A Call to Action

This morning I received notice from an administrator attending the Annual Council (AC) that there is going to be a plan set before the AC to penalize members of the General Conference Executive Committee who cannot vouch that they are complying with GC policies. Such individuals will not have voice or vote beginning with the 2018 AC. Committee members will be asked when registering to indicate no conflict of interest, which will be done through a click of a button. Then there will be another box to click if the member believes he or she is following policy. If a member indicates that they do follow policy and the GC leadership is suspicious then there will be an investigation.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2017/10/08/call-action


Ellen White WOULD BE PROUD!!


May God help us. Our top administrators don’t appear to be willing to.


With the complexity of the working policy, all AC participants should conscienciously indicate that they are in conflict with one or more policies. If they don’t they can be accused of lying.

This honesty is the best way to show collective solidarity that should give the leadership something to think about, including resigning, thus giving the opportunity for the church to re-boot with a genuine “revolutionary” revival and reformation true to the spirit of Christ.


I wonder who will act the part of a Paul to withstand the Peter’s in leadership who are determined seemingly to do despite to gospel principles. Yes, who will assert the truly gospel principles of freedom of conscience.

I imagine that policy change in our denomination must at times be driven by challenge, all in the positive process of policy development.

Will GC Executive Committee members never be able to push for policy change?


I am reminded of this short comment:

Any man, be he minister or layman, who seeks to compel or control the reason of any other man, becomes an agent of Satan, to do his work, and in the sight of the heavenly universe he bears the mark of Cain (Manuscript 29, 1911).


The VoteGate

The Russians are not only influencing the US elections, but it seems that they have also infiltrated our barracks at the GC level.

This is my conclusion when I see a “Soviet Style of Governance” being infiltrated in this AC directly by Ted Wilson. And this “addition” of votes mentioned by Dr Knight is the most outrageous fraud I’ve ever heard of in our Church. How can they sleep at night? How do they dare to PRAY when they keep doing this kind of shameful stuff?

If what they say about what is going to happen tomorrow (the VoteGate) is true, God have mercy on us! I am also wondering if the press will be allowed in?!? @lorenseibold

But I am confident that there will be enough people imbued with decency, human respect, humane sensitivity, and true Christian force to put away this demoniac advance that is trying to eliminate freedom of conscience from our Church.

Those “Russians” have to be voted out, faaaaast!!!
@elmer_cupino @harrpa @timteichman


Sorry, but in my mind those Divisions who are acting contrary to the policies passed at the constituency meeting in 2010 are the ones being divisive. Last year they were asked to stop the practice of ordaining women, and to comply with the decisions made, but they have not complied. So in my mind the accusation of causing divisiveness is aim at the wrong group of people…


Why am I reminded of Glacier View. When the consensus statement made by the delegates did not satisfy the demands of a subset of GC leadership, other tactics were employed. A small group of men spent the Thursday night putting together an alternative statement that was used to bring about the results that the leadership wanted. The rest is history. It’s now called Adventism 911 #7 history.

Current GC leadership, probably a subset, seems to be following a “related” strategy to force uniformity in the name of unity but ignoring the need for diversity that saved the early Christian church as recorded in Acts 15.

If one vote fails, try another tactic!

It seems that there are those in GC leadership who simply cannot trust the leadership of the world Divisions and Unions to do what is best for their own areas of responsibility.



If our leaders will show backbone tomorrow, the split will be complete.
If they do not, hypocrisy and potentially another gospel will prevail.

Either way … a destructive outcome. Kyrie Eleison.

(Oh, and just to make sure … with “our leaders” I meant elected representatives from my division)


Comparing Ted Wilson to Stalin and the popes is unfair to Stalin and the popes. Those monsters of pride and power killed their millions. Ted Wilson uses the GC Working Policy to try to defend the Working Policy. Am I missing something, or is that not to be expected of a GC president? Fortunately, Ted Wilson will not be swayed by the “London types” even though the London types assume he ought to be. It is fascinating that the London types engage in exaggerated name calling. Ted Wilson merely assumes that those who reject democratically derived policy are rebels, which they most certainly are.


It seems that the state/institution itself has begun to show it’s pathologies and become unstable. People are beginning to realise that it’s not the place of redemption.


If this is true, the resulting vote last Sunday to pass this policy is fraud! The angels are weeping. At this point this has nothing to do with WO. Just pure greed/lust for power.

Even if this punitive policy comes to the AC tomorrow, doesn’t it have to be voted there? I pray the delegates do the right thing.

Elder David Weigly [sp?] humbly asked for release of the proposed document tonight but was rebuffed. Darkness prevails. Jesus is the Light of the world. May He show us the way tomorrow.


Here is a list of objections to the proposed effort to coerce delegates to either click or not click a button that indicates that they follow policy:

