A Commentary on “Moving Forward Together: A Response from the General Conference to Recent Actions in North America”
by Erv Taylor
by Ervin Taylor, November 5, 2013
The following are comments on a statement of “The General Conference Executive Officers” issued as a kind of Adventist version of a Papal Encyclical, or perhaps what more accurately should be characterized as a Papal Bull. It was issued as a “Special Edition” of the Adventist Review InTouch email news release issued by the Adventist News Network on Sabbath, November 2, 2013. The General Conference (GC) Officers statement is in regular type and comments are in italics between brackets.
“The Seventh-day Adventist Church has been called by God as an urgent, end-time voice proclaiming God’s love and last day message to the world. [We certainly can hope that the Adventist denomination has been called by God. If the only or principal message of the Adventist would be the love of God, we would not be having these disputes. It is the institutional Adventist Church as represented by the “General Conference Executive Officers” which insists on continuing to emphasize the very problematical theological and Church polity concepts of fundamentalist Adventism which creates the problems.] He has commissioned us to proclaim the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14:6-12 to people worldwide desperately looking for hope. The message and mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is unique and is heaven-sent. [Well, again we can hope that our message and mission are “heaven-sent.” Being unique is another matter. What’s wrong with just being Christian?] Our top priority as a Church is knowing Jesus ourselves and sharing His message of redemption. [Yet again, if that was the only or principal message being advanced by the institutional Adventist Church as represented by the “General Conference Executive Officers,” we would almost certainly not be having these problems.] Nothing is to stand in the way of this proclamation as we unite to reach every “nation, kindred, tongue and people” with the “everlasting gospel.” [If the institutional Adventist denomination was advancing only the Christian gospel, we would not be having these problems. Most of these problems are created when a lot of theological concepts which have nothing to do with the Christian gospel are included in what the institutional Adventist Church is proclaiming in its officially-sanctioned, standardized, evangelistic message.]
“The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a fellowship of believers bound together by a common commitment to Christ, the truths of the Bible, a worldwide Church organization and a mission to the world. [Ah, we now come to the main point of this GC Encyclical-Bull! We can all certainly hope that the Adventist denomination is a fellowship of believers bound together by a common commitment to Christ [and] the truths of the Bible . . .” It is the “world Church organization” part of this statement that is the problem. Let’s not confuse the real issue.] Each of these elements is vitally important in preserving the unity of the Church and keeping it from fracturing. [Not necessarily. We can have an appropriate unity based on the first two elements (assuming that we all agree on the nature of the “truths of the Bible,”) but the insistence on defining unity as being uniformity is the problem.] The Seventh-day Adventist Church is not organized as a collection of independent units. Although each Conference/Mission, Union and the General Conference (which includes the divisions) have (sic) their own constituencies, they are also united by common commitments, mutual trust and agreed upon policies. [Ideally, yes, but “mutual trust” has been destroyed by the actions of the GC officers who seem determined to use the Working Policy as a club to force everyone back into line. Sorry, that will not work.] The Church, the body of Christ, is inter-related.[True, but the “body of Christ” is the “invisible” Church not the institutional Adventist Church.] Actions that affect one part of the body affect the whole. The Apostle Paul stated it succinctly in these words, “For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.”(1 Corinthians 12:12)
“Working Policy, which is the recording of our agreements as to how we will work together to do the Lord’s work and mission, serves as one of the practical unifying agents that the Holy Spirit uses to bind the Church together. [Who exactly is the “we” in the “we will work together…”? The Working Policy should exist as a set of recommendations not directions.] Policy is not inflexible. It can be changed but it reflects the understanding of the collective group, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. [Oh. really? And guess who gets to decide what is and is not done “under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”] When personal convictions are placed ahead of the collective policy decisions of the worldwide Church, troubling precedents are set. [Personal convictions? Please! The view that women should be ordinated to the gospel ministry is a view held by thousands of Adventist Church members in North America.] God works in an orderly way and wishes His Church to exemplify this sanctified behavior through the power of the Holy Spirit. [“God works in an orderly way? Really? That is debatable. Since when was the Reformation orderly? And early Adventism was certainly not orderly.] Humility and submission to God for the good of the Church body as outlined in the Word of God and the Spirit of Prophecy are fundamental Biblical principles for the benefit of the Church. [We can agree here. The GC officers should be humble and submit to the Spirit of God working in the Adventist Church to make sure that women called to the gospel ministry are ordained in full equality with men.]
“At the 2012 Annual Council in a voted action entitled, “Statement on Church Polity, Procedures, and Resolution of Disagreements in the Light of Recent Union Actions on Ministerial Ordination,” the world Church strongly indicated that it does not recognize as ordained ministers individuals who do not meet the criteria outlined in policy. [All this really indicates is that Church councils can and do make serious mistakes.] It deeply concerns the world leadership of the Church that recently a local conference constituency elected as a conference president an individual who is not recognized by the world Church as an ordained minister. [That’s the “world leadership’s” problem, not the local conference constituency’s problem.] Ordination to the ministry is one of the criteria set forth for being a conference president. [Ah, back to the Working Policy again.] General Conference administration is working with the North American Division administration [Working? Now what does that exactly mean?] as they deal with the implications of this local conference action, which is contrary to the 2012 Annual Council action. [Again, this just shows that Councils make serious mistakes.]
“The world Church is currently working together in a Theology of Ordination Study Committee with participation by all divisions to better understand the functions of ordination as well as the role of women in relation to ordination to the gospel ministry. [If you want to delay, delay, delay, just assign it to a committee over and over and over again.] A careful process is functioning and reports will be given to the 2014 Annual Council with the expectation that this subject will go to the 2015 General Conference Session for a decision under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. [Let’s be clear on what is going on here. It will go to the 2014 Annual Council and 2015 General Conference Session where the control of procedures is largely in the hands of the same “Officers of the General Conference” and their supporters. A lot of lay persons are not going to fall for that story line again.]
“We have every confidence in the Lord’s leading of His precious remnant Church. [We can agree. We have confidence that the Lord is leading the Adventist Church to ordain women to advance gender equity. If the GC will not do it, then the local and union conferences can do so and then a local conference can elect an ordained Adventist minister who happens to be a woman as conference president. What’s the problem? And assuming that the institutional Adventist Church is the “remnant Church” is certainly a highly disputed point.] By God’s grace and through the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the Church will find its way through this challenging time as we move forward with the unique message and mission entrusted to the Seventh-day Adventist movement.[Well, yet again, we all can hope that whatever the Adventist Church does reflects the “Holy Spirit’s guidance.” But let’s be clear and honest about this; many times that does not happen. Naked political power is exercised by Church administrators.] It is God’s plan that we proclaim His end-time, prophetic truth to every corner of the globe and especially the enormous metropolitan centers of the world through “Mission to the Cities” utilizing every form of comprehensive urban evangelism including comprehensive health ministry and many other methods. [Well again, we can hope that it is God’s plan. However, what exactly is “prophetic truth “for the 21st Century is in dispute.] We urge all Church members and leaders to pray that the Holy Spirit will unite us to fulfill Christ’s promise that “this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14) United in Christ’s love, bound together in a common Biblical message, linked through a common Church organization and committed to one another with mutual respect and trust through the power of the Holy Spirit. [Here we go again: “. . . linked through a common Church organization . . .” Leave that out and we can all be happy with that sentiment.], we are confident this Church will triumph at last and proclaim Christ’s eternal message of truth to the ends of the earth in anticipation of Jesus’ soon second coming.
