Should the Church in North America be Independent from the General Conference?

In other words, the GC just inaugurated a complex judicial process, much more complicated and intricate than what happens in the Courts. Involving more people, and being bestially expensive.

Well, maybe it will generate some jobs for MORE people to work behind a desk, thus helping to decrease the national unemployment percentage… :upside_down_face:

I wonder if there will be time left for anyone to do anything to advance the preaching of the Gospel…

1 Like

A process they totally control right down to populating the committees with their own appointees.


I bet the African crowds already declared who is the ONLY nominee for the (fake) re-election of the next GC President… !!! Is there any doubt about it?

1 Like

Let’s not forget that there is no compromise on the part of people who have a dictator’s mentality, “my way or the highway”… Ted Wilson fits perfectly into this category. People like this will resort to all kinds of manipulation, intimidation, and pressure to reach their goals.


What can be more corrupt than this? Not even Ali Baba and his 40 can compete with it… :roll_eyes:


As I asked my friend who lay pastors a rural church:

Where in the New Testament is the church pictured as a corrupt, hierarchical, multi-billion dollar, multinational 501c3 corporation that uses the power of the state to persecute the non-compliant?

Where but in the last book of the Bible?

What is possessing us that being a mirror image of the Beast of Revelation is now normative, and just as Ellen White would approve?

Pierre-Paul Legault:. Fascinating topic. The reality though is that no large human organization can maintain itself without hierarchy and authority- be it a state, political party, corporation, association or church.

Every single ecclesiastical group that broke away from a hierarchical group, ended up (a) splintering further at the first sign of dissent; (b) withering and dying; © staying isolated in a tiny group, or (d) establishing its own hierarchy.

SdAism went through all of this. After 1844 the Advent movement splintered in many directions. A few splinters remained small; others died. The splinter that became the SdA church slowly established a hierarchy, a written statement of beliefs, an authority competent to expel troublesome dissidents, and today, the modern 21st century General Conference.

Certain members want a more decentralized structure while others clamour for a King - but even the decentralizers are hierarchical, just on a smaller scale.

Few of the Union administrators in North America, Europe or Australia would countenance congregationalism.

They also stand for heirarchy, only they see the union or conference as the pinnacle of the hierarchy, and the GC as a loose association of unions.

The present fight is about the clergy, by the clergy and for the clergy - with both sides financed by the laity.


Yes, I agree, Pierre-Paul.

We’re fighting for a sacerdotal system. Why?


: religious belief emphasizing the powers of priests as essential mediators between God and humankind

So we want women at the top of the bloated, rectangular hierarchy to be able to lay hands on others and create more priests in this exclusive, sacerdotal system?

I’ve asked this unpopular question in years past.

Why aren’t we asking the more fundamental questions, instead of throwing 20 million people into turmoil, mindless of the social damage to the laity, and especially the children?

Is this not analogous to the aspirations of Catholic women to the priesthood?

VATICAN CITY —Why Not Women Priests? The Papal Theologian Explains

In October [2013], the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dismissed Roy Bourgeois from the priesthood because of his participation in the invalid ordination of a woman.

Since then, a Jesuit in Wisconsin has had his priestly faculties suspended after he celebrated a liturgy with a woman purporting to be a Catholic priest, and the Redemptorist order has confirmed that one of its members is under Vatican investigation for alleged ambiguities “regarding fundamental areas of Catholic doctrine,” apparently including the question of women’s ordination.


Nevertheless, he said, theology can help illuminate the “internal coherence and beauty of the mystery which has been offered to us by God.”

“The son of God became flesh, but became flesh not as sexless humanity but as a male,” Giertych said; and since a priest is supposed to serve as an image of Christ, his maleness is essential to that role.

Reflecting on differences between the sexes, Giertych suggested other reasons men are especially suited to the priesthood.

Men are more likely to think of God in terms of philosophical definitions and logical syllogisms [:slight_smile:] , he said, a quality valuable for fulfilling a priest’s duty to transmit church teaching.

Although the social and administrative aspects of church life are hardly off-limits to women, Giertych said priests love the church in a characteristically “male way” when they show concern “about structures, about the buildings of the church, about the roof of the church which is leaking, about the bishops’ conference, about the concordat between the church and the state.”

Giertych acknowledged that a Catholic woman might sincerely believe she is called to the priesthood, but said such a “subjective” belief does not indicate the objective existence of a vocation.

None of which means women hold an inferior place in the church, he said.

“Every baptized person, both male and female, participates in the priesthood of Christ through the sacrament of baptism, drawing the fruits of the paschal mystery to one’s own soul,” he said. “And maybe in some sense we could say that, in this, women are more apt to draw from the mystery of Christ, by the quality of their prayer life, by the quality of their faith.”

Women are better able than men to perceive the “proximity of God” and enter into a relationship with him, Giertych said, pointing to the privileged role played by women in the New Testament.

“Women have a special access to the heart of Jesus,” he said, “in a very vivid way of approaching him, of touching him, of praying with him, of pouring ointment on his head, of kissing his feet.”

“The mission of the woman in the church is to convince the male that power is not most important in the church, not even sacramental power,” he said. “What is most important is the encounter with the living God through faith and charity.”

“So women don’t need the priesthood,” he said, “because their mission is so beautiful in the church anyway.”

Granted, this is mansplaining at its most lofty, but I still have to ask myself why women so yearn for a slot in the Old Boys’ Club to begin with, and what all this could possibly have to do with the religion of Jesus.

From my first days on this forum, years ago, I have been warning you with all my strength about the dangers of Headship Ideology, of which WO is a mere wedge issue.

