A Woman and a Man and a Pulpit

Some Adventists have developed in a culture where dissent is the norm. It has led to developments in all aspects of life, including theology. Luther, Calvin, White were all in their time, dissenters. Equating dissent with ‘hating’ Ted Wilson is to misunderstand and disregard the intellectual culture in which they were nurtured. Our church, in the 19th Century was born out of debate, disagreements, questioning and a great deal of dissension. To demonise such people, and marginalise them within our denomination, can only lead to a poorer church, and one which is more conservative and reactionary than those churches we demonise and caricature.


I thought the young black woman from Zimbabwe preached a very good sermon. Her delivery was effective and her exposition of the Scriptures was sound. She used illustrations appropriately and above all her message on ‘balance’ was Christ-centered. I thought she did better than quite a few men preachers I have heard. I asked myself the question, “What actually hinders the brethren from laying hands of blessing upon her and acknowledging her as a minister? Is it that she is from Michigan or is it that she is a woman, or is it both?” She emphasised that the priests could not see the consolation of Israel and it took Simeon to see
the divine visitation. Was she implying that our modern day priests cannot see the working of the Holy Spirit in all of His manifestations?


I agree that the Pope being the Anti-Christ no longer stands up to historical scrutiny, although through 16th, 17th and 18th Century eyes, it is understandable why commentators reached such a conclusion. However, I strongly defend my fellow believers both to believe and declare such a position without being ‘censored’ because what they might state may be considered ‘offensive’. There is no place in any discussion for gratuitous offense. We must always be sensitive to individuals, less so to organisations. But in a society in which free speech should be the norm, we will be the poorer if much of what we think is unsaid because of the offense which others may take from it.

The thing I have noticed about those who perceive they have ‘more light’ than others and also literal interpretatists, is that they don’t care (or even think) about the consequences of applying their belief systems. The outcome is less important than the demonstration of perceived moral wisdom.

It is a wonderful state to be in, because they absolve themselves of personal responsibility. No more guilt or self doubt. It is really very simple; ‘this is what God says (thus sayeth the Lord) , therefore it’s nothing to do with me, I am simply the messenger’.

Hence the moral superiority of disfellowship. The relinquishing of common courtesy when addressing or talking to, or about someone who is’ sinful’ or has specific sins which should be called out and opined on.

Consider the recent case of the disfellowship of the woman from the church commented by @kristan_yeaton. On many occasions I asked what outcome he and his church were trying to achieve. No answer was ever forthcoming. I doubt they even considered the consequences; further, I doubt they really care.

Also, this leads to a push method of evangelising, both within and without the church. Not meeting people where they are, but where the proponent is.

Consider talking about the little horn and the beast as the Pope and the USA respectively. People will think you are crackers. This is not about truth and the need to pull people into salvation; it is egotistical; designed to boost ones own ego to the detriment of helping others.

It is something you do (preach) to others, rather than relational. It is abusive rather than inclusive.


I challenge any SDA pastor to do an anonymous survey of their members to see how many want Jesus to come back before JAN 1, 2016


the very idea of preaching denominational ism is anathema to the Gospel. read John’s version of Jesus full response to Nicodemus. read. Romans Chapters 1 through 5. read Hebrews 11 and 12. Jesus came to save individuals not creeds. Baptism was not formed to be a rite of passage into a denomination. it was to join the the host of those who have put their trust in the whole of the Christ event. They come forth with gratitude and generosity as the fruit of the good news.
that is the difference between the Rich young ruler and the jailer. the young man came speaking praise, the Jailer came to serve. I see far too much Rich Young Ruler in the agenda of this conference. Tom Z


Misogyny and the grip of culture.


Believe it or not, we’re not supposed to want that. We’re supposed to plead God grant us more time to reach the unreached. I can tell you that my part of the world is far from reached…and it’s not the same kind of “unreached” that the developed nations might have. We don’t even use God’s name in any form as a curse word over here. There are entire villages to be found where never the name has been said. Total ignorance of God.