Dr Taylor, I think you have just shattered my illusion:(
From time to time I actually convince myself that the Church may one day become a place where people (almost) like me can be more than just shadows in the corner. Somehow, after reading this commentary, it puts it into a new perspective. It aint gonna happen.
I still hope and pray that by the Grace of God it will happen.
Good grief! How long will the top church leadership keep thinking there is no one qualified to lead the church but them with women and the unordained specifically excluded? How much division and discord must be sown in the church before the Executive Committee of the General Conference (that so overwhelmingly approved the report recommending the ordination of women) takes action to remove these nay-sayers from office?
The people in Silver Spring do not want to admit that with the overwhelming shift to Third World majority over the past 40 years, has come a cultural/theological shift in the majority view on the role of women in the church.
Had we finished the job re women's ordination 30 to 40 years ago rather than being diverted by the Ford contoversy, it would have been far less painful than it will be now.
The decision by a NAD conference to ordain women and allow them to serve as Conference Presidents has now shown the stubborn GC central "authority" that it will not accept GC hegemony. Sometimes a "congregationalist" movement will assist in reforming the whole of any faith group.
Don't look now but it's already quite apparent that unions are refusing to submit to old world rules that have been hampering the work.
It is clear to me that the GC's insistence on the "men only" club of pastors comes from an ancient cultural perspective during the development of the early Christian church. Like slavery, this discrimination has no place in the 21st century SDA church. In the end the rhetoric will die down.
Inviting Jesus into one's heart as lord is most important. All else may be interesting but not really that important.
We can all be happy for those who do not have any concerns about the future or nature of the visable church and can simply look inward to their own religious experience. Some others have other perspectives that includes how the Adventist denomination functions in the real world and believe that paying some attention to that is worth the effort. Is it not a good thing that we can all be part of the same faith tradition and live togehter in peace even if we do not agree completely in all regard about theology and church polity?.
Mr Hamstra says: "The people in Silver Spring do not want to admit that with the overwhelming shift to Third World majority over the past 40 years, has come a cultural/theological shift in the majority view on the role of women in the church."
——–
Yes, but the Silver Spring people also realise that the Third World majority hold true to the position held by our Pioneers whilst the cultural influences of secularism have stolen a march on the First World which has had a direct impact on the Church and now they are scrambling around looking for their own manmade answers to the problems they face. Like the Israel of old when they demanded a 'king' from God to fit in with the culture of the nations around them, so too has been this insistence to ordain women as pastors and go against the historical position of our church which is in line with both the OT and the NT and the writings of Ellen White.
22oct1844 = Trevor Hammond
My comment was not regarding the validity of the historical position. It was speculation that it might have been easier to resolve this 40 years ago when the theological consensus may have been drifting in a different direction than it is now.
Whether this "historic" position is in-line with the OT or the NT or EGW depends on which texts you consider to be relevant. Elsewhere I have commented in detail regarding areas where the "minority" report submitted by two NAD TOSC members totally ignored the OT passage (Joel 2) that most strongly leads to the opposite conclusion. Applying the same hermenutic to Joel 2 that these two gentlemen apply to various passages re Gentiles being joined to Israel (to later waive the rite of circumcision), would permit the church to waive the restriction of ordination to men. There are valid scriptural arguments both for permitting women to be ordained and for restricting women from being ordained. Where there is no clear theological consensus within the church I see no mandate for the GC officers to enforce a single worldwide practice. Our pioneers never accepted arguments from Tradition as binding on them and neither should we.
If the "Third World majority" held "true to the position held by our Pioneers" regarding the deity of Christ would that make them right?
I can see where you're heading with this. You know very well that holding the majority doesn't necessarily make something right (or wrong). The GC's position on this matter still counts as it is the highest authoritive body of our church. We should come into line with GC policy as our Pioneers also did rather than blow with the wind of cultural peer pressure as in the case of WO in the NAD.
T
Nor does holding to traditon make things right.
No one is following cultural winds more than Wilson. It's tradition to subjugate women. And today it's about women liberation.
Both have ideas on how to treat women! But, Christ and the Holy Spirit do not see males and females. If we were truly Christ-like as church, we would see only children of God- neither female or male.
22oct1844 says that the church should not go against the historical position of . . . Ellen White. But since she was a woman and since women cannot be led by God's Spirit and should not be in positions of leadership, surely the opinion of Ellen White can not be trusted!
Searching for a king of tribal leaders like Ancient Israel is exactly what Ted Wilson GC cabal is. They are males born to lead instead of bring spiritual called to serve. Ordination, ministry, presidency should be humble positions of service and the TRUE pioneers of Paul's Early Christians would gladly welcome a woman who put away the flesh to serve the Spirit.
Adventist WORKING POLICY is the same as Orthodox Jews and sects of Islam brutally circumcising to live 2nd class lives. How 'bout believing in Christ who died for everybody equally? Let the Spirit lead for a change.
22,
Just curious: If women are ordained, how would it affect you, your view of God and the SDA church?
Would you stop attending church because women are now ordained? Would you attend a church who had an ordained woman as pastor? Since you feel quite strongly, how does it affect your life if women became ordained?
Mrs Nelson,
Firstly, if you look back at at comments regarding this issue, I haven't had a lot to say except recently. I did however express my concerns with the way the pro-WO played things out with 'frenzied voting' as I refer to it in which I found that the lobbyists were in quite a hurry to push through even openly insulting the world church and the GC and at thr risk destabilising the church. The harsh remarks, demands, accusations and blatant lies used by them against the GC to fight their cause was what primarily caught my attention and prompted me to comment. The traditional camp has confidence in the GC and will comply with GC policies regarding any issue for that matter of which the same can't be said of the culturasl camp who turn to throwing tantrums, making demands and who try and bully they way on the Adventist playground, which to me is typical of the usual condescending manner practiced by most from the First World. Just between you and me, I honestly think they're behaving like spoilt brats. I'm not sure I understand you questioning. Are you asking this in terms of the GC accepting WO or if I accept the sploit brat NAD version? That will make the difference ma'am. What's it to you anyway? You aren't even an Adventist?.
Trevor Hammond
Repost due to typos…
Mrs Nelson,
Firstly, if you look back at at comments regarding this issue, I haven't had a lot to say except only recently. I did however express my concerns with the way the pro-WO lobby played things out with 'frenzied voting' (as I refer to it) in which I found that the lobbyists were in quite a hurry to push this through even to the extent of openly insulting the world church and the GC even at the risk of possibly destabilising the church. The harsh remarks, insults, demands, accusations and blatant lies used by them against the GC to fight their cause was what primarily caught my attention and prompted me to comment. The traditional camp has confidence in the GC and will comply with GC policies regarding any issue for that matter of which the same can't be said of the cultural camp who have turned to throwing tantrums, making demands and who try and bully their way on the Adventist playground, which to me is typical of the usual condescending manner First Worlders deal with their Third World counterparts. Just between you and me, I honestly think they're behaving like spoilt brats. I'm not sure I understand your questioning but are you asking this in terms of the GC accepting WO or if I accept the spoilt brat NAD version? That will make the difference ma'am. What's it to you anyway? You aren't even an Adventist!
