I can only hope and pray that the document is rejected. In all frankness, I think the GC leadership deserves to be humiliated for their despicable, strong-armed tactics. So sad the organization has reached this point.
I was not aware that the church was holding a reenactment of the Diet of Worms today.
The Examination of Jon Hus, in the 1400s.
NEXT – Having the top of the scalp CUT OFF with scissors. Heretic Hat on the head, Tied to the pole, Pitch on the clothes, dry rushes place around, lighted torch touched to the dry rushes.
As Pope Leo X wrote – WHAT MORE could we say to Luther?
That Preamble [Section A, B] sounds MORE like LEO’s Papal Bull to Luther.
[I wasnt able to down load the rest of it.]
Whoever the “Cardinals” were who wrote that certainly LEARNED WELL at the Feet of Leo X.
This document is a fantastic diversion of the diversion. Should last long enough to think up another. Well played TW.
If this document falls, and I hope it will, then this president and his team must resign. Right on this session, immediately.
A Wonderful and most unanticipated outcome to refer the document back for further work! It should never have been brought to the meeting in the form it was! This was quite a margin - 184 to 114. Truly a gift of the Spirit’s working! Thanks to the 80 - 90% of Committee Members and Invitees that pointed out the deficiencies of the document! It must be said that most seemed to have a sense that some compliance mechanisms were needed!
Many Paul’s spoke today withstanding the half-baked gospel principles of the “Procedures for Reconciliation and Adherence to Church Governance Document” in the face of the Peter’s who authored the document.
Here is my list of Paul’s!
- Dr Lowell Cooper - very reasoned rejection of this document
- Randy Roberts - very pointed questions to the chair
- John Thomas, GC Associate Secretary - document disenfranchises young people and women. Drives toward legalism.
- Thomas Muller, President of Danish Union
- Norbert Zens, Inter-European Division - “This goes to far.”
- Dean Coridon, NAD - "This document moves away from [both Protestantism and a representative form of Government].
- Bobby Showlunder, President of the Swedish Union
- Larry Moore, SW Union, NAD - Document far too long.
- Tom Evans - “McCarthyism may have arrived in the church.”
- Jan Paulsen - “We are making the Spirit’s task more difficult to bring unity … I do not see the hand of God in this document and it should not be voted.”
- Dan Jackson - 5 warning signals - “I have a little problem with being called a Joseph Conradi if I disagree with this document.”
- Rafat Kamal, TED President.
- Maveni Kaufononga, President, Trans-Pacific Union President, SPD - gentle and subtle.
- Michael Kominski, Euro-Asia Division President - “If the Holy Spirit shows another way, I’m sure we’ll follow.”
- Suranjeen Pallipamula, Northern Indian Union, Southern Asia Division layperson
- Lisa Beadsley-Hardy - “banning advocacy infringes on freedom of speech.”
- Richard McEdwards, MENA - "[the wording of the document] continues to restrict dialogue."
18 Bill Knott - “advocacy is a prized right … even Ellen White critiqued GC policies.”
- Jiri Moskala - “If we can’t trust our leaders and their word, there is a big problem. Trust problems can’t be fixed by signatures.”
- Dave Weigley, President CUC, moved the original motion to refer to the GC Constitution and Bylaws committee because of rea questions as to the constitutionality of some provisions of the document.
- David Trim - “The Adventist way is to work it through committees. Let’s improve it.”
- Bob Folkenberg, Jnr , China Union - "I have a major concern with requirements for a signature. Trust is pivotal in any organization. Signatures don’t build trust. It creates more opportunity for conflict.
The individual who called question on the motion to refer the document back to the 'Unity in Mission Oversight Committee was Kepsie Elodo, Papua New Guinea Union President.
Interestingly, 3 of the 4 Union Presidents of the South Pacific Division had pivitol roles in the proceedings. First, Brad Kemp, New Zealand Pacific Union President pushed the constitutionality questions about the document. Second, Maveni Kaufononga, Trans-Pacific Union President made a gentle but subtle speech questioning whether the document will bring unity and answers no. Third, Kepsie Elodo, Papua New Guinea President was the person who called question on the motion to refer the document back to the committee. The SPD Division Officers seemed to be very quiet as did the Australian Union President. But then, so was the Pacific Union President.
annual council just voted to send the reconciliation document back to the unity committee for revisions by a vote of 184 to 114…
finally, a vote at our GC gets it right
To bic Groucho,
Are you paying any attention at all to the sleazy, tyrannical way he operates? As citizens of this church, we share his guilt if we just look the other way. Tragically, most members will do just that.
Spectrum and Adventist Today inform us of what’s really going on. We’d all rather bury our heads in the sand but that’s the easy way out.
Of course we’re his judge–for his public behavior. This is not a theocracy. Did God step in and prevent the New Testament church from becoming the medieval RCC? God doesn’t need our help, but He requires it.
UPDATE: Stunning! Maybe it’s even possible for the Senate and House to refuse that other guy’s outrageous war with North Korea!
TW was asked to release the document earlier for review but refused. Then expressed disappointment for being returned for review with no decision until AC 2018. If he really believed he could have squeaked this document in a 2-hour period, then his thought process was proven faulty, among others. As such, this should cause him pause and seriously consider extending an olive branch or resigning. His management approach has been rejected. The vote says it all: 184 to 114
Praise the Lord for reasonable officers.
Praise God, time for everyone to think about what happened. It is very dangerous to promote concepts then have discovered that there were so many errors, it seems that blind obsession impeads our sight. The ramifications would have been resulted in, internal destruction, people searching for concompliance unit, which would make all section of the church valunerable to all kinds of attacks.
TW even said the constituency determines who and how the conference and unions operate, and not the GC.
I guess the Holy Spirit felt the document wasn’t strong enough in punishing the rebels. Either that or their cup of iniquity is not yet full.
As soon as the full news report is posted, I will explain what happened. Stay tuned.
Why does Rube Goldberg come to mind ?
Isn’t this much simpler to unite behind:
"Now John answered and said,
“Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name,
and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.”
But Jesus said to him,
“Do not forbid him,
for he who is not against us is on our side.”
Luke 9:49-50 NKJV
The SDA church will not split on this or any other issue
the prelates know which side their bread is buttered on and who pays for both the bread and butter
So refer it back for more study and more study.That beats having to find a real job or no job at all
Meanwhile the sheep line up to be fleeced again and again
The emperor really has no clothes
In the introductory remarks prior to discussion, GT Ng frames the issue. I am not sure whether he wanted to simplify it for the leaders for whom English is not the first language or whether he wants to take a cue from the politicians in the world who want to reduce complex issues into a sound bite.
Ng said," Voting ‘no’ on this document means I do not agree with the Bible because the Bible does not agree with me."
Then he said, “Vote’ no’ means I do not believe in policy and want to go back to the time of the judges.”
Through the afternoon, the chair of the meeting handled the procedures with fairness and calmness. But left no feeling of impartiality as to his own position. If the session had ended at the originally scheduled time, participants would have had less than two hours to discuss and digest the 14 page document. A very thoughtless process for those whose first language is English. What portion of the group does not speak English and would need additional time to understand the document?
Oh, wait. GT Ng explained it, so no need to think-----
Why do you say the president and his team must resign?
It’s very simple: if you’re in something for 8 years and you invest all your energy in it and accomplish nothing then it’s the only honorable move to come out. But he doesn’t get it though he so strongly believes in the guidance of the Holy Spirit.