  1. Vagueness: The action is too vague to be sufficiently understood. The action is like a statement that declares “I am good” or “I encourage a safe work environment” or “I love God.” If auditors made a vague statement that the organization under audit “followed policy” or “did not follow policy,” we would not know what that vague statement means. Auditors in their wisdom do not resort to vagueness and we should not countenance vagueness. We cannot discern the meaning of the click of the button or the refusal to click the button, because either is too vague.
  2. Risk of Misrepresentation: The click of the button or failure to click is subject to misrepresentation. We do not know what the delegate is thinking, so consequently we risk misrepresenting the meaning of the delegate’s action.
  3. Risk of Selective Enforcement: Ted Wilson will not investigate those button-clicking delegates who are his political allies but those who appropriately find his behavior alarming. The risk of selective enforcement is the main reason why vague statutes are invalidated.
  4. Unfairness to the Delegate: It is unfair to require a delegate to provide a yes-or-no answer but not allow the delegate to explain his or her answer.
  5. Superfluous: Whether the delegate is following policy can be discerned in the audit reports and other facts known. It is superfluous to require the delegate to click or not click the button.
  6. Lack of Proper Foundation: The question posed to the delegates lacks proper foundation, because there is sharp disagreement about what the policy is. Unions that ordain women as ministers have declared what they think is policy. Opponents of women’s ordination have disagreed. Accordingly, the question posed to the delegates is improper because it lacks a proper foundation.
  7. Question Requests an Improper Legal Conclusion: Whether or not the delegate complies with policy is not solely a factual question but a legal question that the delegate may not be trained or equipped to answer. By way of illustration, only until Seventh-day Adventist Church law becomes settled with respect to which entity possesses authority with respect to ordination can such a question posed to the delegates be answered in an intelligent way.
  8. Humiliation of the Delegates: The delegates are servants of the Lord. They are humiliated when suspicion is directed toward them and when demands are made that they reiterate their fidelity. How would Ted Wilson feel if he were forced to sign a loyalty oath in order to be granted speaking privileges at Andrews University? A loyalty oath written by me? Or written by the professors at the Seminary? Or written by other proponents of women’s ordination?
  9. Impractical and Unworkable: The precious few hours of Annual Council should not be squandered on numerous investigations about whether particular delegates are complying with policy. Time that should be spent toward advancing the mission of the Church should not be squandered in quarreling about who gets to speak and vote.
  10. Violates the GC’s Constitution: The GC’s constitution in all probability does not countenance that delegates can be deprived of their rights to speak and vote because of noncompliance with policy.
  11. Encourages the Bearing of False Witness: The proposal encourages delegates to lie rather than slink home to their third world countries in disgrace. The GC should be promoting candor and forthrightness with respect to compliance with policy rather than facilitate the quick and easy lie one can tell by clicking a button.
  12. Disproportionality: The punishment meted out should be proportionate to the offense committed. Delegates should not be ostracized for minor deviations from policy. Taking away voice and vote is typically reserved for members who are excommunicated from the Church. Embezzlement is a major deviation from policy. Ordaining women as ministers, if that is in fact a deviation from policy, is relatively minor, as demonstrated by the enormous blessings provided to the Church by ordained women ministers.
  13. Ambiguity: Policy is comprised not only of words but the intent and spirit behind those words. The clicking of the button may indicate compliance solely with words, compliance solely with intent and spirit, or compliance with a combination of words and intent/spirit. Accordingly, the question posed to the delegates is improper and unanswerable because it is ambiguous.
  14. Loss of Exemplary Leaders: Exemplary leaders may understandably refuse to comply with the proposal. They may be wrong in doing so, but they remain exemplary leaders nonetheless. The proposal may facilitate the loss of exemplary leaders the Church needs in order to finish the work.
  15. Delegitimizes the GC’s Executive Committee: If all delegates are not allowed to speak and vote, then all actions taken by the GC’s Executive Committee thereafter are invalid and illegitimate per se.
  16. Makes Policy Inflexible: Policy is not supposed to be inflexible, something that is poured in concrete. There are legitimate reasons, given exigent circumstances, to deviate from policy. The proposal elevates policy to the level of the Ten Commandments, to the level of the Word of God. The proposal closes its eyes to possible changes of circumstances that might occur in the future. The proposal divests leaders from their exercise of wise judgment, which is sorely needed.
  17. Delegates are Unfairly Singled Out: The history of loyalty oaths is that only certain persons are targeted and that singling out of certain persons is unfair.
  18. Furthers Loyalty Oath Culture: The proposal furthers the demoralizing and damaging culture that Ted Wilson has fostered in the Church. History teaches that loyalty oaths are corrosive and corrupting to the culture.
  19. Wise Governance Neglected: The proposal is the antithesis of wise governance. The proposal should be scrapped in favor of other approaches that can more effectively deal with the issues. The ordinations of women as ministers are here to stay. We need leaders at the GC who understand this.
  20. Kicks the Can Down the Road: The proposal does not fix the issue pertaining to women’s ordination. It only kicks the can down the road. The best solution is to take the limited action of voting that ordinations of women as ministers are valid only in the unions in which those ordinations are done. Once that vote is taken, then the delegates can more appropriately direct their energy and resources toward finishing the work.

It’s becoming more and more clear that the G.C. President does not believe in Ellen White as he is acting in a manner directly contradictory to her counsels as cited by Dr. Knight and other commentators. According to traditional SDA exegesis it took until 538 A.D. for the Papacy to begin in reign of persecution; it’s only about 150 years since the official founding of the SDA denomination and already the spirit of “rule or ruin” is raising its head.


It is hard to imagine some consequence not being imposed on the church segments that are ordaining women. We could wish that were not so but it seems utterly unrealistic. Therefore, what is the least objectionable course of action? Might not something along these lines be it?

All those who are opposed to the way this proposal was developed might consider standing in respectful silence as it is unfolded. This would be courteous but it would also be clear.


So I thinking before checking that little box. The NAD Working policy is a 2" think book, with over 250 topic categories, with hundreds (as anyone ever counted them?) of policies, many which I’ve never seen. If I’m a person of conscience, there is no way I could check that box regardless on my position on women’s ordination.



An “investigation “ ??

Let us just call it an INQUISITION.

Shades of medieval witch burning and the Spanish Inquisition torture chambers for those who do not toe the line!


I would be more encouraged to see “man of God!” In his bio. Oh well, the letters behind his name is more important and carries more weight, I suppose!

1 Like