Moderators Jeannieb43 Posted March 29, 2007 Moderators Posted March 29, 2007 The GC is now and has been for a while, considering, major restructuring. Here's a couple of links. http://news.adventist.org/data/2005/09/1129067537/index.html.en http://www.adventist.org/world_church/commission-ministries-services-structures/ Lazarus, thanks for these links. "Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, and departmental directors don't vote themselves out of office." How true! --But something has to be changed, in our administrative organizational plan. I'll be very interested to see what comes out of these series of meetings of this Commission. We should NOT be spending so much money on the hierarchy! ==== Oops! I hadn't read the intervening posts when I wrote this.... Sorry if I'm off topic. Quote Jeannie<br /><br /><br />...Change is inevitable; growth is optional....
Moderators Gerr Posted March 29, 2007 Moderators Posted March 29, 2007 To call this article a temper tantrum is the kind of response we are used to. That thought came to me about three or four years ago as I walked the halls of the General Conference, looking at the pictures that adorn the walls of key departments in the building—pictures of the church’s topmost officials over the years. I counted 92 leaders, 89 of them (96.7 percent) Caucasian. This one reality trumps all our professions about diversity. They tell the story of a glass ceiling beyond which certain folks cannot rise. It’s as if there’s an unwritten understanding that certain positions in the church are too sensitive for certain ethnic groups to occupy. The United Nations can afford to take that risk, but the church is much too delicate for that! http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2007-1505&page=5 I think I know exactly what you mean. I was in an after-church potluck in the Honolulu SDA Central Church one Sabbath a few years ago. I happen to be inside the pastor's study. On the wall of the office were pictures of all that have pastored the Honolulu Central Church. I was flabbergasted!!! As diversified & inter-racially mixed the Hawaiian population is, every single one of those pastors were Caucasians!!! Gerry Quote
Taylor Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Man Gerry and Lazurus that is just nuts isn't it?? I hope our next GC president is of african descent or Hispanic because those are two huge groups of people who have never been that well represented. We also need more Philippinos, Orientals, and probably many others. The church in Central and South America has grown very quickly as it has in the Philippines and Africa. I think we need more leadership from those areas of the world especially since we have so many more members from those places than anywhere else. (I'd love to see more orientals as well!) Quote
there buster Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 I happened to be in Norway in 1999 when Jan Paulsen became GC president. Many were curious as to my reaction, as an American, to a European being GC president. I said, "We're a world church. I trust that we have people of leadership ability in every part of the church. I know nothing about Paulsen [at that time], but have no reason to question his election." I usually paused, and let them absorb this, and then I continued. "The greater number of our members are black and brown," I said, "so I anticipate that soon we will have a black or brown GC president. I know of several I would personally recommend, and I have no doubt there are many more I just don't happen to know. It's inevitable and it's necessary." I really don't care what color or ethnicity the next GC president is. To the degree that it matters--and it shouldn't matter a lot--I'd personally prefer a non-Caucasian as the next GC pres, just as a statement that we are emphatically a world body. But far more important to me is that we get someone of vision and leadership. Organized as we are, it will take both--and I'm assuming whoever it is will be a man of God--and if we reorganize, it will take even more of both. I personally know some very devout men of God, great pastors and wonderful Christians, who nevertheless do not have either vision or leadership. For whatever reason, they just don't have it. And when they are elevated to leadership positions, the church suffers from their lack. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell
olger Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Redwood said: "As I recall she took tithe money for both the poor Blacks in the South and also for women who were ministering but could not get GC support. I can not be certain of those specific directions for her tithe but I do know she used her own tithe and the tithe of others." Are you suggesting that these "women" were trying to do ministry and the mean old male-operated church leadership tried to starve them out? James Nix will say you are exaggerating or misrepresenting something. No offense of course. German boy Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.."
