Norwegian Union Responds to GC Unity Video

(Kim Green) #103

I will give you my “unprofessional” opinion that you suffer from a severe case of “Spectrumnitis Disorder”…there is no cure and you are stuck with the rest of us “uncured” for the rest of your life (no doubt a form of Purgatory). :rofl::rofl::rofl:


Some may find this hard to believe, but the only official diagnosis I have ever received—and it was from a psychiatrist—was “situational depression.”

You take away my last glimmer of hope, Kim…I plunge into Despair… :anguished:

(Kim Green) #105

Remember…I said it was my “unofficial opinion”. :laughing::wink:

There is hope as long as we have breathe. I am sticking to this one and you may leave Purgatory in time. :slight_smile:


You go first.

Double Dog Dare you.

This place is the Adventist Hotel California. :rofl:


I have experienced some doozies, present company excluded, of course.

But that’s my other book…

We can only hope, with the Noble Norwegians, that the SDA church can be as conscious and self-correcting as the psychotherapeutic community!

(Ian m fraser) #108

ANN will be well received by readers in their new home base in Africa!

(Ian m fraser) #109

GC MOVES TO AFRICA. Where things will be good :heart:️:blush:

(PAKO) #110

This is Gold!! :rofl: thanks for brightening up this thread.


No, not Africa! China. Their media, the official line, would be very similar to Adventist News Network (ANN). Surely, the GC wants to be in the country with both the largest challenges in the world exist as well as where the largest Adventist churches in the world (8,000 members+) are located. Surely.

(George Tichy) #112

This would be the best breaking news ever, uh?

I would love seeing Ted Wilson lecturing this guy about unity, and threatening him with “grave consequences” due to noncompliance… :open_mouth: :roll_eyes: :innocent:

Image result for images from Africa

(Kim Green) #113

Touche’…and then what of the other “alternative” sites? Gotta song for them?? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


Dismal Abyss

(Kim Green) #115

Fitting…very fitting. A deep, dark, hole, that abyss. Such talent you have! :laughing:


“Just ask me anything,” she said modestly.

(Kim Green) #117

Yes, with all of the “feminine” modesty and restraint she could muster:



Yes, you are a prophetic voice, I believe.

Our view of God is the fountain from which the rest of our lives flow.

I urge all Seventh-day Adventists to watch this Leah Remini special on Jehovah’s Witnesses:

This is the kind of organization that adopts Headship.

Adventism already has far too many untold tragic family stories.

If you adopt Headship, the stories will overtake you and Adventism will collapse under the strain.

The Adventist people can learn from the tragic histories of others, if they will.

Authoritarian Headship is a grossly distorted view of God.

(Cfowler) #119

I watched the JW special. Really well done, and heart breaking.

I watched the kind of a pre “Scientology and the Aftermath” which was mostly about Leah and her Mom and sisters. They were there talking about their experience in, and leaving, Scientology.

The new season of “Scientology and the Aftermath” starts tonight.

Leah and Mike have done a huge service in exposing this horrendous group.

(Kim Green) #120

Yes…many lessons to be learned for the SDAs from this show if they adopt full-on Headship as an organization. The JW was a sobering show. I did not know the history of the group and it was interesting and sad to see how the church was run.


I’m glad you used the phrase “full-on Headship,” Kim.

It is laden with meaning that few anticipate.

I hope everyone will read this:

Headship Madness: The Headship Litmus Test Is Rigged

The headship litmus test is rigged .

How? It is a simple chain of logic that can be summarized as follows:

  1. Women can do anything, as women, that doesn’t “violate male headship.”
  2. What does or does not “violate male headship” is (inescapably) subjective, and therefore requires local definition.
  3. Local definitions of what constitute “headship violation” are established by men, not women.
  4. Result: Whatever the local male-authorities say isn’t acceptable for a woman to do isn’t acceptable for a woman to do. For all practical purposes, men can never be wrong in their appropriation and distribution of authority and power.

So the headship litmus test is not only a theo-political tool for establishing male control, but it is also invulnerable .

It is self-authenticating.

There is no real mechanism by which an erroneous application of headship can be corrected. Whatever men say is acceptable for women to do (or not do) becomes the rule, since the rules must originate from a “head” in the first place.

This scam has occurred for thousands of years and has only been recently exposed to the light since the late 1700s (most significantly by Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman ).

Since headship’s definition is provided by those who both “have” and wield headship, there is essentially no limit to the extent men’s authority can prevail over women’s, and there is no limit to the extent that women’s freedom can be limited.

It’s a vicious circle with a near limitless capacity to enslave. I myself was part of a church that disallowed women to pray audibly with men, because it was decided that this would violate male headship. There was no way this could be corrected, because the sole elder was male and, as such, was the one who decided what qualified as a violation of headship. If the same pastor forbade women from driving their family car to church on Sunday, because he felt that women driving violated men’s headship, this would likely be the law of the church (and, given some models of eldership, considered a divine extension of the law of God).

