Why label it a protest why not an inquiry? Making an inquire is part of the learning process.Why should a picture of a line of student indicate hostility. No policy should exist that had no rational reason that can be articulated in a called forum.
Remember…that old “slippery slope” argument was being used against WO, also…
I am okay with “disturbing” the sensibilities of a generally older crowd on such an important matter in the form of an “silent” protest. Besides, if their view of their illustrious guest was being impeded…they could have gotten up and gone to a side that had a better view (their form of “protest” ).
Most of those 'Silver Foxes" in the photos remember the protests of the Vietnam War and standing silently in church is extremely mild in comparison. This would have been one of the very few opportunities for the students to publicly show their POV in front of Ted W.
We will have to agree to disagree upon your analogy being exactly the same.
No he cannot just disband compliance committees. He did not create them he can’t disband them! Again it is scary that people don’t even know how the organization works. " Informed by the comments received from the Executive Committee members as well as from the qualitative data gathered from dialogues conducted with divisions, the General Conference Administrative Committee has started a process of establishing certain General Conference Compliance Review Committees. Their primary objective is to review issues of non-compliance submitted by the relevant conference/union/division Administrative Committee.
By August 14, 2018, the General Conference Administrative Committee would have determined the appropriate names of these committees and identify qualified individuals to serve as members.
VOTED, To establish a plan for the compliance review committees with terms of reference as follows:
Terms of Reference for Compliance Committees https://www.adventistreview.org/compliance-committees-terms-of-reference
Also I just saw this on the page I linked to above. The Reviews article which gives a very different perspective of what happened there. https://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story13478-ted-wilson-addresses-questions-on-the-campus-of-andrews-university
i don’t think this is clear, at all…after-all, TW can’t last forever…if there is general agreement on doctrine and some kind of stake in one’s home church, i think the solution to disagreeable GC leadership is wait that leadership out…don’t forget that the saints who specialize in faith, hope and love also specialize in patience…
And then Ted asked”why do our young people leave the church?”
An orchestrated line of questioners to an orchestrated question-and-answer session. What’s next?
Well-written article. I appreciated the example supplied to justify the protest–that questions can be softened.
While I agree that it may be prudent to ignore and wait out a disagreeable spell at the top, in the case of women’s ordination ( and the male headship quasi-docrine) waiting it out clearly has (had) not worked.
Thanks for your comment. I may be overly pessimistic with what I said. I am very discouraged with the marginalization that I have experienced at the local church level though. I see this treatment filtering from the top down. So I have lost my tolerance for the behavior that just occurred at Andrews.
we would have had WO had it not been for TW…while it’s been a long time developing, i do think a critical mass has been reached…heading into san antonio, and for the first time, a majority of divisions would have been fine with WO in places like NAD…any other president would have found a way to allow WO to exist side by side with headship…
TW can’t do this because his whole mind-set is irretrievably off on this point…but i think he’s in the minority in the GC…the silent majority will intervene if a compliance review committee ever tried to do something about people like sandra roberts or chris oberg, if for no other reason than they can see what TW can’t, which is the disaster that protracted litigation on a perceived civil right would bring, given that the church is on the wrong of history…i think we are witnessing headship making a futile custer’s last stand with TW…
Wouldn’t it have been refreshing to hear TW say, “I see we have a line forming with questions. Let’s take a few minutes and see what they have on their minds”?
To abandon the total control of the script and open the mic for university students to ask questions at the flagship international university of the church would be so welcome. A true leader could handle such and should hold numerous Q & A at universities all over the world. (Jan Paulsen held these Q & A for university students all around the world at Adventist universities.) So why not have true open forums?
Fear and control issues?
Regarding Presidential elections and others in the GC has nothing to do with
the wishes of the grass roots at the local level.
All the GC offices are voted on by persons at the higher levels.
The “grass roots” are just INFORMED of who world leaders at the GC are
through the Review and outlets such as Spectrum, Adventist Today, Fulcrum7.
Last time President Wilson was re-elected, those voting were NOT given
any other name to vote on. So it was a shoe-in for him.
One of those “elections by acclamation”.
In the past, the Biblical views of our leaders – Conference, Union, Division –
has NOT mattered. But grass roots minds are changing in some ways. In
a number of areas around North America anyway, it is beginning to matter
with the “grass roots” as to WHO is NOT accepted at Christ’s Table, and IS
this right? The sense that GLT’s should be allowed to become Seventh day
Adventists. The sense that Women love God just as much as Men and should
be able to voice this love as Ordained Pastors, church leaders, all the way up
to Presidency of the General Conference.
