compliance with proper church procedure. It may have been the WO issue the triggered this measure, but it was necessary to deal with other issues beside WO.  What this means is that God has set up an "earthly tribunal" and gives the church a chance to correct their mistakes before He intervenes.  In God's own time He makes them to be despised, but I think their name is removed from the Book of Life before this happens, which means the church is not doing those who need discipline any favor by ignoring their behavior. The church needs to hold leaders accountable for misconduct for the good of the church as well as to glorify God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2016 at 11:21 AM, Stan said:

If there was one change the Church could do in 2017, what would that be?

AND PLEASE, NOT about women ordination...  that is covered elsewhere.?

 

I think that the Church could change one thing in particular, and it would make all the difference in the world. If they would only start to practice the same "acceptance" of sinners, as we see Jesus doing in the Bible; then people would not hesitate to come back and try again. All levels of the church need to take courses on this, or some such thing. It would make a huge difference for every problem the church is now experiencing.

LifeHiscost likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mario-One said:

There is an SoP quotation that says when God will intervene

"When men, being in power, oppress and spoil their fellow men, and no earthly tribunal can be found to do justice, God will interpose in behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. He will punish for every act of oppression. No earthly wisdom can secure wrongdoers against the judgments of heaven. And when men put their trust in earthly powers instead of their Maker, when they become lifted up in pride and self-confidence, God will in His own time make them to be despised"  (Letter 122, 1900). { 7BC 946.6 } 

Which is my way to introduce my thoughts of what needs to be changed in 2017, there is no accountability because the process which holds church leaders accountable is ignored. This emboldens people in positions of trust to do things their own way, even if it violates proper procedure. On Oct. 11, 2016 the Annual Council approved a statement they called 'Unity in Mission' which is a procedure to deal with non-compliance with proper church procedure. It may have been the WO issue the triggered this measure, but it was necessary to deal with other issues beside WO.  What this means is that God has set up an "earthly tribunal" and gives the church a chance to correct their mistakes before He intervenes.  In God's own time He makes them to be despised, but I think their name is removed from the Book of Life before this happens, which means the church is not doing those who need discipline any favor by ignoring their behavior. The church needs to hold leaders accountable for misconduct for the good of the church as well as to glorify God. 

So, you are saying "accountability" needs to be changed. Do you think this should only apply to those i"n positions of power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

So, you are saying "accountability" needs to be changed. Do you think this should only apply to those i"n positions of power?

I am sorry that I did not make it clear.  There is Working Policy for misconduct by a pastor ( L-60 section 10 ) and another policy for misconduct by Administrative officer (President, Secretary, Treasurer)  ( L-60 section 15) which could be improved but the problem is that they are ignored. I have seen a pastor with 52 accusations of misconduct transferred to another church ( and this was after he physically assaulted a member and stole his property; same pastor gave false report to police and tried to have a member arrested for trespassing when he attended worship service).  These 52 accusations were not from one person, it was from a dozen concerned members, and when the conference failed to discipline this pastor, many of the grieved members left the church. I have seen Conference administrators ignore the church manual and authorize a pastor to call the police to arrest two Adventist ladies if they attended church, this is not the way to deal with grievances. The conference leaders used their position to prevent an investigation into their conduct. These two ladies stopped attending church because the Union and the NAD would not do their duty which is clearly written in church policy.  So I do think changing the policies will help as much as enforcing them as they are written.

The Wanderer likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably to delete the 1844 heavenly sanctuary doctrine which relies on a vision of Ellen White to be authenticated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mario-One, you have made a comment that I believes deserves a response as I have some agreement with it as well as some disagreement.  In order to attempt to be clear in my response, I will number your statements and follow each by my response which I will place in brackets along with my initials in an attempt to be clear as what you wrote and what is my  response:

 1) There is Working Policy for misconduct by a pastor ( L-60 section 10 ) and another policy for misconduct by Administrative officer (President, Secretary, Treasurer)  ( L-60 section 15) which could be improved but the problem is that they are ignored.