I don’t want Jesus to come back before Jan. 1, 2016. I want more time to invite and to take some friends to Heaven with me.


Has she done that on any University campus?
Stand by for a reality check.


[quote=“Tongkam, post:29, topic:8742, full:true”]

Believe it or not, we’re not supposed to want that. We’re supposed to plead God grant us more time to reach the unreached. I can tell you that my part of the world is far from reached…and it’s not the same kind of “unreached” that the developed nations might have. We don’t even use God’s name in any form as a curse word over here. There are entire villages to be found where never the name has been said. Total ignorance of God.

I don’t want Jesus to come back before Jan. 1, 2016. I want more time to invite and to take some friends to Heaven with me.
[/quote]Thank you Tongkam for the honest reply.
I believe you.

Do you see why I push for the surveys?
There are several reasons why many SDA don’t want Jesus to come back…
They love the things of the world
There is no NETFLIX in heaven.
Heaven would bore them to death.

They do not have characters ready for a heavenly environment.
They are frightened of Jesus
They have family that will be lost.

The leadership is so institutionalized with the usual SDA clichés that they are unrealistic and out of touch with most of the members.

1 Like

Why teach it if it’s offensive?
I have never heard anything about “our teaching on the US”? What’s that about?

I don’t know what those statements mean. I think there’s a typo or two in there making it more confusing, but even though my grandfather was an SDA minister and called the Pope the Antichrist for many years, once he retired and continued to study, he stopped all that. I haven’t heard anything like it from the pulpit in probably 25 years, and thought that we’d dropped it.

IMO it seems from reading that the reason the pope was considered the Antichrist is from Luther, and at his time it does seem that the church was woefully corrupt. And the idea was based on the teaching that salvation was only possible through the church, through the Pope. However, it seems that after Vatican II the Church made it clear that an intercessory is not required, which sort of takes the wind out of that argument.

I’ve trolled the internet for awhile trying to see if there is any consensus, and found mostly garbage. But, one thing seems clear, and that is that the Antichrist is often seen as an individual, who will take a specific role at a specific time sometime in the future. Prophecy seems to indicate that this person will rule the world, somehow in league with the devil. Based on that alone, it does not seem that “the Pope” is the Antichrist, at least not this Pope. The Pope is a position, like “the President”, and not a specific person. Logically, since there appears to be little to no chance that in the foreseeable future one government will take over the world, it is doubtful the current Pope is the Antichrist. That makes no sense.

In Luther’s time, when the world was much smaller and the Church had much more power than it does today (for example, it had a standing army), and there was one dominant Christian Church, it seemed plausible that the Church could fill this role. It almost seems laughable today that the Catholic church could fill such a role, or would even want to. Few Catholics in America, for example, would be interested in their Church ruling the world. I suspect all of Europe has a similar attitude.


If you will note in my first post, I did not deny that it was offensive. So was Jesus to some of the religious folk of his day. If religious folk are going the wrong way, then offenses will come. Do you think that because something is offensive that it is thus not true? See Jeremiah 26-28 and 36-38 and also Mark 6:1-3 etc. In fact offending has a somewhat honorable history, as good folk did offend sinners, and Jesus was the great offender.

Now I don’t do it on purpose, but offenses do come. And it is not behavior that is offensive here, but statements of history, or fact, if you like. It offends the beliefs of the individual who holds it.

So, I am willing embrace the offense that I may give. It is not to hurt but to enlighten. You can doubt my motive if you like, but I am not trying to hurt those who hold error, but help. And you can reject what I believe as well, others have. As I heard a priest say who was spat on by some gay demonstrators, “I deserve worse.”

1 Like

What actually hinders the brethren from laying hands of blessing upon her and acknowledging her as a minister?

It is the impossible apostasy to believe that God’s calling needs to be redacted or moderated by an executive body that believes to know the will of God better than the called person herself.


