The Use of Pillory and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church

Ted is only one person…My point is that many in Christianity = deceived and/or inconsistent.

It seems strange that the individual elected by a constituency is to be expected to disavow the views of the constituency and misrepresent them. Or is he expected to change the views of his constituent? In some cases they have already rejected the appeal of the GC president. At least when he speaks, it should be announced that the church or conference he represents is out of compliance collectively! Also if the next higher removes him his elected replacement must represent the constituents views. Logically the constituents should be removed from the church as per the Church Manual.


This is exactly it, this is the maneuvering tactics used by TW. He is willing to split the church (obviously blaming the other side for it…) if this is the only way to keep the control of everything in men’s hands.
OK, I have no problem with it. There will always be a church in the neighborhood …



They shouldn’t because this is not about left and right politics! This is about trying to resolve differences as the body of Christ. Public humiliation does nothing of the sort. Jesus’ own example, and that of the early church in solving deep differences bears this out.

Had the example of Acts 15 been followed at SA, we wouldn’t be in this situation. The council’s decision rested on the evidence that the Holy Spirit was working powerfully amongst Gentiles, bringing them to full and equal membership as Gentiles in Christ, totally free of the Torah and its entrance sign, circumcision. The biblical arguments came later, in Paul’s letters.

Similarly, at SA, the evidence of the Holy Spirit working through female pastors was presented as reason for their equal credentialing with men. That evidence was ignored. It is no secret that TW wanted the vote to go the way that it did, and never tried to broker a solution that would offer diversity of practice in different regions with different needs, in the way the apostolic council did. He, and the world divisions that voted that down, failed to heed the example of the Jerusalem council, and ostensibly didn’t listen to the Spirit. Those who are standing by conviction for gospel freedom and equality, are. No human vote can quench that, or be allowed to suppress it.

You would say that the fault is with the rebellious unions that are not listening to the majority. You seem to value obedience above all things. I would say that the majority, in this case blew it. Freedom to exercise conscience and diversity of practice, while remaining in true unity within that diversity, is what was needed.

Uniform obedience was the path chosen, what the majority also values above all. So, we are left with pressure tactics designed to humiliate, coerce, and force a fake unity that is actually uniformity, and with political analyses, as you have offered, about the left and the right.

This was a chance for the world church at SA to walk in line with the truth and the freedom of the gospel, and to act as the body of Christ. We didn’t. We are seeing the results. I hope we get another chance.




Imagen countries, that are not as civilized, I really hate using that word, but he does one put. Countries were brethren are so obsessed with compliance, they forget about humility. So the pulpit will be used as an political tool, to not liftup the name of Jesus Christ, but talk about those false Messiah’s. Qho will want to go to church, only the radical fundamentalist, remember those Crusader’s which savaged the world under the giese of religion. And when all their defence falls flat, they always use gay and lesbian concept, like we are discussing the same thing. Let people at the lowest level decide if they accept or reject concepts, and let the GC session be an connection of the world church.


Amen! Our church is being torn apart by the desire for power and control on one hand, and the obedience to conscience and love of equality on the other.


Does anyone else remember when TW flew to California to address the constituency meeting of the PUC when the vote to be inclusive of women in spiritual leadership and ordination was up for a vote? I listened to his speech to the constituency delegates and the threats and pleadings not to approve.

I also listened to a similar speech he gave to the Columbia Union constituents prior to their debates and discussions. He threatened “dire consequences” basically to both groups.

Both groups listened respectfully to TW, no booing (like Jan Paulson received). Many delegates at both locations discussed their own research and study. They proceeded with the discussion and voting and voted against TW’s wishes.

If there had been legal issues related to a constituency taking these votes, we would have heard about it then.

What TW is now asking leaders to do is to legally defy their constituencies’ votes. Legal votes. This is unfair and unethical. If this ridiculous “naming and shaming” document and policy is voted, we are in unethical and illegal territory,

If this happens, I hope that those who are ethical and legally representing their territories/unions/conferences, will wear the “reprimand” as a badge of honor. Perhaps wear a pin that says “Reprimanded for Truth” or something similar “Reprimand is an Honor.”

Standing for Christ and for truth and honor while attacked for being honorable is as Christ-like as one can be in this life.


"Will the GC try to control church membership by punishing churches that don’t discipline members to their satisfaction?

I would not take it off the table. This GC administration seems to be living in the Dark Ages.