"Just between you and me, I honestly think they're behaving like spoilt brats."
Really? If it is just between the two of you then why post it where thousands of the resto of us can read it?
Might calling 11 of 13 members of the NAD TOSC committee spoilt brats be just a bit of an exaggeration? Not to mention the majority of the NAD Executive Committee who voted to recommend the report to the GC?
Is this the way Jesus dealt with those who disagreed with him? When we have such a hard time forgiving those who disagree on earth will we be able to forgive them in heaven?
"They that have been forgiven much will love much."
22,
Thanks for answering my questions. Now that we know that is is the the "spoilt brats" who are telling: "blatant lies, throwing temper tantrums, and insulting the world church" it is amazing that you have been so kind and patient with such people who are spoiling the church.
For those who are interested in the consciousness issue. This is fairly short and concise:
http://www.ted.com/talks/john_searle_our_shared_condition_consciousness.html
Chris,
Is this the page where you meant to post this comment?
Slightly longer, but great insights:
http://www.ted.com/talks/antonio_damasio_the_quest_to_understand_consciousness.html
Is this the page where you meant to post this comment?
Oops, no. Thanks for the wake up… Sorry!
I had it open and did not realize I had switched tabs
🙁
22, please, just a simple answer: Is the Holy Spirit available only to the GC officers, and is the SDA church, the church God has exclusively selected, to deliver the quintessentual final message to the world, and the 144,000 will be judiciously chosen from it's core membership???? YES OR NO????
Let's see if "22" can give simple, straightforward answers to the 2 simple, straightforward questions posed by Mr. Calahan. Or will "22" drown us in rightwing rhetoric? Adventists are not supposed to gamble but would anyone like to bet on if "22" answers yes or no to the 2 questions? I will give 10 to 1 odds against. Any takers?
Dear Mr Calahan
Regarding your Yes or No questions:
1] Is the Holy Spirit available only to the GC officers? No!
2] Is the SDA church, the church God has exclusively selected, to deliver the quintessentual final message to the world, and the 144,000 will be judiciously chosen from it's core membership? No!
Trevor Hammond
Two yes / no questions of my own:
1] Is the SDA Church the 'inclusive' remnant church of Rev 12:17 who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ which is the Spirit of Prophecy (Rev 19:10) as can be seen and made manifest in the inspired writings of Ellen White which strongly points mankind to God's Holy Word – the Bible? Yes
2] Has God raised up the Seventh-day Adventist Church to preach the gospel by calling mankind to Salvation in Jesus Christ through Righteousness by Faith, to call attention to a judgement hour, to call them to worship the Creator and remember the Sabbath day, to proclaim obedience to His law in Christ, to herald the Second Advent, to proclaim the Sanctuary in heaven where Christ intercedes on our behalf as Advocate and Priest during the judgment hour and to call out God's children from the marks of apostasy and disobedience to His Law? Yes
22oct1844
In my opinion the answer to your first question is a definite negative. While Adventists are one of the few denominations advocating for obeying all of the Ten Commandments, we have typically placed such great emphasis on obedience to them (as measured by human concepts that vary in popularity) that there is little room left for the love and power of God. This emphasis leaves no room for room for more than lip service to the Holy Spirit, whose indwelling presence empowers us to obey love God and obey Him in response to His great love.
The answer to the second part of Question One is also a firm negative. We focus so exclusively on the past prophetic role of Ellen White to certify our claim of being God's chosen church that we are not allowing the Holy Spirit to work today. Prophecy is merely one among the variety of spiritual gifts the Holy Spirit is longing to activate among those who love God. But He is unable to do that because our looking backward all the time has made us blind to our present, desperate need for the indwelling of the Holy Spirt and the blessings He wants to give us that includes sending more prophets.
I have recently become aware of several non-denominational Sabbath-keeping church groups in North America with memberships in the tens of thousands where prophets are active parts of the local church. The gift of healing is also commonly seen. One of my brothers has joined one of these churches in his area after being driven out of the SDA church by intense legalism, elders defending open disobedience to scripture and denial of the Holy Spirit. A retired dentist, he serves as a volunteer chaplain at a local hospital. He recently told me of a visit where he was praying with patients in one room and a patient said he should also pray for a woman who was among the visitors because one of her legs was shorter than the other. One of her shoes had a two-inch lift added to the sole so her hips would stay level as she stood and walked. As he prayed with her, he put his hand under that shoe and felt the leg growing in length. A half-hour later he and his wife found the woman in the hospital lobby walking in her stocking feet because she could no longer wear the show with the lift. Whe was praising God and greeting people she knew with joy as she told of being healed– and that she could now go out and buy regular shoes!
As a result of our reality relating to Question One, we are in great danger of any answer to question Two being irrelevant because we are resting in pride from our history and refusing to let God be relevant and active in our present.
22,
Neat trick: you ask and then answer your own questions. Try that in school sometime. You are not really questioning but merely supplying your answers to questions that only you have an interest in answering.
Thank you Trevor. i believe we are on the same page in the most important issue of life, that of accepting the Lord Jesus Christ and His Righteousness, by His Grace through Faith. Holy Scripture avers we are saved if we accept and believe in Jesus.
With other Biblical themes we have different interpretations, but this will not deny us of salvation in Christ. Bless you and yours.
I've always be interested in miracle stories. I wonder if Mr. Noel would be kind enough to provide just a little more detail concerning the miracle event that he describes. Would it be possible to know the approximate date when and the hospital in which it happened? If he does not know the hospital, even the city in which it happened would be helpful piece of information.
And I would be interested in knowing whether the woman is still walking level in her stocking feet?
Such a typical SDA answer! Please see Matthew 12:24, 13:58, 10:8 and John 14:12.
I do not doubt that God performs miracles. I happen to believe that I have witnessed a couple of minor miracles myself. Nevertheless, being an empiricist by inclination, I prefer to suspend judgment until I have an opportunity to examine the evidence. Pehaps becase I have seen the shrine in Croatia where the Virgin Mary miraculously weeps blood? And the place in India where a stone lingam miraculously arose from the earth? And another where a stone Shiva miraculously arose from the earth?
We are told to test the spirits (1 John 4:1). Please do not take umbrage that I try to follow this inspired directive.
I cannot give you more information to test. I was not there as a witness and only reported what he described. Based on what else I have witnessed of his ministry, I trust his report completely.
The point I am making is that God is performing miracles through believers other than Adventists because we've taught everyone to fear deception instead of embracing the Holy Spirit and trusting Him to do what He promised–including miracles of healing.
Now, please consider for a moment what a ministry opportunity we are being handed by the Obamacare debacle that is unfolding. Millions are losing their access to medical care. People will soon be dying from diseases that can be treated or cured. What if the people who profess to be followers of God were empowered by the Holy Spirit to perform miracles of healing? After all, that is one of the things Jesus told His followers to go out and do.
How does it make any sense to juxtapose health insurance reform legislation that has absolutely nothing whatever to do with religion with opportunities to perform miracles of healing?
By this logic, wouldn’t it make ‘more sense’ to have all but a handful of people without health insurance coverage so that we would have more miraculous opportunities?
Obamacare is creating massive opportunities for ministry because millions are losing their access to health care. We are about to see suffering on a scale previously seen only in undeveloped countries.