CS thanks for your thoughts on the intended use of the word throwback. Maybe instead a word like traditional, but I am observing that some seem to be on hair trigger over just about anything. That is unfortunate.

1 Like

Let me begin with Genesis 3:22 “Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.” The reason for Adam & Eve being banished from the Garden of Eden was that they have become “like one of Us, to know good and evil.” The difference between God and Adam/Eve was God was not created to struggle with basic instinctual drives. We do. We need at all times a mental censor agent to filter and critique our behavior. When we lose that agent, we begin to act like God. The mental mechanism is known in psychology as “when the ego merges with the superego,” another way of describing the phenomenon when we humans lose our conscience/censor agent. So when we “enlighten” others by being offensive and hurtful, we have become like Adam & Eve, usurping God’s domain and deserve to be “driven out” of our comfort zone.

This is what drove men to evil deeds such as Jim Jones etc. How can we possibly repeat the same mistakes? Have we not learned a lesson in “6,000” years? Do we need another “6,000” years? We can never be gods, there is only one God.



I had to look up paraphilia, and here it is;

par·a·phil·i·a (păr′ə-fĭl′ē-ə, -fēl′yə)
A psychosexual disorder in which sexual gratification is obtained through practices or fantasies involving a bizarre, deviant, or highly unusual source of sexual arousal such as an animal or an object.

WOW! And here I thought Adventists were repressed sexually! But there is was all along, and I missed it!! I feel much better about the church, you know being right there with the culture. Maybe I’ll go out and get some tats…

But seriously,

How do you know my motives so well that you can say such things? I tremble at times to speak to people about these things, as it can be an issue of eternity. Do you feel so confident in your own wisdom that you can judge another servant? I present the truth as I see it, and have a right to my view, as much as you have a right to yours. And I am willing to take responsibility for what i say. And do.

Re: disfellowship. Paul recommended it in 1 Cor 5 for open sin of a sexual nature. I have done it. I don’t like to. Sometimes necessary, however. What were we trying to achieve? 1. A realization in the individual of the seriousness of the offense. 2. A statement of disagreement with the individual’s behavior. 3. A notification for the rest of the church that such behavior would not be tolerated. But perhaps you would rather God took a hand in as he did with Ananias and Saphira.

If you were about to plunge over a waterfall as you were floating down a peaceful river in a pleasure-craft of some sort, would my shouting from the shore to warn you be an egotistical act, designed to boost my own ego to the detriment of others?

I think of “throwback,” though, as indigenous, undeveloped, almost atavistic music. Throwback music in this denomination would be something like the non-instrumental, individually generated music that eventually involved other people (sometimes on their own musical terms). The term is slippery and often used literarily rather than literally. The current political situation in the church could be regarded as a “throwback” to the 1950s—after the intellectual renaissance of the 1930s and before the social revolutions of the late 1960s. I don’t think the anthropological or bioevolutionary use of the term was intended here.

well said! Is the refusal to ordinate women also the refusal to acknowledge that God has called them…since he could never violate his “own headship principle”…but then again he sure did, at least in one case, did he not?


Check Jeremiah who offended and was also driven out.

I speak kindly to those in need as we are called to do. I even speak kindly to those who do wickedly. You actually don’t know. And I have never claimed to be a god, but have even confessed my weaknesses on this site. I am not sure where you are coming from here.

Do you think that all speech must be non-offensive? Luke 6:26 “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.”

Do you think I aim to offend? Jesus said he was not called to bring peace but a sword. Most of the time I speak smoothly, but at times one has to be to the point. I bet you have to do that with some of your patients as well so that they can see how they must change for the better. Not harsh, no, but to the point.

And I think the comparison to Jim Jones is a bit far fetched.

Does this woman really think that someone not attending Harvard or MIT could have any cultural influence over those campuses, at all? The more one thinks of this, the odder it becomes. No matter how committed a person is, naïveté and insularity will sabotage any attempts. We can probably count on two hands Adventists who have attended an ivy league campus in the history of the church—and that includes graduate or professional school.

1 Like