[I am going to assume that you referenced that NAD Working Policy and not the GC Working Policy.  It should be noted that, as L-60-15 states, the provisions of L-60-20 and L-60-25 apply, which you did not cite.  L-60-20 defines the boundaries that apply as:  Moral Fall, Apostasy, Dissidence, Embezzlement/Theft, Other Reasons.  It appears to me that you suggest that the "Other Reasons" category is the one that applies in this case--GM.]

2)  I have seen a pastor with 52 accusations of misconduct transferred to another church ( and this was after he physically assaulted a member and stole his property; same pastor gave false report to police and tried to have a member arrested for trespassing when he attended worship service).  These 52 accusations were not from one person, it was from a dozen concerned members, and when the conference failed to discipline this pastor, many of the grieved members left the church.

[You have listed three (3) specific criminal offenses--assault, theft & false police report.  Conviction on any of these offenses would clearly fall under the "Other Reasons" category of L-60-20.  But, it would require a criminal conviction to properly discipline the pastor.  Were criminal charges made?  Did the police charge the pastor with making a false report.  NOTE:  In order to be so charged it would have to be proven that the pastor knew that the report was false.  Absent that knowledge, a conviction would be unlikely.  If the pastor was not charged with assault, why?  If not charged with theft, why?  I will suggest that if the pastor was not charged, it was probably due to the belief of the authorities that a conviction could not be obtained.   The process of discipline should be fair to all parties.  Absent criminal convictions on the three crimes that you allege the pastor committed, it would be very hard for the church to administer any serious discipline.  Yes, it   could potentially be possible for the Church to administer some sort of minor discipline.  But, how   would you know whether or not such had been done?  It is highly likely that you would not know.  As to  members leaving the church, was that the local congregation or the denomination?  If the local congregation, it may (?) very well have been the right thing to do.  Yes, either would be sad--GM.]

3)  I have seen Conference administrators ignore the church manual and authorize a pastor to call the police to arrest two Adventist ladies if they attended church, this is not the way to deal with grievances. The conference leaders used their position to prevent an investigation into their conduct.

[On the contrary, calling the police was exactly the thing to do.  The word "arrest" had a specific meaning in criminal law.  I am uncertain as to whether you are using that work in its formal meaning.  If you are formally using it, you are telling us that the "Adventist Ladies"  were considered potentially intending to violate an order by a judge and/or commit other criminal conduct that could result in criminal charges.  You may have been using word in a less than formal sense.  If so, removing the women from church property does not constitute arrest in a formal sense.  Regardless of what you may think, the pastor, does have the right to direct the police to remove a person form the property.  As a congregational pastor I have been in a situation where I directed the local elders to, under carefully defined situations, to ask the police to remove a person from services on a Sabbath morning.  Fortunately, they did not have to do so.  But, such may be required in order to provide for either the safety of members or for their freedom to worship.  As to you allegation that the Conference prevented investigation of the pastor, I can clearly say that the Conference did not have the power to prevent police from doing a criminal investigation of some of what you allege.  To attempt to prevent police investigation of those aspects could have had the potential of Conference Officials being charged with a crime--GM.] 

 

4)  These two ladies stopped attending church because the Union and the NAD would not do their duty which is clearly written in church policy.  So I do think changing the policies will help as much as enforcing them as they are written.

[You have failed to document that the Church failed in its duty and/or failed to follow policy.  However, I do agree that such failure has happened in the past.  I do agree that there are issues that need to be addressed.  In any case, your case is sad--GM]

 

 

phkrause and The Wanderer like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sojourner said:

Probably to delete the 1844 heavenly sanctuary doctrine which relies on a vision of Ellen White to be authenticated. 

This comment has nothing to do with the op. But. We dont need EGW for any doctrine!

Stan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

4)  These two ladies stopped attending church because the Union and the NAD would not do their duty which is clearly written in church policy.  So I do think changing the policies will help as much as enforcing them as they are written.

[You have failed to document that the Church failed in its duty and/or failed to follow policy.  However, I do agree that such failure has happened in the past.  I do agree that there are issues that need to be addressed.  In any case, your case is sad--GM]

 

 

There should be something in said policy to discipline leaders who choose to not follow it. Thats why they keep getting away with it. There are no "teeth" in the policy that would affect them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sojourner said:

Probably to delete the 1844 heavenly sanctuary doctrine which relies on a vision of Ellen White to be authenticated. 