My wife and I were talking this morning about this thing. Now you folk can correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to me that the church used to be a bottom up management system. The constituency at the lowest levels voted local leadership and in some cases local policy. They also voted their own representatives to the next higher level of church governance. I sat on any number of these local sessions, local conference sessions and a time or two for union conference sessions.

Now, over just the past few years things have developed into a top down management system and few seem to recognize the danger. I suppose that as the nation goes, so goes the church? Sure seems that way to me.


Not that this is a perfect analogy…but think of what has happened to countries that have transitioned to a dictatorship. It is always for everyone’s good, done by others who manipulate the political system, who’s leadership always knows best.


In this case the constituents from the larger culture outnumbered those from another. It compares to a country passing a law that discriminates against its minorities. That is not a free country. This country is taking away the rights of the minority that will hamper their work (mission) and growth and is against their best interest. It is a law that is not based on the principlse or the laws (doctrines) of the land.


The suggested correlation to Pillory is poor. It is reflective of peoples attitudes more than the church officers actual intentions.
If a mere note of a persons overt rejection of a GC Business session vote and their failure to proceed according to the established and long documented organizational structure is beyond the pale then what is the divisive and overt rejection of a GC Business session vote and their failure to proceed according to the established and long documented organizational structure?
If all it takes to get rebellious people to loose their calm is the mere mention of it I am reminded of EG Whites quote where it says that to those in the wrong a mere mention of the issue is seen as stern rebuke.

Are you a Trinitarian?

George, It would seem that the ‘committee’ is a thinly disguised method to deal with those emerging issues that make the leadership uncomfortable. I say this because after 130+ years of corporate governance and existing methods of dealing with non-conformance why is this suddenly appearing. Considering the topics at the forefront it seems that the leadership is significantly fearful and as a results is resorting to what I think is the beginning of long list of additional extreme measures.

What I wonder about is why are the current issue so disturbing that they would do this?


Though we have been considering several hypothesis throughout the years here, I still do not understand exactly why some people are so narrow minded and cannot think out of that little, very little box.
If you ever find the answer, don’t forget to share it … :wink:

You have this backwards. The smaller culture has been the dominant one in the past. It has controlled all the strings. The now larger culture has grown tired of the domineering tone, and the accusation of immoral behavior (WO is a moral issue, and you that do not go along are immoral. Have you listened to the debate?)

So, The smaller culture is in a way getting a dose of its own medicine. Not only that, the minority’s work will not be hampered by this vote. That group has been a steady declined for some time. Adding WO will not help at all, and has helped no other bodies that have adopted it.

It is time to drop the issue and let the dynamic parts of the church take the lead. This constant agitation by the West is what is really hampering the work.

Harpa, the GC is the grand constituency. Don’t you see it? The others are really subservient to it, and should bow to the larger group. This is the third time it was voted, by the large constituency.

Now if you want to withdraw from the larger group, that is your prerogative. But you can’t just claim you have the authority. The larger group voted it down, and the smaller one do not have a right to just ignore it. Or chaos.


When someone tries to steal what is yours and you stand your ground, why should others consider your action as agitation? Clearly, ordination is the unions’ prerogatives. Why won’t the GC change the working policy then implement it? Isn’t this the proper way? Doesn’t the 10 commandments say “ Thou shalt not steal?”

My understand is in hindsight Neal Wilson allowed the WO issue for general session voting knowing it was not proper. His son Ted Wilson because of his failure to master his Oedipal complex has been unable to say no to his father and would now rather risk splitting the church. You can butter up the wordings but this is the gist.


I am not challenging the SA2015 vote. I support it. I am glad the larger group voted it down. Thus the Divisions, aka GC, will not be able to mess with the Unions, unless another assaults succeed.

The attempted assault on the AC2017 failed badly. It was a major shaming experience for TW. But he didn’t stop, and is now attacking the Unions with another of his fake committees. Based on what we saw reported about the committee’s recommendations, it will most probably be voted down in October. People are getting tired of this nonsense. It’s time for TW to go home!


Yes, and the vote failed. The vote was no, to not make any change. A change that would have moved the choice of who to ordain from the Unions where it resides now, to the Divisions, where it did not and does not reside. If it had moved, then the GC, which controls the Divisions, might have had some say. Which is what Ted wanted. But, it failed.

Per Ted Wilson, the vote failed and so nothing changed. That’s what he said when asked. It’s been posted here before. The power to choose who ordain remains with the Unions. The GC does not have that power.