There is a sense in many areas that an ALL-INCLUSIVE church is what Christ
wants. But in order to HAVE ONE, we need Leaders who are of the same
mind-set – see Christ as ALL-INCLUSIVE of those who love God.
Leaders who will follow Christ in being ALL-INCLUSIVE. HOW do we know who
is and who isn’t? and HOW are the “grass roots” able to get leaders elected who
see an ALL-INCLUSIVE church as a church that Christ approves?
Our church is really winning when we choose to ignore our children who are the future. Welcome to the church of the “EXCLUDED”. We are treating the church like America treats the 1%. I don’t think this is Christ’s definition of Christianity, rather it’s all about man’s religion! Shame on the church! Shame!
After I heard about the protests on social media, I took the time to watch the whole session (and yes, there were a few interesting bits - as I had never heard TW so clearly support headship ideology - nor have I heard his rejection of anti-trinitarianism that clearly before … some theological gymnastics, i would say). As to the protest, I experienced it this way:
It was powerful because it did NOT disrupt (that would have been an easy game for TW), but was quiet and persistent. Respect!
It was acknowledged by Andrea Luxton in a manner that certainly did not embarass or shame the protesters, but rather - if anybody - the church.
It certainly was not acknowledged by TW - but that is well known strategy he likes to use and should be expected (I still remember the commissioning / ordination service in Australia - just to name one example). Not sure though, if any “reaction” would have been acceptable to the protesters.
It has been broadcast and discussed widely in social media. To call it “unacknowledged” in the heading is misleading. I believe the silent protest spoke loud and clear and will be remembered.
I started to watch the tape but eventually lost interest. I was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was “collusion” either consciously or unconsciously between Pastor TW and Dr Andrea Luxton to sanitize current issues polarizing our church. Instead of having an opportunity to set matters clear, the conversation only made it worse.
Another opportunity squandered.
Elmer, what exactly did you expect? Andrea Luxton is a diplomat par excellence - and that requires some “collusion”. Or to put it in more psychodynamic language: breaking defence mechanisms by sheer force rarely will bring success. You have to go with it, if you want to overcome. That’s why her closing remarks were quite powerful - as well as the student protest (and yes, there may have been a secret collusion as well )
I heard that it was said that the slaves liked being slaves, too. That they ‘preferred’ being slaves. White Christian slave owners took comfort in this idea.
There is no talk of forcing the integration of individual churches. That’s not how it would work. Members are always free to attend whatever church they fancy, with or without the current corporate structure. This is a proposal to rid the church of an overtly racist corporate structure that is long past its expiration date.
Well, in all seriousness, by continuing to hang on to this corporate structure, the church continues to insinuate that it is better when blacks are separate from whites. It is more comfortable and easier - which is better.
But it’s not better. It’s and idea that is increasingly and correctly seen as racist at its core. A church structure that explicitly carves out a space for blacks is very much like having buses for blacks or drinking fountains for blacks or parks for blacks or swimming pools for blacks or schools for blacks.
In reality, “Separate but equal” is never an actual reality. Ask South Africa. What all these “for blacks” structures have in common is that they tend to run parallel to explicit and implicit “for whites” structures. And in almost all cases, the “for whites” offerings are better funded - and so unequal.
I thought you would understand the current zeitgeist. As a white male you don’t get to voice an opinion on another identity group. It sounds very paternalistic to suggest that you know what black people want better than they do. Do you identity as black? Perhaps you could almost get away with it if you are gay.
In all seriousness, I never said it was a good concept but we are where we are and I don’t get any sense that the Black SDA is pushing for change. I can’t even recall any articles on here by African American SDA’s pushing for change. Perhaps something about the origins of the setup.
By all means, tear it down and we will still have white, black, Asian, Polynesian, Serb and Croation…churches. It may make you feel a little better but not much will change.
Who are you addressing? Impossible to tell as you didn’t reply to anyone (it seems…)
My bad but I managed to reach you anyway so all good. If my obvious retardation gives you a boost though, you’re welcome
Well now you have. Before no one could tell.
I did not make a statement regarding black people want. I suspect they want a whole lot of what everyone else wants. People are people.
I’m African. We’re all African, if you go back far enough. Medically, biologically, there is no such thing as race. It doesn’t exist.
Tear it down?
I live in an Adventist ghetto with probably 15 - 20 churches within 30 miles. Many, like the Mountain View Japanese church are self-segrated for reasons including culture and language. Basically the old people like to listen to their sermons in Japanese and they like to keep their kids exposed to the language. And their pot luck is to die for. I never suggested that this should change.