Is It Beginning?: “A Time to Marginalize” says Bill Knott, editor, Adventist Review
by Ervin Taylor, August 12, 2015: Some may have thought that various institutional Adventist church establishment figures might wait a respectful period of time before they began a media campaign to try to shut down any dissenting voices following the disastrous vote on women’s ordination and the adoption of fundamentalist language in FB#6 at the St Antonio General Conference session.
We apparently need to wait no longer. Perhaps it has already begun as if on cue from the reelected General Conference(GC) president whose sermon is being highlighted in the same issue.
The editor of the Adventist Review (AR), Dr. Bill Knott, published an editorial entitled “A Time to Marginalize” online on August 10, 2015. His editorial and the above noted sermon of the GC President will appear in the upcoming AR print issue.
Dr. Knott begins by commenting on the “sad history” in United States history of the process of marginalizing “successive waves of those who didn’t fit the self-image of the dominant Anglo-European culture.” He then intones “Social marginalization is a real—and painful—issue that God’s remnant must consistently redress by illustrating that it is still the welcoming and inclusive community envisioned in the teachings of both Jesus and the apostle Paul.”
But are there exceptions? Dr. Knott says, well, of course, there are exceptions. The Adventist denomination must marginalize certain individuals and the ideas they proclaim. He says that “There is a kind of marginalization that is both healthy and necessary for the church to practice. Recent events have underscored why now may be the moment for God’s people to thoughtfully and systematically exclude those elements that have proved themselves hostile to our life together.” Readers of his editorial can’t complain that he is beating around the bush here. His message is clear. We must “systematically exclude” those that are “hostile to our life together.” The problem is that he never tells us exactly who these people “hostile to our life together” may be.
What might be the motivation of this plea to marginalize certain individuals and ideas? Perhaps it goes something like: “There are troublemakers in our ranks. Their ideas constitute a threat to Adventist orthodoxy and uniformity—oops, I mean unity—in belief and practice that we need to establish. We need to get rid of them. However, we can’t say it that way. That’s not nice. Let’s use another term. Ah, I have it. We need to ‘marginalize’ them. That sounds better. But it gets the job done.”
What exactly is the problem that Dr. Knott sees? He says: “In the cacophony of opinions swirling before the recent General Conference Session in San Antonio, we quickly learned that there were honest, constructive voices—even when they disagreed with each other—that deserved to be part of the necessary conversations in which the church was engaged. They spoke with civility, practiced humility, and left us all the better for the good thinking they caused us to do, even when we weren’t initially attracted to their ideas.”
So we learn that there are “honest, constructive voices . . . [who speak] with civility, [practice] humility, [and engage in] good thinking.” So civility, humility and good thinking are o.k. I think I understand civility and humility but what might be an example of “good thinking”? Dr. Knott might have expanded a little on that.
So we know that there are honest, constructive voices. But, Dr. Knott says there is “the other.” There is always “the other,” that individual or group that is not like those of us who know “The Truth.” He states: “But there were—and are—other voices who by their shrillness and their vitriol gave ample illustration that they don’t have the health of the body in mind, but instead, their own advantage.” Their own “advantage?” One might wonder what that means.
Dr. Knott continues: “They [the ones who are in it for their “own advantage”] make their living off our pain: they build their reputations even as they wound and rend the body of Christ. Unrighteous ad hominem attacks upon church leaders, respected theology teachers, and almost all who disagreed with them became their stock in trade. And sadly, the collective Adventist media rewarded them in just the way the national advertisers reward the angry pundits who slash and burn on Sunday morning television.”
So what should the good Adventist do? Here is Dr. Knott’s solution: “So here’s a call to shut our ears, protect our pulpits, change the channel, and withhold our dollars from those of whatever ideological camp who practice the uncivil and unrighteous behaviors we witnessed before San Antonio. Yes, move them to the margins; draw the boundaries of our community in such a way that only repentance and changed behavior will again allow them full inclusion. It falls to the body of Christ to defend itself when it is under attack from foes without—or within.”
It would be very helpful if Dr. Knott were to tell his readers exactly what organizations and individuals he has in mind that “practice the uncivil and unrighteous behaviors we witnessed before San Antonio.”
First of all, what is this “change the channel” and “withhold our dollars” statements all about? What Adventist TV ministry is “living off our pain”? He certainly can’t be referring to the “Amazing Facts” organization of Doug Batchelor, can he? Or Danny Shelton’s “3ABN” operation? Readers perhaps have suggestions as to which TV ministry or ministries Dr. Knott may have in mind.
