Hooey and Credulity

(jeremy) #41

actually, it’s the no-voting side at san antonio that tried to force what is against conscience and the word of god…the majority of our bible scholars were not on the no side…

had the vote in san antonio been yes, MH areas could have continued with MH to their hearts’ content…DJ is on record as saying he respects MH adventists in NAD…no-one would have been forced into WO against their will…

(Robert King) #42

Being SDA’s you would think that light bulbs would being going off on both sides of this issue and checking this out in the SOP and being open and honest that both sides can’t be right and that the one of the wrong parties in this may be the ones being shaken out of the truth and will eventually fall captive to the great delusion God allows to fall upon the entire world, because they LOVED not the truth…

So loving the word is paramount to not being shaken loose from Jesus. I would hope this would work out but it can’t at this point, as far as I can see being humans and not under the control of the HS.

(George Tichy) #43
  1. The balance of authority and power in our Church has been in place for more than 150 years or so. Now the GC wants to change it, clearly in an effort to rob the Unions’ of their established authority and to centralize power on the top of the pyramid (GC). It must be this rebellion that you are referring to, right?

  2. Asking for equality in the % of $ that the NAD sends to the GC, to make it equal to all other Divisions,cannot be stamped as coercion. Why would it be? It’s just happening at a time when there are other disputes (of power) going on, all generated by the GC.


vandieman j Re. #22
A scenario is, basically, no more than a well thought-out story about how a possible future state of affairs might occur.
Jeremy, it would be interesting to know whether your offered scenario is a worst case
or best case one (perhaps something in between?), and what your assumptions are that
underpin it. (I notice you say, …“assuming the GC …”)

(Clive Ferguson) #45

Again I say - your concluding statement as quoted in my last post reveals your thinking that the move to reduce the tithe return to the GC at this time is nothing more than a petty retalliatory action by the NAD for not getting it’s own way on the GC WO vote and compliance committees. And an attempt to force the world church into compliance with the NAD’s wishes against their consciences.

Why be part of process if you will only cooeprate when the outcome goes in your favour?

So far as the balance of authority goes I see no change in the establishment of these committees which seem only to function in an advisory capacity from my reading and in cooperation with the entities above those that need to be brought into compliance.

Every organisation must have rules and if those rules are not enforced then they are meaningless. God’s church has rules and there are consequences for non compliance! The Bible is replete with examples of such:-

1 Cor 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

(Phil van der Klift) #46

I do not want to detract from the courageous stance that Dan Jackson has taken in standing up against oppressive governance practices.

At the same time, I would like to reflect upon a comment made by Dan, in passing, that typifies many people’s view that God does punish.

It has rightfully been pointed out that the GC Compliance initiative is out of harmony with the principles and practices of the Kingdom of God because it incorporates punishment and hence coercion.

If the GC Compliance initiative is inappropriate because it incorporates punishment, and hence coercion, why do we believe that God uses/will use punishment, when coercion is not a part of the Kingdom of God? Something doesn’t add up.

I only raise this view because it has major implications for the nature and character of God and hence for the God that we are representing to the world at the closing end of earth’s history. Might it actually be that God is the One who is trying to save us from the punishment that SIN inherently causes due to its very nature of being lawlessness (ie, the wages of sin is death)? Might this have been a truth that Jesus was trying to point out 2000 years ago?

If this is true, gospel presentation could look something like this: Each of us has the freedom to choose one of two options. You are free to live according to the way of this world (doing what seems right in our own eyes) but it will inevitably and inherently lead to your self-destruction. This outcome is unavoidable if you choose this option. Or you can choose to embrace and live in accordance with the principles and practices of the Kingdom of God which will inevitably and inherently lead to abundant eternal life. What option do you choose?

(George Tichy) #47

It is obvious that our “readings” are different, and we probably are comparing oranges and apples. But, I fully support your right to view the issues the way you do. It’s your perspective, and I does not affect me at all.