If you’re getting lost in all of this, think of the situation as a boys vs. girls basketball game where only the boys can be referees and only boys can change the rules of the game—with as much severity and bias as they wish. Or, if you’re familiar with geopolitics, it’s much like Kim Jong Un of North Korea, who promises to feed everyone adequately—all while penalizing those who try to eat their more than the state-allowed rations. No one, not even those who starve to death, can be said to be “hungry” in this model. Or, if you’re familiar with Reformed theology, it’s like the apologetic of classic Roman Catholicism: the scriptures establish authority for the (Roman magisterial) Church, but only the Church can authoritatively interpret the scriptures, which gives it that authority in the first place.

The point in all of these examples is what I already mentioned above: there is no genuine mechanism of correction, so it makes little sense to honor internal claims of being “right.”

The Convenient (and Troublesome) Shifting Sands of Complementarian Headship

The notoriously subjective aspect of headship is inevitably present in the most respected complementarian literature. In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper speaks of men and women’s feelings and their inner “sense” of being male or female ( RBMW , 36). Many scoff at this retreat to personal emotions. But, what are the alternatives? Forcing biblical texts to portray modern embodiments of timeless gender roles? Complementarians are too sensible for that route. Thus, Piper continues to define what exactly headship means in the following, abstract (and supposedly universal) terms:

“To the degree that a woman’s influence over a man is personal and directive, it will generally offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God’s created order…[influences of women on men are] non-personal and, therefore, not necessarily an offense against God’s order” ( RBMW , 51).

In other words, (firstly) men (or at least husbands) should not be personally and directly influenced by women (or at least wives), and (secondly) women are allowed to do whatever essentially doesn’t upset the male ego. So, if I happen to find it offensive when my wife gives me driving directions to the newest coffee shop in town, then she is sinning against God by violating my headship. If I am not offended, then she is not sinning against God because she is not violating my headship.

This is incredible. By virtue of my headship and inner senses (a 6th sense? Ninja instinct? What is this?), I literally determine the morality of my wife’s actions. I am functioning with no less authority than Moses in OT Israel (cf. this radical notion in Waldron, Man as a Priest in His Family ). You might ask: What if I’m just being a self-absorbed, insecure moron by my being offended by something as silly as driving directions? What if the problem is not my wife, but me? The answer is that none of this matters. The female in the situation must abide by my perception of headship violation. Since she has no “headship,” whatever authority or input she contributes is ipso facto inferior to my own.

Contrary to Piper, I would personally find it offensive (and annoying) if my wife insisted on influencing me in only an im personal and in direct way. This approach—which smacks of Rogerian therapy—would also encourage manipulation, not to mention a marriage plagued by passive-aggression. (Who wants that?)

Thus, even with additional qualifiers like “personal” and “direct” influence, the Christian has come no closer to an eternal, timeless, universal, context-less, non-encultrated, non-linguistically embedded, non-socially constructed meaning of headship. Instead, the Christian has only entered into more subjectivity; what one man finds personally and directly influencing on him may not be the case for another. And since it is this same man who has ultimate authority in the relationship, he is the only one to authoritatively declare what constitutes a violation of his own headship.

Linda Belleville demonstrates the subjectivity of drawing lines in her response to the November 1995 edition of the CBMW newsletter:

“According to the CBMW, it is okay for a woman to direct Christian education in her local church, but it is not okay for a woman to direct Christian education for her region or denomination. On what basis? The perceived degree of governance involved. Yet, in a congregational context, it is actually the local church that makes the decisions, not regional or denominational boards or councils. Also, CBMW says it is okay for a woman to be a Bible professor on a secular campus but not on a Christian campus. On what basis? The perceived degree of teaching authority” ( Women Leaders and the Church, 151).

And whose perceptions carry the weight in these matters? The woman under question? The women leaders (if there are any) in these various spheres? Most definitely not.

Sometimes complementarians explicitly concede to such subjectivity. For example, Piper and Grudem say in the same volume:

“We recognize that these lectures and addresses could be delivered in a spirit and demeanor that would assault the principle of male leadership. But it is not necessary that they do so. This is most obvious when the woman publicly affirms that principle with intelligence and gladness. We also recognize the ambiguities involved in making these distinctions between the kinds of public speaking that are appropriate and inappropriate. Our expectation is not that we will all arrive at exactly the same sense of where to draw these lines, but that we might come to affirm together the underlying principles” ( RBMW , 85).

The problem is that these “lines” have become so diverse that talking about having the same “underlying principles” has become meaningless.


Keep in mind that the Adventist Headship advocates have drawn heavily from Piper and Grudem.

Don’t let yourselves descend into this madness.

You will never recover!