And who might have made the “unrighteous ad hominem attacks upon church leaders [and], respected theology teachers?” Is the problem that the alleged ad hominem attacks were “unrighteous”? So would “righteous” ad hominem attacks be okay? Again, readers may wish to make nominations as to who Dr. Knott might have in mind as the source of the ad hominem attacks against church leaders.
One might wonder if this is just the opening salvo in a campaign that seeks to silence those opposed to the decisions rendered at the San Antonio GC session with respect to women’s ordination and FB#6. Or perhaps we are misunderstanding Dr. Knott’s targets. Perhaps his targets are on the right wing of the church that opposes women’s ordination and is working to foster fundamentalism in the Adventist Church.
Until Dr. Knott names who he has in mind, we are left to speculate. Speculations welcomed.
Having just read the Knott article in full, it appears to be frustratingly directed at those who are in the know. It then invites/promotes the speculation, for which you Ervin are also calling. I would question whether that is a healthy thing to do. It merely adds to the paranoia felt by those from all sides of the theological spectrum, as there will be a propensity to see those who need to be marginalized as those who think other than I do.
Maybe Knott has a subtext evident to those in the know. For the rest of us mere mortals it seems destined to be an obscure piece at best.
Obscure indeed. Could Knott have in mind Spectrum and even AToday? Or maybe he has other entities in mind. Too bad he was not more specific.
My own opinion is that he is still smarting from the defeat of WO and he is striking out wildly, maybe so that all will be asking — Is it me?
WO was not defeated. There was no action. If the motion had passed it would have just added another hurdle for a WO candidate to overcome. Fortunately it failed, and the policy remains as it was. A local conference selects those it wishes to ordain and the union must approve.
The vote kept final authority over who might be ordained in the hands of the GC. It was about centralization of authority. That’s what I have a problem with.
I wonder if the Florida conference will try to do away with volume 7 page 914 and 915.Elen White comments on 1st Timothy 3 are elders and deacons are to be suitable men.I have been and Adventist 40 years sold our books door to door in the Florida conference.EW never said the greatest danger to our church was from within ,but she mightiest well have I believe the people behind this should resign
“Marginalization” has always been a favorite tactic of authority to discourage participation in the group. The U.S. and many countries have, and continue to marginalize whole groups of people: blacks, Latinos, all immigrants and any that are not like “us.”
This is totally contradicts “Come unto Me you are heavy laden and I will give you rest.” Or the Holy Spirit at Pentecost who was no respecter of persons.
The “Shut Door” is being revived.
I tried before posting my comments in AT to respond to Brother Knott’s editorial in The Review. I was informed after trying to post my comment that I was denied access and that my comment was deemed “not appropriate to the subject of the editorial”. I now believe that Brother Knott and his associates at the Review have declared me as officially “marginalized”.
I am not sure what this means. Should I add this to my CV? If I “repent” can I be “unmarginalized”. Is there a department at the Review that processes this procedure? Should I wear this as a badge of honor? Di I get credentials, a card, a placard for this distinction? Is there a secret handshake?
Please help me…
My comments were not posted and although I protested no explanation came my way.
We desperately need a new Editor of the AR. There should be term limits on such an important position. Will it ever happen?
Have you considered that perhaps you too are marginalized? You are fine, it is their loss!
These two verses should help, cancel your Review subscription, and keep posting in AT.
Proverbs 18:13 “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame”.
John 16:13 “ When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”
I am amazed that one would used such provocative language against ministries that have done such a positive influence for the Adventist message. It is very apparent that Bill Knott has reference implicit or otherwise against Amazing Facts and Doug Batchelor and others of like mind. And given what happen to Pastor Batchelor in Florida after San Antonio indicates the same spirit exhibited by the Pharisees in Christ’s day and popery later. Bill Knott should be removed along with the President of the
Florida Conference.
Arthur, this is suppression of the freedom of conscience. Read page 27, Education:’ The Greatest want of the world,….’. The Agenda is on to apostatise the Church. This vote that they lost Women Ordination’, will mean they must go back to Africa and ‘get’ the votes again. They sliced Africa and this time saw the ‘need’ to organise Conferences and Unions just to make the cut. But God is Great…Let us match towards the truth…
Just for the record, please know that there were many, many of us Floridians that were and still are outraged by the action of the Florida Conference in rescinding the invitation from Spring Meadows to Doug Batchelor. As noted by many respondents, the influence of Bill Knott in his suggestion of marginalizing church ministries and individuals who have a varying opinion on an issue is quite out of character for true Christian believers and Christian teachings because it is the job of the Holy Spirit through His own means to do the sifting out and not man’s job. What ungodly presumption and assumption of power!