Clive Ferguson Re. #37
Please, ponder the following Statement by Dan (Joshua) Jackson
addressed to TW:
“I know that you believe we are on the borders of Canaan.
I don’t believe that.
Your use of the 1Sam15:23 text is equivalent to my identifying TW as currently being the Rehoboam of 1Kings12:3-11.
Can we do better than that? WWJD?

(Carlo Schroeder) #49

What if Dan Jackson was speaking to a segment of Adventist who believes that God is coming to punish people, because there is a huge segment who believe that.


I am confused by the NAD President’s conflicting remarks.
From one side of his mouth, Dan Jackson spoke humbly with words like unity, reconciliation, love, and acceptance toward those who do not share his views.
From the other, however, he implored us to ignore, agitate, resist, or even separate from those divisions who do not share his views.
I think it is fair to ask him, when push comes to shove (and it already has…hasn’t it?), if he actually desires worldwide institutional unity. Sounds to me like he’s already chosen his hill to die on.
You know you can’t have it both ways, so why the mixed message, Dan?

(Clifford Holm) #51

At such a time as this we may be thankful for the leadership of Elder Jackson. I have been waiting for someone in our church leadership to have the courage of conviction to stand up and say Hooey regarding the ongoing discrimination of female pastors in our ranks. Well done Elder JACKSON!

(Clifford Holm) #52

I would like to know what the offer was. Anybody know?

(George Tichy) #53

I am always astonished (actually disturbed) seeing how many people support discrimination of women in our Church. It’s unbelievable! How can ANY Christian support such a stone-age practice? What leads to such a retrograde mentality?

I wonder if people involved with Mental Health have something to say on this issue, people like @elmer_cupino and @cincerity. This would be interesting to hear… :wink:

(Kim Green) #54

Selective application of discrimination to some things but not to others. Similar to selective “hearing/seeing”. :slight_smile:

(Carlo Schroeder) #55

I have questions, so here it goes.

  1. Are the working policies voted that the general session?
  2. Why are annual council meeting votes and policies regarded as equal to GC session authority, when there is not a full constitutency assembled.
  3. How can a Fundamental Principal be made nought by a operating policy, which is subject to change.
  4. Why does the GC not make available the Working Policy, because when a judge asks to see the policy, there is nothing to sustain a constitution of a conference or union.

(Rob Montague) #56

This statement from Elder Jackson is correct: “We all bear a responsibility here. We have got to stop talking about the brethren like they’re scumbags.” Inferring that the other party is a scumbag isn’t helpful. It wouldn’t be for the World Church, and it isn’t for the North American Division.


I feel for him, for his health
would be better for him to stand aside, he does not look 100%

(jeremy) #58

well, from the vantage point of a partially progressive armchair critic, this is a scenario that’s been significantly mitigated by the recent NAD response document, which received a 79% vote of endorsement by NAD delegates…the tone and substance of this document are too thoroughly adventist to miss the mark, in my view…i think the GC is going to be hard pressed to ignore its requests for action, including the request to rescind the compliance review committee document voted at battle creek…

but assuming DJ’s hooey speech could result in his firing - that is, ignoring the reality that a 2/3 vote by GC EXCOM would be required to remove him - and assuming no court fight with the GC over assets, it’s not hard to imagine a NAD brexit, joined by TED and EUD, if not SPD; an alignment of andrews and loma linda with NAD; and an alignment of NAD conservatives with the GC…

whether this kind of rehoboam split would be negative or positive is hard to say…we know that god worked with both parts of the biblical rehoboam split, so i don’t think there’s any danger that NAD would be left out in the cold without the GC…but as i’ve said, anything of this kind isn’t likely now…NAD has put together a winning formula…the GC will have to step outside of overt, recognizable adventism, in the eyes of many, to resist it…i don’t think it can…


Perhaps it is like another public figure that TW only hires the best people…:wink:


Exactly, the NAD out to conform to the standard amount that has been adopted by other divisions. It would certainly be a logical place to start it’s process of reform…