The way you put it is more than enough to knock down the LGT heresy (perfectionism) that is invading our Church with the support of the GC’s President, himself a self confessed LGTarian. (See his Sabbath morning sermon at the AC-18)
It has occurred to me that after the cross, followers of Jesus are called upon for offerings, but never for tithe. Tithe require a “storehouse”, and not the bank because tithe was not money. Landowners were to return a portion of their harvested increase. I find even no hint that tithe was ten percent of the income of wage earners.
I suspect that pretending that tithing is a new covenant feature is the principle driver of our outsized church bureaucracy.
So true. Having seen many financial statements at church board meetings, the larger position of church funds is sent upward to church bureaucracy. Sadly we are given very little accountability as to details of how the funds are spent. Church member, in general, have the attitude that it’s not their concern, God will take care of it. Many members believe that God set up our organization with its layers of administers thus, all will be well in the end. God just wants to give our money to His storehouse which will bring blessings of increased wealth and success. Think of it this way: our 10% will yield a return of at least 50%. My Father gave double tithe because it would bring him double blessings.
Sure, all will be well in the end with the organization’s coffers at several levels…
Since I am not a member of the “organization” but rather of a local church, I make sure that my local church gets the full benefits of whatever money I contribute with. Just marking the envelope “evangelism” or “local budget” will do the trick!!!
Michael Polite won’t lose his job. Andrews is a pretty accepting place. The reason you’ve seen him preach in the Seminary chapel is that he’s the pastor for the New Life congregation that’s met there for 2-3 decades now (started, I think, by Timothy Nixon when he was one of the AU chaplains). Last spring, PMC and New Life switched venues for a Sabbath and I think they had a joint potluck and/or other opportunities for the congregations to talk together. New Life also had a large baptism as part of their service. Very well organized. I know Dwight Nelson had a lot to do with the decision to have a venue switch and there is/was talk of doing it again. Not sure where those talks are now.
Andrews is one of the most diverse universities in the U.S. Of all places for a revolution to begin, a university and a diverse one make total sense. Despite universities being conservators of the old ideas of the centuries, they are also hotbeds of creativity, testing new theories, and new ideas.
This is a no brainer.
I’m even older than you (82), and know quite a few people in my age category who are very unhappy about the trending path of church leadership!
Andrews CERTAINLY was NOT accepting of a few persons who wanted to sell
cupcakes at the Market to raise a few $$s for a homeless place in town.
Made national news.
But they were able to get a total of a huge donation from many persons who
became aware of their efforts and wanted to be a part of support.
Every institution needs to find that fine line between policy and procedure. The market is not owned by the University anymore; it might have been ok with the owners for them to sell baked goods there; I don’t think anyone ever asked. They wanted to sell things in the Student Center. And the homeless place they wanted to benefit is in Chicago. And the leader of the group was determined to make the national news about the issue. A confluence of strong minds.
After listening to Mr. Pollte’s video, it seemed clear to me that he seems to know very little about our church history. IF he did, he would not make some of the statements that he did. And it was under the guidance of God that the “organization” was set up in 1901. Before that, it was a hodge-podge of churches scattered all over the country and in some parts of the world that were “doing their own thing” which was not very productive. His mannerism smacked of rebellion not humble, self-sacrificing service. We have seen those types come and go in our churches history. God is still in control of this church, and those who don’t want to be a part of it will be shaken out just as EGW said. There will be a shaking, and it is happening now.
I thought is was by committee when the founders finally realized that the legal organization they resisted wasn’t practical as they wanted official standing as a non profit for tax reasons. At least that’s how the history I read presented it.
Check to see if it wasn’t the Civil War that made the need for an Incorporation.
The church was anti-war. SDA men were being inducted and wanted Non-Combatant
status. It is my understanding that the war department said they needed to become a
“church status”. So they Incorporated in Battle Creek in 1863 for that reason.
1901 was when the church leadership became diversified into Unions for more local
autonomy for making decisions easier and to the needs of the members of that area.
This was pushed by Ellen.
Income tax #1. 1861 to1872. #2 1913.
Interesting. Not unsurprising, is it possible to determine if true?
here is a little nugget… Seventh-day Adventists usually chose to avoid the draft by paying the standard commutation fee of $300, and churches helped poor members raise this sum. When provision for noncombatant service was passed in February 1864, the church initially made no attempt to gain recognition as noncombatants under the act because they were generally using the commutation fee to avoid service. “Only in July of 1864, when the privilege of buying commutation was restricted to those recognized as conscientious objectors, did the church act to secure such recognition for itself”. (Ron Graybill, “This Perplexing War: Why Adventists avoided military service in the Civil War”. Insight , October 10, 1978, 6.)
It’s akin to claim Ellen was given ordination papers only in order to receive reduced train fares…
It is my understanding that if one received a draft notice during the Civil War that
one could “PAY” someone to take your place. Volunteer in your place. It is my
understanding that $300 was a usual fee accepted by the “volunteer”.
We discussed this when I took American History at Madison in 1964.
It would be interesting to see some biblical reference to substantiate it, since EGW is not a biblical writer. You know, the Sola Scriptura crowd always asks for some biblical source…
Yes, the Enrollment Act aka Civil War Military Draft Act passed on 3 March 1863 allowed for Substitution or Commutation.
Two months later, on 21 May 1963, the General Conference… was formed.
I am sorry, George, I will not go there. It is my observation that most of those who write here will reject a clear Scripture or will twist it to fit their own ideas.
That sounds good to me. But the reason you presented… it’s surely a fake reason.
. I don’t know how you can possibly pass judgment on my “observations” and call it a fake reason. . Your reply is another observation of people who write here.
Judgment? What judgement?
You said that you won’t provide biblical sources for what you stated, the reason being, “that most of those who write here will reject a clear Scripture or will twist it …”
Well, sorry, but this is nothing but a cheap excuse, just a way out. For me it’s indeed just a “fake reason.”
But hey, you do not need to provide biblical support for anything if you don’t want. Just don’t blame others for that… It’s always better to take responsibility for what we say/write.