To a certain degree I agree with you. But that has never been the major issue. Have you noticed what factors really divided the church on this issue? Accent, culture and and origin of the delegates. That should have been a clue to our leaders but what can you expect with being clueless?
What is then disappointing is having short-sighted leaders steeped in rules and regulations but lacking in empathy to demonstrate critical thinking and unable to reframe complex issues for the benefit of all. I am fully convinced no reason would have persuaded our present GC officers. That would be expecting to draw blood from a turnip.
Indeed leadership is the root cause of failure. Variation of instructions, policy has always been an issue and a inflexible bureaucratic approach was never envision as a panacea. Examples include things as simple as wedding rings which for members in North America were not allowed but in other areas were ok amongst others.
Leaders who portray policies as moral imperatives when they are not is dishonest and idolatrous.
Why defend an inadequate, antiquated and preferential system when it needs to be discarded and replaced? Someone asked Elder TW “What would happen if the GC were found uncompliant?” I can already hear the verdict from TW himself, “I am wrong.” Fat chance!
Wow just wow your views are ridiculously racist. The fact that you have separated the church by us and them shows how narcissistic your worldview is.
You do not make up the world church, we are all one in the body. It was already voted by the WORLD CHURCH, now stop the tantrums and accept the fact that it was already voted on in 2015!!
@GeorgeTichy, I believe there are only two courses of action available to PUC and CUC. They can ignore the vote, and proceed as they have done as a matter of conscience and conviction. Or, call an extraordinary Union Session meeting and change their constitution, irrespective of any clause that may have been included in the model constitution. This is the only “legal” way to firmly establish that they are independent of the GC and not subject to it’s authority.
Examinr the constitution, if it says that the conference or union needs to be ordained (and not specifically ordained to the ministry) - deacon, deaconesses and elders are all ordained - vote one of them in. If it is specific about ordination to the ministry, adjust the clause to read “ordained or credentialed to the ministry.” The first option allows a much broader choice of presidential candidates. The second allows all our “2nd class ministers” - male and female - to become administrators.
I was born in the Philippines and was greatly disappointed but not surprised when two delegates from my country approached the mike to endorse TW’s document. I know they did not mean it in their hearts (“Lord forgive them for they know not what they do.”) as much as being under the culture of “utang na luob.” Which translates to “forever grateful even to the point of slavery.”
This is me when the votes were cast. A shameful day.
I believe I have not seen reference to Christ in the comments so far. It appears from Prof. Torkelsen’s analysis that the name of Christ did not figure importantly in the run-up to the vote.
Who, and especially who among supporters of the initiative, made a NT-based defense of their position, and what, if anything, was their argument?
No, the KGB and CIA make no pretense about representing ‘The Kingdom of God’.
This ‘vote’ results in reaffirming the same mixing of human governing power using ‘corporate/ecclesiastical/parliamentary’ law (not ‘constitutional law’ involving separation of church and state, nor ‘God’s law’) – ‘state’ – with the ‘christian’ religion, so called, that Roger Williams escaped from to form the example of the separation of church and state in Rhode Island which was followed by the founders of the United States.
So, I’m not waiting for the pillory and guillotine and ‘scarlet letter’, nor wasting health on a church ‘family’ I have absolutely no influence in.
Last night, after the vote, I again contacted the SDA church that holds my membership and asked what I have to do to remove myself from membership, as well as contacting the conference office. My wife-- who had watched the proceedings alone and in tears at home 700 miles from where I am now working – asked that I include her in my request to leave the SDA church.
Together we have read through the General Conference sermons of A.T. Jones, many, many times over the phone as I have travelled. Together we have studied and researched into what the ‘Prophets’ had to say about 1888 and the papacy invading the SDA GC, and we believe in all 3 of ‘His’ SDA prophets. We were not fooled by yesterday’s performance. The Holy Spirit and at least two SDA Prophets involved in the ‘Latter Rain’ which began in 1888 were clearly mocked – not invited – by those who ‘won’ the vote, but lost the ‘Great Controversy’.
This ‘Tail’ never had the ability to wag the ‘Dog’ of my ‘family’ of 4 older arguing sisters, or my arguing mother and father, and most definitely has no voice or influence in the SDA church arguments. . . My wife and I won’t be missed.
“It is time for You to act, O LORD, For they have regarded Your law as void.” Psalm 119:126
Whether they have a midevil mindset or a “tribal” mindset they are still a part of the body, it doesn’t make their views any less than yours. The tone of your views are quite divisive and rude.
What to do? Encourage your leaders to comply with voted policy. If they are ordaining women, tell them to stop, until the world church at a GC session votes to allow it.
Yes, Milton! They had a blue A5 card and there was space to put the X in the relevant space.
The total silence from the South American Division, the Southern Asia Division, the Nothern Asia Pacific Division and the South Pacific Division is hard to understand.
The ‘No’ speeches were running at about 3 to 1 until about half way thru when the ‘’Yes’ speeches picked up pace.
Altogether I counted 28 speeches for the document and 39 against it.
Have you ever thought that possibly they could have it right and you could have it wrong. It’s just another form of racism, thinly veiled. Now it’s not skin colour, but it’s because they’re less civilised than all those whites who hold the money. Still racism.
From SPD point of view - stunned silence. Wondering what to say, given that 2 votes in recent times have both gone against their wishes. Wondering how to spin this…
