The quote above illustrates why language is important, and its inappropriate usage needs to be challenged. Union conferences are not “subsidiary” entities of the General Conference. This is a blatant attempt to use corporate control terminology, with all it implies, where no corporate control relationship exists. Subsidiaries of corporations are under the legal control of a parent corporation. That does not apply here. The legal control of union conferences lies with their constituents.
The distribution power and authority is at the core of the current struggle. For the sake of preserving our delicate structural balance, the union conferences must not alter their course.
Just thinking. It seems to me that God permitted then encouraged, through David and Solomon, a top down governance with a king? Yet given enough time it collapsed through corruption. I wonder if democracy is headed down the same path
Response to Frank_merendio: I agree with your view of servant leadership as taught by Jesus. He was way ahead of his time. It is interesting how much the OT leadership standards differs from NT ideals. Starting with Moses through the Kings as well as Ezra and Nehemiah saw leadership as God appointed authority with a tendency toward absolutism. Perhaps this is the leadership view of Wilson. It appears that both OT & NT leadership styles have God’s approval.
Response to Steve Mga: I agree with you–kingship was not God first plan. However God seemed to embrace it through the descendants of King David in which the Messiah was to save the world. Would we have the Psalms if it were not for King David? Nobody in the OT rejected the authority or theology of Kingship, as we would today in our world view of democracy. It was through Ancient Pagan Greece that elements of democracy were first embraced, not in Israel. So which model of leadership is the GC following? Pagan, NT servant leadership or Hebrew?
Why is it so common in the SDA church the well read in bible history people, to use NAZI connotations .
The swastiker symbol goes back to Egyptian
Our leaders are not Egyptian god allowed this when church went away from truth
Moses was working for Nazi’s what next
GC is trying to help and repair damage like abel warned cain
Chapter 5 patriachs and prophet’s
Read the story folks
Im starting to think there are troll accounts on this forum some stuff is so far fetched
I am more than a little amused at the views of the GC leadership. Why did they ever allow the women’s ordination issue to come to the floor? Did they forget that most of the leaders in China are women? Are they trying to enforce the same rule in China?
The core issue is found in the Sabbath itself. The Sabbath requires us to respect our creator. And thus by direct logic, each other. There was no respect shown when the women’s ordination and several other votes were taken. How do they conclude that the group vote requires compliance when they fail the most fundamental idea in the Bible, love? So the real question is not who is right and who is wrong. The issue is respect has not been granted to all. The question should never have come to the floor.
And when did compliance ever get to unity? Unity does not say we are in lock step understanding and lock step adherence to some artificial rule set. In fact, when the gift of respect is not given, it clear where the beam is and where the mote is.
The core idea of unity is found within the understanding of love. But then, that may be the core issue. Does anyone present that the law of love is mandatory? Does anyone present that love requires respect?
I am losing interest in the debate… What exactly is the “joint statement” telling the interested reader, apart from some sanctimonious platitudes? The power games played, the attempts to make “non-compliance” appear immoral, the preying (or is it indeed praying?), the amount of time and energy wasted on this impasse has become sickening, but blunt.
Just the other day I had the privilige of being with some ultra conservative Lutheran pastors (Missouri Synod type folk, if you want) by invitation. Over lunch - and without prompting from my side - one of the brethren told me that women’s ordination was the big issue in their church at the moment. For the time being they had agreed to disagree, respecting each other with their differing views, trusting that the Holy Spirit would continue to lead into all truth. Yes, there was visible pain around the issue - a tension … that may be fruitful.
We instead have “mandates”. And 28 fundamentals as common denominator (oh, really? what’s that got to do with anything?). And consultations. Well, I felt drawn to re-read Amos 5.