It would make sense to be completely without health insurance if there were enough believers ministering the healing power of the Holy Spirit. But those people are few and rarely found in the SDA church because of massive unbelief.
Well please do not try to minister to Democrats while wearing your own political opinions on your sleeve.
Do you really think that Democrats create more or fewer ministry opportunites than Republicans?
Jim Hamstra,
You say that you have witnessed some "minor" miracles? Can you tell me the difference between "minor" and "major" miracles?
Oh, it is only lack of faith that my shorter leg following hip surgery has not been restored to equal length. Or that the "shorter leg" became longer with hip replacement on the other side. What's a miracle worker to do? Heal one, then retract?
Anecdotes of healing are as numerous as believer who are convinced. When it is published in a reputable medical journal it will be evaluated. Or when someone with glioblastoma multiforme is healed it might be much closer to "miraculous.
Would receiving a miracle cause you to believe in God again?
William,
Would your brother please pray for my daughter-in-law who for many years has one leg shorter and slightly twisted after a metal rod was inserted into her femur due to a water-skiing accident at a SDA youth camp? Her husband is an SDA minister and apparently they can use some lesson in praying in the Spirit? Is it too late to pray for her because she was rushed to the nearest (secular) university hospital where this procedure was performed? If they had relied only on fervent prayer would she now have her leg functioning normally without benefit of orthodec surgery or would she be missing her leg entirely?
I know know a group of Sabbath-keeping Charismatic Russians in the greater Portland area. I have done business with several of thees people – fine folk and some send their children to SDA schools. I harbor no malice towards them and I wish them God's richest blessings. But I do not intend to go-over the river (literally) to join them.
How would I know the miracle was from God? Doesn't the Bible say that Satan can bring down fire from heaven? Isn't that miraculous?
Erv,
Why do you seek documentation of a single miracle when you could be regularly seeing God doing the same in answer to your prayers for others?
To those opposed to women's ordination and who say we should obey the GC since it is the highest authority I have a question. In the NT there is no functional difference between a pastor and an elder. The GC has approved the ordination of elders. Question: do those sopposed to women's ordination suuport this action of the GC? A clear answer would be appreciated.
As I recall, the Bible gives us some description for the job of an elder, but zero for a pastor, unless you are equating "Pastor" with a "bishop" or "overseer." But doing that would be imposing definition on a passage where the words do not support the imposition.
My search of the KJV returned one instance of "Pastor" (Jeremiah 17:16) and eight for "pastors" with seven of those in Jeremiah and only one in the New Testament in Ephesians 4:11 where it says "and he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." Hmmm. "Pastors and teachers." They're mentioned together. If we ordain pastors, shouldn't we also ordain teachers? Perhaps we should question also debate about whether a woman should be a teacher. 🙂
Brothers and Sisters in Christ. i believe in supernatural events, yes, even today. Why must we be so cynical, and disbelieving of when and which circumstances the Holy Spirit is in direct action in our lives?? Faith in God's promises is the only requirement, for God to work in you and through you,, that He may be glorified.
What is the "cynical" part of my simple question? I will indeed question a miracle story when someone insisting that there was a miracle can not inform us of such simple facts as when and where it happened. European Medieval history is littered with all kinds of miracles. I would ask Mr. Noel of how many of those miracles does he accept as actually occuring?.
Erv,
You're illustrating my point! We do not see Adventists performing miracles because we question too much and believe too little. God could do amazing things through us if we believed His promises. Each of us should be pleading with God like the father of a demon-possessed child in Mark 9:24 when He cried out to Jesus, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"
I very much disagree wtih Mr. Noel. I suspect that Adventists and many other Christians in many Third World countries witness what they consider miracles all the time. Their world view expects miracles to happen and so they do. Educated Adventists and other Christians in the West do not witness miracles not because they "belierve too little" but because they know more, i.e., have access to more knowledge about how the world really works. I am afraid that Mr. Noel feeds into the myth about being better educated means being "less spiritual" and "less religious."
While I disagree with some of what Noel seems to be suggesting, it is evident that you, Dr. Taylor have feed into the myth that “better educated” relates to or is synonymous with ‘more education.’ (I expanded on this myth in https://atoday.org/article/1182/opinion/foster-stephen/2012/education-is-overrated.)
Erv,
You wrote: "Educated Adventists and other Christians in the West do not witness miracles not because they "belierve too little" but because they know more, i.e., have access to more knowledge about how the world really works."
Are you saying human knowledge and experience negate the command of Jesus to His followers to go out and minister in His power, including performing miracles? If we teach people to observe the Sabbath because God told us to do it, are we not being inconsistent if we teach them to not also obey the other specific commands Jesus gave?
As regards miracles and the eductated elements of society, when my parents and we kids served for 10 years in a remote medical-missionary environment, we agreed together that we had obeyed the invitation to reach out to the most remote parts of the earth, and that in turn we would claim God's protection and care. The area where we served was statistically very dangerous and mortality from accidents, banditry, and political unrest very high. We tried to use our heads and avoid subjecting ourselves to extremely dangerous situations, but sometimes to save a life Dad would drive over treacherous, mudding, caving-away roadbeds and ford churning rivers to save lives (of course, as an intelligent, educated man, he believed in each case that the odds for survival were strongly on his side, even without a miracle. Dad was a shrewd operator who sometimes seemed to be blessed with superhuman protection; but he explained to me that a lot of his "good luck" or "angelic protection" had to do with using gravity to make sure the car was leaning the correct way before attempting any heroics at the wheel. I might add here that Dad died peacefully on his bed at age 83 of natural causes.
He saw many instances on the operating table of his patients' abilitites to survive major injuries and recover from terrible illnesses. One mayor in the province had been determined to have terminal cancer of the face; Dad (not a specialist in this particular field) was able to excise all cancer, and the man lived on for decades without disfigurement. Dad did not rule out divine interventions in these cases; he simply chalked them up to the combined power of recovery his patients had displayed and the overall blessing of God that he claimed as a Christian physician.
I think most educated Christians today take some sort of a similar approach regarding the union of natural law and divine law. They ordinarily work together seamlessly, and it's virtually impossible to rule out divine intervention or say categorically that divine intervention saved the day. I believe that in past years, more credit would be given to divine intervention rather than a physician's skill. Yet a third factor in our case was Dad's reputation as being a worker of medical wonders, an attribution he did not deny. In turn the people came with extremely positive expectations that they would indeed get well, despite dire warnings from other physicians. The effect of a positive attitude undoubtedly played a part in some of our medical accomplishments in those areas during those difficult times.
Maybe all those Christians who believe in miracles should inform the ACA leaders to eliminate health insurance and rely on prayers to heal their injuries and illnesses. It would save billions and have people flocking to the churches. What an influence1
Elaine,
If we only did what God told us to do there would be no need for anything like the ACA.
In my mind, this dialogue re: miracles, has me envisioning a pack of drooling laughing hyenas surrounding a shivering lamb. Also those disbelivers of a flood laughing and ridiculing Noah, because they had never "witnessed" a flood. i believe there was a flood, however, the latitude and sq mile of coverage is undetermined;
Matt 24:39 Jesus said it happened. Those not believing in miracles, will never see one, unless they are alive upon the return of the Light of this world.
I find myself squarely in the middle – disagreeing to varying degrees with both sides.
1) I absolutely believe that God can and does work miracles whenever and wherever God chooses.