Taylor Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 She did infact pay women who were working along side their husbands and who were Bible workers and yes it is my understanding it was tithe. And no one said it was because people were mean or male dominated, or because they were GC people or whatever. There just wasn't enough money to go around, women in general weren't paid in those days for that type of work and EGW said they were doing a most excellent work. Now whether this was her "first tithe" or "second tithe" I have no idea. (Some people pay a double tithe...first to the GC and the next to use as they see fit...for ministry purposes...and this is in addition offerings.) Quote
Taylor Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 I really don't care what color or ethnicity the next GC president is. To the degree that it matters--and it shouldn't matter a lot--I'd personally prefer a non-Caucasian as the next GC pres, just as a statement that we are emphatically a world body. But far more important to me is that we get someone of vision and leadership. Organized as we are, it will take both--and I'm assuming whoever it is will be a man of God--and if we reorganize, it will take even more of both. I personally know some very devout men of God, great pastors and wonderful Christians, who nevertheless do not have either vision or leadership. For whatever reason, they just don't have it. And when they are elevated to leadership positions, the church suffers from their lack. Completely agreed! I would love to see a dynamic, spirit driven, dedicated leader who is also of a different ethnic race than white as you said to reflect the diversity in the church. Such a combination would be dynamite, in my opinion. But yes, we need to look at leadership qualities above and beyond anything else. I just think there are fantastic people that fall into that catagory that are of other races as well as caucasian. Quote
Taylor Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Good Point Bravus. And as we know ... Ellen White did not always trust the SDA organization. She withheld HER tithe and accepted the tithe of others and put it to good use outside of the SDA organization. So ... is Anthony critical of what Ellen White did? OR is he being selectively critical of Bevin? I could be wrong but this is my understanding: EGW never misstrusted the SDA organization on the use of her tithe. She said that the "storehouse" was the organized church and even though it will make mistakes, that is now God's problem to deal with....or something like that. However, yes she did use "tithe" money to pay some Bible workers and pastor's wives for their work. However, it has been debated if this was a "first" or "second" tithe. In her day (and still in many countries) it is the custom to pay two tithes plus offerings. One tithe is for the GC, one is to use in projects as you see fit and the rest is offerings for the local church budget, for missions etc. For what it's worth....just my 2 cents. Quote
Woody Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Redwood said: "As I recall she took tithe money for both the poor Blacks in the South and also for women who were ministering but could not get GC support. I can not be certain of those specific directions for her tithe but I do know she used her own tithe and the tithe of others." Are you suggesting that these "women" were trying to do ministry and the mean old male-operated church leadership tried to starve them out? James Nix will say you are exaggerating or misrepresenting something. No offense of course. German boy I've written and corresponded with James Nix. I think I have a pretty good idea of what he would say. AND I do not think he would disagree with my post. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Moderators Gerr Posted March 30, 2007 Moderators Posted March 30, 2007 I have an idea. Since our President Jan Paulsen likes to go around entertaining questions from our young people, why don't we invite him to meet with those not so young & address this issue? Was the selection of Bill Knott a committee's call? Or was it the president's? If the committee wanted Adams but Paulsen wanted Knott and had the final say, is this democracy or a dictatorship? Gerry Quote
Moderators Gerr Posted March 30, 2007 Moderators Posted March 30, 2007 Quote: In other words, our organization has become top-heavy. Under present rules (as I understand them), the office secretaries and janitors in the conference offices are paid with tithe money, but local churches are not allowed to pay their secretaries or janitors with tithe money. I beg to differ with you on the first count. Think that the church is top-heavy now? Did you see it 15 to 20 years ago? Since the Folkenberg (former General Conference president Robert Folkenberg) era of the 1990s, much has changed and many departments have been streamlined, combined or eliminated altogether, at all levels of the 'heirarchy'. Since the late 1980s there has been a tremendous change in the SDA church organization 'heirarchy' and many administrators lost their jobs due to the move to a more 'business' model of organization. THAT is news to me! Gerry Quote
Moderators Gerr Posted March 30, 2007 Moderators Posted March 30, 2007 Originally Posted By: Bravus I think there are a couple of related points here: 1. Virtually all of those Bible texts and most of the EGW ones are about paying less than 10%, not about where it is paid to. They're about saying "things are being done so I'll pay less", not about "things are being done wrong so I'll pay differently". 2. As Jeannie has pointed out, there's no scriptural basis for assigning a 1:1 correspondence between 'God's warehouse' and 'the organised Seventh-day Adventist church'. Most of the authority for that doctrine comes from... the organised Seventh-day Adventist church. By the way Bravus ... Organized is spelled with a 'z' not an 's' according to Websters. Just an inside joke people. Don't jump all over me. Bravus is a bog boy ... he can take it. Bravus a "bog" boy? Gerry Quote
Moderators Gerr Posted March 30, 2007 Moderators Posted March 30, 2007 Originally Posted By: Anthony W Lewis You must be crushed... No, rather I am sad because I remember how tithing was presented to me: Pay or die! There are two problems with this scare tactic: 1] It's old covenant! 2] It makes giving a requirement for heaven! In a nutshell it makes the motive for giving wrong! Giving to get heaven and/or wealth are egocentric, sinful reasons. In other word, "giving to get is not giving". I rest my case, Robert And what does the New Covenant say? Steal & live!??? Gerry Quote
there buster Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 Quote: there are fantastic people that fall into that catagory that are of other races as well as caucasian. They're very rare in any group. But as near as I can tell, skin color has nothing at all to do with it. Well, I'm so pale I get a sunburn in front of an open refrigerator. I couldn't take the exposure! Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell
olger Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 I too hope we get someone like you describe, Ed. Give us Biblical correct leaders, not politically correct. `G Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.."