Early on I told you there would be hell to pay if you ever let Headship in. (Spectrum deleted that post.)

If you split the church, there will still be 501c3 hierarchy.

I hope you will be thinking about that in terms of New Testament Religion.

No…as long as we are on the “wrong” side of the issue, Kevin feels no need to “respect” much about us.

Besides all of that, Kevin should be aware of the fact that the horses and cows have left the barn and all there is left is to close the door. Commenting on Spectrum is a fool’s errand for him but…here he is!


Oh, there will be “thoughts”…the same old tired ones that have been repeated over and over again ad nauseam.


Agreed with a question: Is there a way of making sure money given at the local level only goes to the NAD? I know I can give all $$ to local church budget or other special projects outside of the normal channels (including non-Adventist or Adventist related), but is there a process of making sure no money goes to the GC?

I want to support my local pastors salary, but don’t see that as possible without the conference which then goes in part on to the GC? Also, I believe I should not mark any offering as tithe. Right?

Pastor Brunt says we should still support the world-wide effort. I agree in theory and maybe sending $$ directly to special projects world-wide will do that. BUT, if (for example) Africa or wherever will not support my freedom in Christ in an issue like this, then maybe they should forego our help.

Please help me out folks!


1 Like

Either in Africa or Philippines where TW and his agenda will find unconditional support. No questions asked.


Many of the respondents are advocating something much more radical than I am suggesting. I still believe in a world church. I still believe in supporting the world church. I simply believe that Unions must reassert their original authority and resist the overreach of the GC to force a non-biblical uniformity that dictates ministry methods for the whole world without cultural sensitivity. I did not choose the title for piece, and the word “separate” in the title may have led some to think I am advocating something more sweeping than my actual intent. Unions were set up so that mission could be driven locally. The vote at Annual Council goes against that basic principle of our organizational structure. We need to reaffirm this principle.


It’s fascinating, George, how you reveal the truly hypocritical spirit of those attacking the recent Annual Council decision and who despise those theological tenets which form the heart of Seventh-day Adventism. Last Generation Theology, against which you continually hurl your tirades, is really little more than the remnant church theology under a different name.

But what is most significant about your comments is how you really have no objection to hierarchical authority and centralized power, provided persons of your viewpoint are the ones who wield it. You ask, “What will the true church do to expel those infidels???” meaning of course those who believe in Last Generation Theology and other teachings you can’t stand.

Where is the vaunted spirit of “tolerance” of which you and others here claim to be so fond? Is tolerance only viable if it results in allowing your own viewpoint to be heard and promoted in the church? By the same token, once your viewpoint is on the throne instead of the scaffold, it seems clear you have no use for tolerance. You want the “infidels” (i.e. those who disagree with you) expelled. Few besides your own passionate fellow travelers will see such language as anything but profoundly intolerant.

But maybe this is less an exercise in hypocrisy on your part than an illustration of Ellen White’s point as declared in the following statement:

“Light and darkness cannot harmonize. Between truth and error there is an irrepressible conflict. To uphold and defend the one is to attack and overthrow the other” (GC 126).

The Bible asks, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). We are presently seeing the working out of the reality underscored by this inspired question.

John, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t assert theological independence while at the same time claiming to “support the world church.” We are a world body with a consistent, universal message and a united witness to humanity. This is the rationale for our global structure and the consequent imperative of hermeneutical and doctrinal coherence.

Sorry to rain on your parade, Kim, but plenty of silent observers still visit this site. I still hear from them at times. Put simply, my time here isn’t wasted.

Kevin…are those that you “hear from” number in the hundreds or the thousands…just like the “thousands” of youth that attend GYC? You can decide, of course, where you “waste” your time. :wink:


Churches, conferences and unions have their own constituencies, and at some point they must begin to realize that since the money flows up they hold the power, not the other way around. It is probably time for churches, conferences and unions to unite and do so in a tangle way.


"Last Generation Theology, against which you continually hurl your tirades, is really little more than the remnant church theology under a different name."

So you continually try to convince us, Kevin…lol


Sorry, I misspoke in my previous post. The word “separate” wasn’t in the title, but in someone’s post.


There are those who visit this site who are persuadable. Whether or not you are among them is for the Lord and you to know, not me. I wouldn’t venture a guess as to how many visit this site, but the number who attend GYC is a fact to which I can personally attest, as I go there every year.

Kevin, haven’t seen you here for a while, but I see that you remain in good shape with rhetorics! No wonder so many people follow you on Advindicate and Fulcrum7.

Regarding your comment above, I don’t have to say much, your words tell it all.

Congratulations for the victory. Now we already see UNITY in Church. LGT and the Powers of GC have finally been united. You must be happy for the conquer - though the victory was given by people in Africa!. But when you watch the damage what this tragedy will be doing to the Church, I hope your happiness will not last.

It’s amazing how you can say this (apparently) with straight face! We all know well that LGT is no more no less but exactly the same thing as the well known heresy of perfectionism.

Now you are saying it’s a “little more than the remnant church theology?” This is new wording, haven’t seen you saying this before. Hmmm, some kind of superior theology that is even better than the remnant theology? WOW, this must be perfect indeed! When did you perfect it that much?.. :roll_eyes: Total nonsense!!!

I am not inclined to fight with you about it, it’s your baby, keep bathing it. But as I told you several times before, if/when you bring it to bathe it here, I will always oppose to it fiercely by denouncing it so that Spectrum readers will not be deceived by this disguised heresy due to ignorance.