2) I absolutely believe that (1) is not a substitute for humans using the powers granted by God to solve problems without appealing for miracles. For example, Jesus re-attached the ear of Malchus 2,000 years ago. Today in the Western world I think He would advise Malchus to go to the nearest emergency room and let physicians re-attach the ear.
Why did Ellen urge the SDA church to open sanitariums, hospitals, medical schools instead of faith-healing centers?
I plan to attend church this coming Sabbath. Should I get in my car and drive or should I pray for God to send a fiery chariot of angels to give me a ride?
I have enough faith to believe that God has enabled me to do the things He wants me to do. One of those things is prayer. I believe that God has answered my prayers many times. But I would not expect Him to miraculously answer my prayers when He has already made available to me natural or technological solutions to the problem.
Jim,
One thing I appreciate about your postings is that you ask thoughtful questions. You asked, "Why did Ellen urge the SDA church to open sanitariums, hospitals, medical schools instead of faith-healing centers?"
I heard that question asked in a Sabbath School class some years back during a visit to LLU (I had three family members in the medical and dental schools at the same time). I am not certain, but I think the teacher's last name was Maxwell. While many of the details in his answer are gone, the core of his answer has remained in my memory: the hospitals of today and the modern practice of medicine are very different from the model God gave the church as the basis for establishing sanitariums, medical schools, etc. Sanitariums had three primary functions: 1) healing people through the use of natural methods; 2) teaching people to live more healthfully by following the dietary and other lifestyle instructions God gave in scripture; and 3) teaching people to connect with God so they could enjoy the benefits of that relationship. People often spent weeks or months at them. They faded in popularity as modern medicine began offering treatments that at least appeared to produce results more quickly and as the advance of modern industry allowed people less time to spend at the sanitariums. Also, if you look at the subject matter taught to medical students when LLU was established you will find several classes on the administration of natural remedies. Those classes disappeared from the curriculum decades ago. The teacher's conclusion was that anyone who considers the modern practice of medicine and church hospitals as a fulfillment of the prophetic guidance was probably unaware of the basic concepts described in the guidance.
You also wrote: "But I would not expect Him to miraculously answer my prayers when He has already made available to me natural or technological solutions to the problem." Apparently you misunderstood my question, which was about the potential opportunity for believers to minister the miraculous healing power of God to those whose access to medical care will soon be greatly reduced as a result of Obamacare. What impact might such a ministry have on the church and the nation? Would not such a demonstration of God's power be revolutionary to both the church and society? We talk of the Gospel being spread in the last days with great power. Would this not be a great demonstration of God's power?
I have heard that explanation re Sanitariums before – including a few times while visiting the site of the original Mother Ship in Battle Creek Michigan. By today's standards Dr Kellogg's various contraptions for administering "natural remdies" look very crude and even comical. But he was in his day an innovator who was not afraid to experiment with different kinds of technology then available. Not to mention that the drugs available at that time were downright dangerous and even fatal.
The first really effective treatment for wound infections was Sulfa compounds which became available about 100 years ago. Sulfa saved untold thousands of lives in WW I. But it was powerless against the influenza pandemic which is estimated to have killed millions. Consider the obituary of Jennie Harriet (Mantle) Taylor who died in 1919 at the Glendale Sanitarium of complications from the Spanish Influenza. I am sure that her husband Elder Harry F Taylor and her godly physicians all prayed mightily and faithfully for her recovery, while administering the best vailable medical care.
Elder Taylor's father was Dr Robert Winfield Taylor, whose second wife was Dr Elizabeth Caroline Young. She was one of the early (and possibly the first SDA) women physicians in the US, obtaining her MD from the Cleveland University of Medicine and Surgery in 1893. After her graduation she worked with Dr. Kellogg at the Battle Creek Sanitarium and later operated her own facility along with her husband in Grand Rapids. She died in 1904 of peritonitis, despite the best care her husband could provide.
I like to think that both of these godly SDA women as well as their godly husbands would rejoice to see the medical practices of our day. With modern medicine these women might have lived well beyond the 37 and 42 years they survived without effective treatments for infectious diseases.
Need I mention that all of this happened before Obamacare? Around the time when that infamous RINO Theodore Roosevelt first proposed national health care coverage?
Yes I do believe in miracles. I believe that one of the greatest miracles that God has given to us is right between our ears.
I do not believe in trying to turn the SDA clock back a century or more to some imagined "golden age".
Nor do I suggest "turning the clock back" or pursuit of, as you phrased it, "some imagined golden age."
The same Jesus who would heal every sick person in a village before leaving also promised that His followers would do greater things than they had seen Him doing. Where are the people today who believe in Him enough to let the Holy Spirit do such things through them? Does not the absence of the miracles Jesus promised would be done by believers reveal the hypocrisy of those who claim to be His followers?
William, and Jesus'es prophecy has been realized, by those medical pioneers of yore, and the continued medical technologies to date thru scientific research. Also life today is longer and healthier than those of the past several hundred years.
Earl,
Yes, modern medicine has enabled doctors to do amazing things and people are living longer as a result. Many times I saw my parents pulled-back from death's door with the result of them suffering more severely for longer periods, sometimes when death would have been a relief for both them and the family. So I ask if the ability to do that actually improves lives? It depends on the patient.
The difference between the healing God offers and modern medicine is that doctors are focused on managing diseases while God offers us His power to cure them.
May I suggest that I really am not "drooling laughing hyena." I don't drool . . . yet. Now about my horns . . .
Dr Taylor, you are a kool dude. :))
Earl,
Thank you for that reminder.
Those of us who have been touched by the power of God can't quit talking about the wonderful love that has changed us and we who are eyewitnesses to God's power speak from our experience. Ridicule comes from the lips (and keyboards) of those who need to be touched by God's power.
If those writers of the Bible's stories of miracles could witness only one day in the life of anyone today, all they see would be miracles; if they saw the lives saved that would otherwise have died during their lifetimes, they would also be declared miracles.
The term "miracle" simply means something for which there are no explanations. A puzzle is no longer a puzzle when it has been solved. Heart transplants would have been miraculous 50 years ago but today they are performed many times and we understand how they are possible, but surely, they would have been miraculous to anyone living during Bible times. "Miracle" is another word meaning "I cannot explain."
Elaine,
The capabilities of modern medicine are amazing. The works of God are much more so. I have seen demons driven out at the command of believers calling on the name of Jesus. I have seen people burning with fever and eaten-up with pain from disease instantly cooled to normal, their pain removed and the disease gone. No physician can do that using just their medical skills.
This is to confirm the believers and help the seekers. (The ones who choose to be incredulous, for what I care, they can sink and drown in their doubts)
Five years ago a child in southeast USA fell in a swimming poll, and drowned. Received CRP and was transferred to a referral hospital. In the Intensive care unit was maintained on respirator. The prognosis given by the doctors was bad to the point of disconnecting from the respirator. As last resource contacted the pastor of our Church, the child was anointed. When the child was disconnected from the respirator was able to breath by his own and sent home. Few moths latter the same child with his mother walk to our church, talk and gave the thanks to all the church for the prayers. The pediatric neurologist who knew the case was shock to her foundation.
I witness several extra ordinaries events (miracles) than convince me the existence of God and power.