Woody Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 Originally Posted By: Redwood By the way Bravus ... Organized is spelled with a 'z' not an 's' according to Websters. Just an inside joke people. Don't jump all over me. Bravus is a bog boy ... he can take it. [/quote'] Bravus a "bog" boy? Gerry That's right Gerry.Bravus is a bog boy. If you want to know more ... ask Bravus. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Moderators lazarus Posted March 30, 2007 Moderators Posted March 30, 2007 It seems to be that the GC Presdidential leadership that has been elected so far has been in many instances politcal, and correct in the eyes of the white majority! Political correctness cuts both ways but its bad for some when it means that they have to examine their own prejudices. I second Ed's perspective Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
Moderators lazarus Posted March 30, 2007 Moderators Posted March 30, 2007 tryin to find the "tithe" threads just to see whose found the missing text. The NT text that says we should return tithe!.....oops did I just say that. Before folks start getting crazy, yeah I pay tithe, I just finished a series in my church on "Money Matters" and we spoke about tithe for 2 weeks! So there. Just asking....OK Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
there buster Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 I understand that the year Bob Folkenberg became president, George Brown of InterAmerica received a majority of votes first, but turned down the post, on the grounds that there would be too much bitterness because it would have been perceived as rejection of the previous GC president This didn't have to do with race, but with what some felt was the 'overly controlling' style of the predecessor. Folkenberg had been associated with the previous GC pres., so was not seen as a rejection of the predecessor, and, having grown up in InterAmerica and being fluent in Spanish, he was acceptable to those who had wanted Brown. When dealing with human beings, sometimes politics is the only way. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell
Moderators Gerr Posted March 30, 2007 Moderators Posted March 30, 2007 tryin to find the "tithe" threads just to see whose found the missing text. The NT text that says we should return tithe!.....oops did I just say that. Before folks start getting crazy, yeah I pay tithe, I just finished a series in my church on "Money Matters" and we spoke about tithe for 2 weeks! So there. Just asking....OK If a truth stated in the OT is not re-stated in the NT, does that make it null & void? Would it not be more logical to assume that what was stated as truth is still true? Do we do away with the law not moving boundary lines because it is not expressly reiterated in the new? It is amazing to me what inventions some people can come up with to try to avoid something they don't want to comply with. Gerry Quote
Woody Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 Lest we judge too harshly Gerry ... The early SDA church and Ellen White did not pay tithe as we know it. The GC approved it in the year 1879. Instead they had a formula as follows ... Only those within the ages of 18 to 60 years old had to pay anything at all and it was the following: According to the ABILITY of the donor it was from 5 cents to 20 cents for men and from 2 to 10 cents for women for each week. Then if you owned land it was from 1 cent to 5 cents for every $100 of land value. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Moderators lazarus Posted March 31, 2007 Moderators Posted March 31, 2007 If a truth stated in the OT is not re-stated in the NT, does that make it null & void? Would it not be more logical to assume that what was stated as truth is still true? Do we do away with the law not moving boundary lines because it is not expressly reiterated in the new? It is amazing to me what inventions some people can come up with to try to avoid something they don't want to comply with. It could simply be that the law has been superceeded. The New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant! Giving was no longer mandated in percentage terms but as a heart reponse to the Spirit. I guess you could see it as an attempt to avoid something if you want to. Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
Robert Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 If a truth stated in the OT is not re-stated in the NT, does that make it null & void? Gerry What is the sum of the moral law? 1] Love to God expressed in faith 2] Love to mankind. The first four have to do with our relationship to God. The last six have to do with our relationship to mankind. Okay, now go to the 8th commandment. What does it state? “You shall not steal." From whom? Your neighbor. How so? Because the last six commandments have to do with our relationship to our neighbors - not God. Hence, the command "do not steal" applies to our neighbors and not God. Quote
Robert Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 The New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant! Giving was no longer mandated in percentage terms but as a heart reponse to the Spirit. I agree.... Quote
Moderators Gerr Posted March 31, 2007 Moderators Posted March 31, 2007 Lest we judge too harshly Gerry ... The early SDA church and Ellen White did not pay tithe as we know it. The GC approved it in the year 1879. Instead they had a formula as follows ... Only those within the ages of 18 to 60 years old had to pay anything at all and it was the following: According to the ABILITY of the donor it was from 5 cents to 20 cents for men and from 2 to 10 cents for women for each week. Then if you owned land it was from 1 cent to 5 cents for every $100 of land value. I don't know which of my posts you find harshly judgmental. And this is not 1879. Gerry Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.