Pacific Union Officials Decline Inclusion in SDA Yearbook; Stand in Solidarity with President Sandra Roberts



You’ve had since at least 1919 to retool your thinking about Ellen White.

That hasn’t happened.

You’ve had a series of sincere men over the span of a hundred years try to shine light on the Sanctuary issues, most recently, Desmond Ford.

All pilloried. No apologies.

So now you can’t be honest and feel safe and supported in your community.

This collective bad conscience and social wariness has weakened your moral immune system, and you’ve been invaded with the fatal opportunistic virus of headship ideology, which has highjacked your nervous system and is now driving the train.

You don’t have the strength to throw it off because of the weight of all the unfinished business from the past, and survival fears, sapping your strength.

And you can’t see headship ideology for what it is.

You underestimate the depth and determination of this ideology.

You think you are talking about women’s ordination. You are not.

Unity Oversight Committee Survey Results

(George Tichy) #148

No, not going to China.
I am not talking about China, I am talking about right here!

(George Tichy) #149

This statement is inaccurate, hopefully not intentionally deceiving. The pro-WO is only asking a simple thing, i.e., that the Unions be allowed to execute what is already their right to execute (since Unions were created). And this is the right to decide if they will practice WO in their territory or not. Either way should be acceptable.

Nobody is trying to force the GC to do anything. On the contrary, it’s the GC that is doing the impossible to deny the Unions their rights. And even with threats. Remember what Ted Wilson did at one of the PUC’s meetings, when he threatened them with “grave consequences?” What else should be said?..

(Greg Cox) #150

why are you asking this? Many African, South American, Indian, and other cultures are under a strict Patriarchy. Are you not aware of this?

(Greg Cox) #151

but you asked about China.

(George Tichy) #152

This statement is actually very insensitive, offensive to women indeed. It’s the closest to profanity that I can think of.

And “what is wrong with that?” If you can’t see what is wrong with that, than there is probably no future for this conversations because you are clearly declaring that you cannot see any problem with discrimination of women.

Therefore, not much more can be discussed on the issue. Until discriminators open their minds and see what is wrong with discrimination of women, they will keep asking the same question over and over again, “What is wrong with that.”

(Greg Cox) #153

Brother, unions are not to “execute their rights” outside of denomination standards - I’m frankly bewildered that you think this is even remotely acceptable. Moreover, Unions don’t have “rights”, they are extensions of the GC and operate under a set of standards. Again, the church has, and can ordain women - they just cannot serve as spiritual headship.
YOU WROTE: Nobody is trying to for the GC to do anything"
RESPONSE: Come again? So far the GC has voted twice and the answer is no by an overwhelming majority. So exactly WHO keeps forcing the subject over and over again?


What’s wrong with it is that it sounds like a 1980s Bill Gothard seminar.

What’s wrong with it is that it turns men into creeps and abusers, and women into depressed Stepford Wife Zombies.

What’s wrong with it is that this disastrous social experiment has already done, and replicating it will destroy Adventism.

What’s wrong with it that it is socially destructive authoritarianism.

What’s wrong with it is that it strengthens the far Christian Right voting bloc.

What’s wrong with is that is harms children’s development.

What’s wrong with it is that it destroys families and children’s lives.

(Greg Cox) #156

You have answered EXACTLY as predicted; the debate is not about WO - it’s about headship, and you are supporting female spiritual headship which has no biblical support. And that is where you are left out of the GC conversation. The World Church vote no, TWICE. Female spiritual headship is simply not an option for most of the church.

And no one earns the gifts of the Holy Spirit or earns their calling from the Lord. Your confusion of how the world does things with how the Body of Christ works in the Vineyard is terrifying.

(Elmer Cupino) #157

Come again? The vote at the SA GC was for “no change” of the current policy. And what is the current policy? See SDA GC WP B 05 6.

(Elmer Cupino) #159

Except when one is born with testicles. Right?

(George Tichy) #160

Exactly Cass.
And when a man cannot see the broader picture, there is usually a psychological blockage that will not be removed until that person surrenders to himself!!!


Does that usually happen before, or after, a church body crashes in ignominy?

(Greg Cox) #162

you cut off the last sentence. If you actually bothered to read the whole policy statement your argument is made mute; conferences run on established GC rules.

(Elmer Cupino) #163

And in this scenario, the proper and specific description would be “spiritual constipation?”

(Greg Cox) #164

you seem to be obsessed with testicles - have you spoken to your shrink yet? As I said - no one earns grace or their calling as you opined.

(Elmer Cupino) #165

Download the whole manuscript from the internet.

(Greg Cox) #166

so are you claiming that female spiritual headship is acceptable? Based on what? A “feeling”?

(Elmer Cupino) #167

Cite me biblical texts that specifically indicate Male Headship. No sources from Amazing Facts or Secrets Unsealed. Just Bible texts without mental gymnastics.

(Greg Cox) #168

I already have it - but you got caught cutting off the last sentence. Please read it.