Mrs Nelson's understanding of 'miracles' based on what she wrote is rather simplistic in my opinion. Whilst heart transplants are quite remarkable in terms of medical science and the advances that have been made in this field, yet a miracle remains to be much more than that. A miracle would be to see a critically ill heart transplant patient reach out and touch the doctor's coat and receive healing (without surgery). This is what Jesus did. Many of those whose hearts have been hardened by unbelief won't consider this phenomena as miracles. Mark 6:52 says For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened. In Mark 6:56 we find that Jesus healed the sick miraculously in this manner – "as many as touched him were made whole."
The miracle would be if any of us become NEW creations (w/o race, gender, class) and live FULL alongside Christ. That's only Christian miracle there is and saves us from both earthly miracles and curses.
22,
You say: "A miracle would be to see a critically ill heart transplant patient reach out and touch the doctor's coat and receive healing (without surgery). This is what Jesus did. Many of those whose hearts have been hardened by unbelief won't consider this phenomena as miracles." bold added.
News flash: I would.
Just show me one documented modern day example of this phenomena and I will declare with you: "A miracle has happened!"
If you are meaning I/we should base our belief in miracles of that nature on the Jesus examples, now that's a different story. Why should I believe those any more than Zeus or any of the selection of gods I could choose from?
Have you seen any followers of Wicca, paganism, or other non-Christian faiths performing miracles in the name and power of their god(s)? No. Because the power of the God who is our Creator and Redeemer is not present in them. It is tragic that so few who profess to believe in Jesus are so doubtful of the promises He gives that they are not ministering His power in the ways He wishes. While their lives cast great disbelief in the power of Jesus, the power still exists and is still offered to us.
How do I know this? I have been an eyewitness to God performing miracles.
All writers contemporary with the Bible were filled with miracles. People devoutly believed them all, whether attributable to Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Canaanite or Israelite gods. Miracles were very common and reports can be found in all ancient records, including the Bible. Many record virgin births, people raised from the dead and wind or sun changing the course of battle.
cb asked, and I will, also: Why are not of those believed? Or why believe only one account when they are all alike in the healing power represented?
I happen to believe in miracles because I have witnessed completely unexpected outcomes after fervent prayer. I have seen the unbelievers (and sometimes even the believers) walk away saying "I can't believe what just happened." I cannot predict when or how or why God sometimes chooses to intervene in the course of personal history. But I know what God I pray to and the name is not Apis, Ashtoreth, Ba'al, Gaia, Gautama, Hera, Ishtar, Isis, Jupiter, Marduke, Mary, Ra, Zeus or any of the thousands of Hindu deities.
For those who do not believe in miracles, what purpose do you see in laying hands on a woman and praying for God (or our Loving Heavenly Mother or whoever) to bless her ministry for the glory of His / Her / Their kingdom? If you do not expect God to intervene on her behalf or on the behalf of those to whom she ministers, then why bother to pray? To whom and for what would you pray?
"On the slight chance that Someone beyond our realm of observation might overhear our prayer, we would be pleasantly surprised though admittedly dubious were You to take any particular interest in these proceedings. In the unlikely event that You choose to tip the statistical odds however slightly in favor of this woman's endeavors, we will be predisposed to attribute all her success to her own endeavors and totally exclude You from any glory or praise that may ensue. May ours be the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. In our own name and for our own sake we pray these things. Amen!"
Well if nothing else, this lengthy menadering commentary certainly illustrates the difficulty of "Moving Forward Together" when we have difficulty agreeing where we came from, how we got here, and where it is we wish to go or are destined to go. "Diverging In Every Direction" might be a more apt description. Personally I prefer MFT over DIED.
I have a hypothetical question for those who are firmly entrenched on both sides of this issue.
Would you agree that the Holy Spirit intervened at the GC Session in 2015 if:
1) Elder Ted Wilson comes to the podium, briefly explains that it behooves every follower of Jesus to accept guidance from the Holy Spirit. And then further explains that the Holy Spirit in the proces of leading us towards a common goal, must nevertheless lead different believers differently as He finds us in different places and circumstances.
2) Elder Wilson then moves that the World Church will support the individual Divisions in whatever they determine to be best in their own fields, regarding the appropriate roles for men and women in the organized work of God.
3) The floor is opened for debate and there are long lines queued before both the Yea and the Nay microphones.
4) After three hours of spirited and even confrontational debate, Elder Wilson again comes to the podium and leads the assembly in earnest prayer that God's will be done before calling for the vote.
5) When the secret votes are electronically tallied, the motion carries by a substantial majority.
6) When the results are announced Elder Doug Batchelor rises from the floor and moves to make this decision unanimous. The motion carries unopposed with no further debate.
If this would not convince those entrenched on either side of the issue, then what would change your minds about this matter?
I supposed that those on both extremes who are given to conspiray theories might come to the same conclusions:
1) Someone rigged the electronic tally. They should have voted by a show of hands or a division of the assembly.
2) Elder Wilson and Elder Batchelor both caved to some unidentified (but not Divine) source of sustained intense pressure.
What about a faction that says spirituality cannot be "voted on"? Only accepted, personally. If the church declares W.Ordination and some people don't personally accept it- it is meaningless to them. And vice versa.
However, if we believe the Spirit, Christ and His resurrection from physical death to have ultimately authority over all earthly powers- especially earthly death. If Christ and the Spirit have such power, how can anyone reconcile being SPIRITUAL and holding to physical differences???
W. O is not the issue, the spiritual revival in personal relationships through the Holy Spirit and under Christ- is the issue. GC session should conclude by saying: are welcoming the Spirit that says there are no earthly differences or clinging to meaningless issues of W.O, race, money, class etc???
If we hold to spiritual truths won by Christ, gender would mean nothing. It's not about gender equality or other nonsense but equality already won by Christ's dying for everyone's equal death. Men and women WILL NEVER be equal. But death is equal and we are equally saved and gender is meaningless. Where is the side that's says this earthly body, the earthly G.C, the earthly powers, and earthly votes are meaninglessly bound to death? Votes don't matter, Yea/Nay don't matter but, changing personal hearts to accept spirituality as their only means to live, does matter.
Who is saying our focus should be to make spirituality a personal truth to leaving earthly differences behind???? Matt. 8:22
Jim,
In answer to your hypothetical I'm going to play the devil's advocate and say a resounding "No!"
Here's why.
In the suggested "Wilson" statement and motion there are two critical points. First, that in the "process" of leading us towards a common goal, He must nevertheless lead different believers differently as He finds us in different places and circumstances. And, then in the "motion" of point 2, there is the the provizo that Divisions determine what is best and appropriate in their own areas.
First up, I suggest, on the positive side, that this is a great call or move for tollerance, respect, and freedom for the differing regions.
However, apart from this positive there is nothing in the opening remark or the motion to suggest the Holy Spirit has or can do anything! In fact, if one asks what the factors are which have brought the differing circumstances in the regions, two key things pop up. Secularization and Conservativism. One could mount a good argument that neither of these are the result of the HS! They are simply rising tides pushed by the dominant culture, context, and circumstances of each region.
So…what this means is that Wilson's premise and motion are nothing more than recognition of the rising tides. There is nothing in the motion setting out anything wherein the power of the HS would be demonstrated as having done more than status quo. The "process" is nothing more than the rising tides, be they what they may. It is just a call for tolerance with the hope that changes will go in a direction toward a common goal. Wishfull thinking in the absence of secularization! (bring it on)
To suggest the outcome of this "voting" was the HS, would be incorrect, or at best, unclear, because if one cannot demonstrate the power of the HS by pushing people beyond their cultures, how can one determine that any tidal shift is anything at all to do with the HS and not just the way the wind blows?
