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

(Kim Green) #304

"Maybe the real issue is the desire of the GC to bypass their evangelistic missional purpose and create a Position of Control. So that by their dictations, (false) perfection may be achieved. Is that the global ministry?"

Only if you believe that you can “control” when the Second Coming…which, obviously, some in power do. :wink:
Hard to wrap you head around those in power who actually do think that this is possible. Co-Gods on earth.

(reliquum) #305

The structure and phrasing of this quote sounds oddly familiar, perhaps with an affect to try be unrecognized.
Have you been here before under an alias?

(Kim Green) #306

Hello, Nkosi…I think that it might be helpful for your fellow Africans to know that the church’s own theologians don’t agree scripturally on the WO issue. If they don’t, it should be no surprise that the rest of us don’t. For many, stating this might still not be enough but it is a real and valid reason.

As to why not all accept the vote- maybe it is more a matter of accepting that many of us feel that it should not have been voted on, that the vote was “manipulated”, etc. It really isn’t confusing, but this is why this church is most likely schisming at this juncture. I don’t think that this is too difficult for our African brothers or sisters to comprehend. They might not agree with our viewpoints- but they are, what they are.

(Tim Teichman) #307

It can, or it can lead to internal reform. Do you object to either outcome? If so, why?

(Teresaq) #308

You are free to believe what you wish, but for me this is no different than the cut-and-paste of Shepherd’s Rods with the writings of Ellen White with a lot of commentary to push their agenda. The fact that God talked to Adam first doesn’t in the least tell me that God somehow appointed a fallen man as spiritual leader of any other fallen beings. With all due respect, how silly!

(Tim Teichman) #309

What a horrible thing to write.

(Kevin Seidel) #312

It seems Kevin P has run out of logical arguments and is resorting to the argument of power. The disagreement over discrimination against women has been going on for 40 - 50 years neither side is likely to just give up.


He has become a troll…again…writing things to provoke a fight and demonstrate his prowess at being unable to dialog…


See below except which I tend to agree with from Adventist Today.

The problem of the document is that it failed to differentiate between a routine item of church employment and operation and a deeply spiritual/theological matter. Non-compliance in this instance has to do with matters of Christian liberty, conscience and the spiritual approach we should take to resolve interpersonal conflicts. We’re not talking about the color of the nursery wall here that can be decided by up or down votes.

Personally, I’d like to see the church move towards much broader consensus in landmark decisions such as this week’s vote before I’m prepared to say that the Holy Spirit is fully behind them. This can hardly be said of the 60/40 vote split.

Unanimity was the hallmark trait of the Holy Spirit’s actions in the early church. In six passages in the book of Acts, the expression “with one accord,” “with one mind,” “unanimously” (Gr. homou, homothymadon ) is used to describe the spirit suffusing the early church (Acts 1:14; 2:1, 46; 4:24; 5:12; 15:25).

Conversely, lack of consensus and dissension was a major issue in the church of Corinth which Paul deemed unacceptable: “ Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment ” (1 Cor 1:10; cf. 3:3; 11:18; Rom 16:17)

It seems to me then that if unanimity cannot be achieved on important spiritual matters, votes must be halted pending further reflection, study, conversation and planning in order to achieve that consensus.

We cannot claim that our “unity” is divinely appointed, while arguing that the Holy Spirit seems satisfied with a divided vote. I’d rather think that there’s something wrong with the direction we’re taking than start questioning an individual’s loyalty to God or accuse them of “rebellion” to the church just because they disagree with a misguided decision.

There’s something fundamentally wrong with the notion that just a few deciding votes constitute how God does things. Doing church like this will not bring “unity” but further galvanize warring factions.

(George Tichy) #316

Did you mean a “perfect” fight, “a la LGT?”
The good thing about Kevin is that he writes in a way that any reader who is perspicacious and astute enough, can easily identify his contortionist tendency…
Did I mean “distorcionist?” I guess both! … :wink:


I’m not sure I’m understanding your question. The quote said, “They were now authorized by the church, not only to teach the truth, but to baptize, and to organize churches, being invested with full ecclesiastical authority.” So ordination authorized them to do those things.

But obviously, you’re asking about something beyond that. Could you elaborate?


On face value laying on of hands is physical contact and emotional reassurance. I have heard others say that laying on of hands is actually a transfer of the power of God to that individual by those already imbued with it.

Don’t know if you have been ordained or not but am curious to know from those who have or may have insight as to this.

(Red Livingstone) #319

You may have been directing this to someone else, but if you don’t mind, I’ll share my experience.

I have been ordained in the physical sense of laying on of hands, and I am ordained in the sense that the Holy Spirit call me and God has anointed me. There was not a transfer of the power of God via the laying on of hands. God is not dependent that ritual. He anointed me, ordained me, prior to the physical laying on of hands.

Maybe the ordination by laying on of hands is “for life”, but I never accepted that. My ordination by God is conditional on my continued willingness to be used by Him…

… or Her… not to throw another element of controversy into this forum, but as our church family from Australia and New Zealand remind us, God is not limited to a specific gender. And our Jewish family share from their ancient heritage, that the Shekinah character of God is a feminine aspect.


The quote in question doesn’t mention a transfer of God’s power.


Thank you for sharing your experience.

As a child and in my adult life the limited number of people who spoke about this always included a mystical power was involved. I could never figure out how that was a thing in the SDA church :slight_smile:


Exactly, that is what I always thought too.

(Red Livingstone) #323

Being the vessel of God is most definitely mystical in the purest definition. You don’t have to be ordained by man to experience it. It is also the most humbling experience, one wears shoes out of necessity, but truly in your heart you want to be bare foot and worship.

I love this quote from Elizabeth Barrett Browning:

“Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God,
But only he who sees takes off his shoes;
The rest sit round and pluck blackberries.”

May I never have blackberry stains on my fingers.


Living in Japan this happens multiple times a day…:wink:

(Kim Green) #325

"and demonstrate his prowess at being unable to dialog…"

Thanks for the chuckle this morning…

Kevin isn’t here to “dialog”. He is here to tell the rest of us who don’t agree with him how wrong we are. And, ostensibly, of course, to help “capture” those few souls that reach out to him for enlightenment and support. :slight_smile:


Your welcome.

Why do I sense the dread and fear of arachnaphobia when you mention ‘reach out’ in this context…