My Position

[Gregory Matthews]

As to the Annual Council vote on the Unity Document is  

Gregory Matthews • 4 hours ago

Two comments:

1) This denomination is facing challenges in a number of areas that I believe are beyond the ability of human leadership to resolve and can only be resolved by the intervention of God. I suggest that this issue of unity and compliance is one of those issues.

2) Fundamental to the issue of unity and compliance is the question as to what does the Bible have to say and how have we experienced the leading of God in our past history? Our SDA members, on all sides of the issues that divide us will never accept a resolution that seems to be determined by a vote of an administrative body. And they should not as the Bible and the leading of God should be our standard.

This vote is not going to settle any issue that currently divides us. May God in mercy lead us beyond this vote in the direction that we should go.

 

NOTE:  The above has been posted on the website of the REVIEW.

 

[JoeMo]

23 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

My whole point here is simply that "UNITY" is not related to specific doctrinal beliefs

Sounds like we think alike.  Unity has to do with loving Christ and one another in spite of non-salvational quibbling.  WOE is just a distraction.

I know the Church is not a democracy, but why cant the GC mandate really important stuff (like Jesus is God and the Sabbath); and leave the "little stuff" (like WOE) to local Conferences and Churches?

[JoeMo]

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

It looks like my posting here is being interfered with by "someone," because whenever I post; the post does not appear where it should at the bottom; it gets bounced to several posts up higher and makes me look stupid for posting like that. I was publically told I could "post as I wish" on this topic, and when that was said; I knew it was a lie.

I was having that same problem earlier today.  But I would refresh the screen and the post would show up where it was supposed to show up.

The same thing just happened with this post.

[JoeMo]

6 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Doctrines are NOT ever, once in scripture called "optional." 

I agree; but is the church's alleged "doctrine" on WOE a doctrine written by men or proclaimed by God.  IMHO, it is the former. 

It doesn't matter to me which way the church goes on WOE.  I'm sure I will still actively participate in my church; and the "commissioned" female pastors in the church will function exactly as the are doing now.  I'm done fighting with the denomination; but that doesn't mean I'm done with God's church.

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

that MIGHT spare you some headaches, but I can "see" how it could also cause some new ones

Not for me.  My primary allegiance is to Jesus; not to Adventism.

[pierrepaul]

13 hours ago, JoeMo said:

It doesn't matter to me which way the church goes on WOE.

I don't care either. Nor do I care if there is an organisational split or schism. God's church wasn't established by the filing of incorporation papers, the adoption of corporate by-laws and working policies and the registration of trademarks. I'm done with funding the corporate offices at the union, division and GC levels where this petty turf war is being waged.