1The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2and who ministers in the sanctuary and true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. 3Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. So it was necessary for this One also to have something to offer.… Hebrews 8

What part of this do you find objectionable?

6Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 7Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. 8Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. 9Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 10Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. 11Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 13There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. ...1 Corinthians 10

God is Love!~Jesus saves!  :D

The Wanderer likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, LifeHiscost said:

1The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2and who ministers in the sanctuary and true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. 3Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. So it was necessary for this One also to have something to offer.… Hebrews 8

What part of this do you find objectionable?

This discussion should probably be moved to a different thread.  There's nothing objectionable in what is actually written in Scripture -- it's the part that isn't in Scripture that should be tested by Scripture.

The Wanderer likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/01/2017 at 11:48 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

That the change most needed is to make the local congregation the primary focus of mission and ministry and that all other "higher" organizations should have as their mission and ministry that of helping the local congregation to   identify their needs and to equip them for meeting those needs.

That present focus of the Church, as I see it in practice today, is for each "higher" level of organization to bring all "lower" levels of organization into line so that all march in "lock step."

I agree almost fully with this portion of your post.  There are other portions which I believe detract significantly from this message--and introduce an element of confusion, as if marching to the beat of a different drum is good.

Before I read your post, I was about to present my thoughts relative to the question for this thread that ran along the same lines as what I've quoted you saying above.  However, I will be a little more focused, perhaps, on the specifics of the change that I see as needed most.

 

I believe the church most needs a change in structural philosophyThe church must cease and desist from its continual efforts to centralize, to organize under a single leadership entity or organization, to legitimize and enforce "memorandums of understanding" upon supporting ministries in an effort to essentially annex them to the church, and in general to "bureaucratize" the work of the Lord's servants.

 

As examples of what should NOT be done, that the church has recently done, I would remember the following:

-- Annex the ASI organization to become an arm of the church under the General Conference (so much for the "laymen" organization)

-- Merge the Review and Herald Publishing Association into the Pacific Press Publishing Association, essentially closing it

-- Force supporting ministries to sign agreements called "memorandums of understanding" (MOUs) in order to authorize their work and cooperation with the church

-- Centralize all financial decisions and support of local church efforts to institutions hundreds or thousands of miles away who are out-of-touch with the local needs

-- Insist that tithes may only be paid to the local Conference and may not be forwarded to other conferences or missions of the church around the world

-- Prohibit churches from forwarding donations to independent or supporting ministries

-- Enforce only the official use of the name "Adventist" upon all worldwide, including schools, websites, etc., such that only the church's official branches and organizations may legally use it

-- Automatically deduct tithe monies from workers' salaries, procedurally, usually without the individuals' ability to choose otherwise (you sign the consent to get the job)

 

All of the above represent efforts toward control, control, control.  These efforts come under the "kingly power" designation used by Mrs. White to decry them. They will NOT help to further the Lord's work around the world.  Several of the above are outright sins of which we are informed through Mrs. White, yet the church has gone forward with them, full knowing what she said (not sins of ignorance).

LifeHiscost likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Green. You are all excited about nothing. You have grossly misrepresented almost everything you talked about. If we did it your way there would be nothing left but little pieces of every man doing whats right in their own eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Green. You are all excited about nothing. You have grossly misrepresented almost everything you talked about. If we did it your way there would be nothing left but little pieces of every man doing whats right in their own eyes.

#1:  I am not excited about it.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In place of "excited," I am dismayed and discouraged.

#2:  I have not misrepresented.  If I have, you have failed to show where and how.

#3:  It is according to the Lord's will that each be both "fully persuaded in his own mind" and have independence to work for the Lord as he sees fit, without others acting as conscience for him.

Those are facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Green. The church is not acting as oir conscience. You are coming across as very angry that you cannot make it change the way you want them to...and thats exactly what you say they should not do to you. The church has done nothing to prevent you from witnessing or working for God. It is in this sense that you misrepresent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

Mega Footer

You can configure this content inside your ACP under Customization > Edit > Mega Footer.

Mega Footer

You can configure this content inside your ACP under Customization > Edit > Mega Footer.