Why is it the primary responsibility or purpose of the Holy Spirit to push people beyond their current cultures?
In NT times the agreement re circumcision and observance of Jewish festivals was an acknowledgement that it was not necessary to push Gentiles into the Jewish culture in order for them to be saved. Likewise today there is more progress in converting Jews and Muslims when we do not try to push them out of their culture in order to become Christians.
Of course conversion should change anyone regardless of their culture (and here I include those raised in the SDA culture). The idea that I must be born again of the Spirit can be as astonishing and uncomfortable to SDAs (or Agnostics or Atheists) today as it was to Nicodemus, one of the most devout and observant SDAs of his day.
My hypothetical scenario does not merely preserve the status quo or kick the can dwon the road. The reason for Divisions to have separate working policies is because civil and cultural circumstances are different at different times and in different places. For example, what good would it do to ordain women in a region where the secular authorities would not recognize a marriage solemnized by a woman officiant?
I suspect that were this hyopothetical scenario to play-out, perhaps a third of the Divisons would immediately authorize WO with various provisos appropriate to their fields. Within a generation perhaps two-thirds would authorize WO. The remainder might not authorize WO before the Lord returns (of course if you do not believe in a Second Advent that means never).
So what if there is not complete uniformity of practice? My years of engineering leadership in international corporations have taught me the benefit of functional organizations. Management theories and corporate cultures and secular norms can offer guidance in how best to get things done, but the best way to actually operate in any given context is the way that most effectively achieves the mission in that context. Any change has a potential cost and a potential benefit which must be considered. Change for its own sake is generally detrimental because the cost of the change typically outweighs the benefits. Not to mention that the costs of a change are often incurred in the short-term whereas the benefits only accrue in the long term (assuming there are no subsequent changes that negate the benefits).
So long as God can accomplish His / Her / Their purpose within a given cultural context, why is it inherently necessary to change the culture? The Bible (for those of us who believe it) is full of examples of how God related to different cultures at different places and times. Jonah did not tell the people of Nineveh to be circumcised or make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem or pay their tithe in order to be saved. Yet they repented and their city was spared (of course, being a loyal Israelite he was very angry at God's mercy to their oppressors). I recognize that for some readers this is just another big fish story, although in this case it was the man that got away rather than the fish 8-).
Jim,
I think in paragraph 3 you answered your own question that you asked in the opening paragraph. If the HS' role is not to confront culture what is it? Sure, your reference is in the role of conversion, but what changes should that include? Does it not seem strange that we would list a whole range of things, but most certainly (for too many) exclude a change in attitude towards women?
Your example of circumcision points to an insight into this. We, just as the NT writers, pick and choose what "we" think should be "confronted" by the Gospel. Your motion for Wilson did not confront WO head on, it only asked for increased tolerance.
Your example/question about what good it would do for a woman to be ordained in a place where the state did not recognize their role is suspect. I would say "so what?" If indeed it is the correct position for the church to ordain women, should/would we let the absence of state recognition get in the way. Absolutely not. Since when should legislation or the absence thereof stop us doing the right thing?!
Note, I did say failing to kick the "big" can down the road. I noted that a small can "tolerance" was given a little shove off the road.
Yes, I have to admit, Jonah sounds a bit fishy to me…
Chris,
If you do not believe in an afterlife then the only vailid purpose of religion would be to preserve and / or change culture in this life. If you do not believe in divine influence then you only have recourse to social pressure to change individual behavior.
On the other hand the Holy Spirit as I understand things primarily works to change individuals. Only if and when a substantial number of individuals change would one see a culture change, culture being here defined as collective behavior of a non-trivial group of individuals with a common affinity.
For my part the purpose for ordaining someone is for the Christian community to affirm a specific mission the Holy Spirit has called that person to engage. No Christ means no Christian community. No Holy Spirit or no spiritual mission or no ability to discern calling of Holy Spirit means no purpose for ordination.
Currently the criteria for ordination in the SDA church include evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the person being considered for ordination and also evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit in persons the candidate has ministered to. I recognize that some writers and readers of Atoday might not be inclined to admit that the Holy Spirit exists or that we can discern the work of the Holy Spirit.
I am wondering if you could tell us what purposes you see for ordaining anyone? Then we could discuss whether these purposes might be best served by ordaining women within some cultures but not within others, as I have suggested?
If we cannot agree on what is the purpose of Ordination then we can keep kicking the can back and forth until it is completely flattened without it ever going down any particular road.
Jim,
With relation to your hypothetical my personal view of the purpose of ordaining was not at issue. I was discussing the pros, cons, and implications of the "motion" and "events" said hyppothetical.
To borrow from another thread: I was (attempting) to reason the case from within the world-view of the main audience here.
By bringing "my" view of the HS or His absence in seems little better than adhominem.
So, while you can probably figure out my view, I don't think it is relevant to the logic of the points I made, and shall not spell it out…
What good is the belief of an after life if that does not affect our lives today? Belief in the afterlife can be for very selfish reasons; but seeking to benefit others in their lives today is the only way we can minister and witness for Christ. Our goal should not be simply to assure our place in heaven, but to bring happiness and good for those who are are living today. Always looking toward the future closes our eyes to the needs around us.
If you believe in an afterlife it may or may not affect how you live in the present life. If you do not believe in an afterlife, then of course you would not see any purpose for other people to believe in an afterlife unless it affected how they lived in the present life. (I suppose this argument ignores those who might believe in a past life and a present life but not a future life 8-).
I do believe that we are called to follow Jesus Christ. According to Ellen, Jesus Christ lived to bless others. But since you do not appear to put much store by her comments and you rpofess to know very little about the Historical Jesus, I suppose you have found some other reason to suggest that we should try "to bring happiness and good for those who are are living today"?
What is called the "historical Jesus" is only what was written based on orally transmitted stories, not from actual eyewitnesses. History with only one source cannot be objective, as there can be nothing to verify. "According to Ellen" is not an objective assessment. There are thousands of books written about Jesus and all are just as was Schweitzer's "A Search for the Historical Jesus" and there is nothing to validate an historical Jesus. He is known by what has been written by sincere believers, none, except possibly John, ever saw him.
Yes Elaine, you have made your views on the lack of inspiration and authority and authenticity in the Bible repeatedly and abundantly clear.
What I am not clear about is the reason you think we should try "to bring happiness and good for those who are are living today"?
Wasn't most of Jesus' time here on earth spent in "bringhing happiness and good for all he came in contact with? Or did He constantly refer to authority and inspiration?
His deeds and manner spoke much more eloquently than words might have. "Preach whereever you go; use words only if necessary."
You or I may claim all sorts of authority, but are, and will be judged by our actions.
How do we know how Jesus spent His time on earth?
Almsot everything I know about Jesus I have learned from the Bible. But if the accounts in the Gospels are not authentic, nor the Epistles nor Revelation, then how can I tell what Jesus did or what He taught?
Jim,
Scripture actually gives us some pretty good indicators about what Jesus spent His time doing.
Christians have historically thought of Him as primarily a preacher and teacher. A major contributor to this concept is because preaching has been the primary teaching method used for centuries and there has been a primary absence of the miracles that marked the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Apostolic Church. But the Gospels tell a very different story. People came to Jesus because of what He did for them. Look at the situations where He was confronted by the Pharisees and Sadducees. What were the points of their accusations and arguments? They thought Jesus was breaking the Sabbath because He did numerous miracles of healing on that day.
What portion of His time was spent doing one or the other is not detailed for us. Nor is it important that we know that division of His time. What is most important is that modern Christians are so rarely doing the first things Jesus did, yet are expecting the world to pay attention to their teaching. Then when we finally realize what failures we have become at actually doing what Jesus told us to do, instead of letting the Holy Spirit take over, we make all sorts of excuses to avoid being held accountable for our disobedience.
Yes William, I think you and I agree on this. I was merely pointing-out that if you do not believe the Bible accounts of Jesus are authentic, then you know basically nothing about who He was, what He taught, what He did.
For my part I believe those accounts are authentic. However, as no two witnesses ever see or recall the same events identically, there are minor discrepancies in the various eyewitness (Matthew, John) and second-hand (Mark, Luke) accounts as would be expected.
So after attending a fascinating lecture by Jeremy Begbie this evening, I think I have a better way to explain the difference to you.
For one who believes in Heaven, the statement of Jesus that the Kingdom of Heaven is within me has a very special meaning. It means that through faith in Him I can intenalize the afterlife, I can live in the afterlife even now through faith. This will change how I treat those around me from the Inside-Out, because I have been changed inside. If I have Heaven in my heart I will treat others the way I intend to treat people in Heaven, because I am living as if I am in Heaven.
If I do not have Heaven in my heart I may learn to treat others in a positive manner, but this is an Outside-In change because something outside me (culture, social pressure, ethical teachings, etc) is impelling me to treat others in a better way.
Wherever Jesus is, there is Heaven. So Jesus is always bringing a bit of Heaven to those around Him. If I try to follow the teachings or example of Jesus but I do not have Him in my heart, I am merely acting-out learned or adopted behaviors.
"If we cannot agree on what is the purpose of Ordination then we can keep kicking the can back and forth until it is completely flattened without it ever going down any particular road."
Have we flattened it yet?
Jim,
You are asking two different questions. 1, what is the purpose of ordination (presumably from SDA perspective), and 2, what purposes I see for ordaining anyone.
No 2 is the question I was not going to answer. Re no 1. This is not my blog, and that seems to be a question even the Church cannot answer conclusively for itself, so why would I set out to answer that here, even if I presumed I could.
I should address one other aspect of your question re the "position" of Wilson and Batchelor. Would their call and support for the motion be a result of the HS? Again, I say no. As you alude to, each side would see this from their own perspective. What one sees as the HS, the other would see as his absence! Therefore, seeing that at best this motion would be no more than a call for tolerance, hardly an earthshaking notion, even if it were the HS, its a very lame limp forwards imho. So, I'd go as far as to say ho hum, its just a call for everyone to work together on kicking the big can down the road!
Now, re the motion "getting passed". Another no for similar reasons. A little respect between Divisions is all that was really acheived by this "vote". How could one really differentiate this from the possible effects of rising tides of one form or another?
Chris,
Clearly from your many comments of the Atoday web site you are given to naturalistic explanations and not to conspiracy theories.
I nowhere asserted that everyone on either side is givne to conspiracy theories 😎
"If this would not convince those entrenched on either side of the issue, then what would change your minds about this matter?"
Is it possible that those who are most firmly entrenched on oppsite sides of this issue might actually want the same outcome, but for opposite reasons?
On one side are those who are convinced it is absolutely wrong to ordain women. They are hoping and praying that the GC will do the right thing.
On the other side are those who are convinced it is absolutely wrong to withhold from women any prerogative that is granted to men. They are assuming (but perhaps not praying) that the GC will do the wrong thing.
Still there is a side or should be a side advocating that no gender, no person is worthy of Christ, the Spirit or the Father. Nobody is physically worthy and spirituality has rendered the physical flesh as empty and dead.
Where is the side that's says there is no physical body or differences in Christ??? All live as one b/c the One died for all.
I believe I am in the middle on this one if for no toehr reason that I strongly differ with those on both extremes. I certainly hope that there is middle ground on this issue.
Would Mr. Hamstra please explain explicily what, in his view, his "middle ground" on the WO issue is and why he thinks it is a "middle ground."
Here is why I think I am in the middle on this.
I think WO is the right thing for the SDA church to do because I believe it has become Present Truth. I am committed to the SDA church and want it to do the right thing – namely continue to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit into all truth.
I am not commenting on this web site to bash on the church or its leaders. Rather I am commenting to help those who believe this is God's church to understand why God might want the church to believe or do something different today than it or other Protestant denominations that hold Scripture in high regard have previously done. The fact that Joels's prophecy was not completely fulfilled in the time of Peter or Paul or Luther or Wesley or Ellen does not mean it should not be completely fulfilled today.
On the Traditional side are those who refuse to believe that God might want the SDA church to change in any way our beliefs and practices after the death of Ellen, because such a change would invalidate her prophetic gift. They seem to ignore that she herself changed her views on important questions during her lifetime. They implicitly assume that revelation is completed in her ministry. In this regard they are close kin of Calvinists who assert that Revelation is completed with the Portestant canon of Scripture.
On the Agnostic side are those who believe that God has no hand in this enterprise, if He / She / They ever did, or if He / She / They even exist. In fact many seem to openly doubt whether there could be such a thing as a Biblically based movement led by God, whether the Bible was inspired by God, whether there is any authentic source of knowledge beyond the material word, whether there is any legitimate source of spiritual authority outside of the Self.
As I have explained above both of these groups have a stake in seeing WO fail for opposite reasons. The Traditional side want to see the SDA church prevail until the Second Advent. The Agnostic side want further confirmation that it is not a movement led by God and is doomed to fail unless it abandons any hope or pretext of being led by God, and follows only the voice of human reason. In the latter case it would not prevail until the Second Advent, but that is irrelevant if the Second Advent is but a cunningly devised fable.
In the previous comment I failed to mention what for me is another obvious difference between my position and those that are most firmly entrenched on either side of "no (wo)man's land."
For me this issue is not about ecclesiatical authority or empowering women. For a Catholic, to ordain any woman priest in even one Diocese is to undermine ecclesiastical authority. Some of the Traditionalists are advancing this Catholic argument in opposition to permitting different Divisions to do whatever works best for their fields. For a Feminist, to deny ordination to any woman pastor in even one Conference is to undermine women's empowerment. If your agenda is to change the balance of power between men and women within social or instituional cultures, then you will be opposed to doing whatever most effectively advances the primary mission in any given situation, because for you the primary mission is to change the culture.
If I submit to the spiritual authority of Christ and seek the empowerment of the Holy Spirit then who am I to tell Christ or the Spirit what to do to advance Their mission, or how to do it? The hypothetical scenario I suggested would deny victory to either of these entrenched positions and declare victory for Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for that explanation. I would agree with you that yours is a middle position. Not the only middle position, but certainly a middle position on WO. (By the way, you are most certainly familiar with the problem with someone standing in the midde of the road, they risk the danger of getting run down by both those on the left and those on the right.)