Is it not for every Christian to win with Scripture, prayer and kindness every soul that might be straying if that is what we think they are doing? Was Doug Batchelor not exercising his godly right to express his honest understanding of God’s Word on the issue of women’s ordination and role as a pastor? Have we sunk to the evil of exercising kingly power over the laity? Was this Jesus’ own example? While here He was humble, kind and loved His enemies, even praying for them who were murdering Him. And the irony of this Florida Conference vs. Doug Batchelor thing is that Doug came down on the side of the world church on this issue! So, where is the disloyalty or “disunity” here? Looks to me like Doug is more solidly with the world SDA Church than some high placed people in the General and local conferences, eh?
What is happening at the Review?
UNBELIEVABLE!
Bill Knott’s ideas for “marginalizing” opponents of the church, right or left, are a sad lapse in a writer’s judgment and doomed to failure. I am surprised that he is so blunt about how dissent is handled at the Review, and is now asking members in the church to follow his lead. NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE MARGINALIZED. There is no way to explain how marginalization is practical, ethical or even possible. Look up the word for yourself.
“Marginalize”
“to make someone or something seem not important or relevant”
Synonyms and related words: “… undervalue, underrate, disregard…”
The opposite of marginalization is inclusivity. Which would Jesus choose today?
Inclusivity is best sustained and celebrated when everyone in the community is responsible and accountable. Sustaining Christian community requires an intentional effort to design a framework that includes everyone in the life of the Church. The dissemination of duties and chores insure that all members share in and contribute to the welfare of the community. To MARGINALIZE persons is NOT what Christians do.
Does anyone believe that Knott is not (pardon the pun) doing exactly what Wilson wished? After all, the Review is the official SdA publication and regularly has an article by both TW and EGW, something not always seen in previous Reviews. It’s call propaganda and meant to “shake up” or “shake out.”
I agree, Bill Knott is here doing some CYA for himself. In his position with the SDA church, he is on tenterhooks unless he sings the same song as does the president. BUT… Bill Knott has always previously shown intelligence and wise thinking, not being bound by the “Company” doctrine.
This management style of Ted Wilson is now causing consternation among the other top-level management at Silver Spring. If they don’t “toe the line” they’ll likely become “marginalized” themselves, over time.
I like Bill Knott’s writing; I approve of his work at the Review. I just hope he isn’t afraid of being sacrificed [or marginalized] as a result of his speaking the truth. He’s too valuable for that. I hope he can be like Daniel and stand for individual freedom.
Excellent analysis Sam Gell! I have always believed in inclusivity. Have been warned not to as well. “We can’t have those people here.”
So unchristlike. The definition says it all.
I agree that it would have been helpful had Knott been more specific in identifying who he was talking about.
I suggest applying the simple statements of Jesus found in Matthew 7:15-16 and John 15:1-6 and observing who is bringing people to God and who is driving people away from Him. Jesus told His followers to make disciples and declared that we were either with him or against him, so if a person isn’t making disciples for God then they are working against God. Look to see who is not producing fruit for the Kingdom of God and I think we will have a clear picture of who should be marginalized. Other identifiers of these people would be things like seeing who criticizes everything, who argues loudly and endlessly that they know what is right and what everybody else is doing is wrong, who accuses others of not adhering to “sound doctrine,” and similar.
This is perhaps the most uncaring editorial to appear in the Review in my lifetime.
That said, the writer is clearly fearful of those on the margins, or is fearful of someone who is fearful of the margins.
This editorial surely expresses an attitude that is incongruent with the Gospel of Jesus. The Gospel of Jesus is all about God loving the world and Jesus saving the world. (John 3:16-17).
Only in the context of remnant theology is there a home for ‘marginalize’ as a verb. But what if remnant describes the last generation, the one alive when Jesus returns, rather than the last few who ‘have the truth’?
Seventh-day Adventist leadership seems locked in on saving the church rather than proclaiming the Gospel to the World. Indeed, membership growth is sagging, and has been since 2000, according to denominational archives. And it has accelerated its decline these past five years, and there is no sign it is returning to the growth levels between 1980-2000. Had we continued to grow at that rate, we would have nearly twice as many members as the church now counts.
The tragedy is that church leaders see this as a sign of the church’s faithfulness, rather than the church’s failure. This editorial seems very much in support of church self-preservation at the expense of the world. Jesus faithfully died for the world and asked that we love one another as he loves the world.
The lack of specificity in Elder Knott’s article can, and apparently is, frustration for people. But the point he made was to marginalize those “ideological camp who practice the uncivil and unrighteous behaviors we witnessed before San Antonio.” It is clear that whoever he has in mind it is marginalization of those who exhibit “uncivil and unrighteous behaviors.” One cannot deduce with any certainty that any of those groups or ideological camps are pro WO, anti WO or anything to do with WO at all. I read where people blog who are anti WO and they suspect his verbal thrusts are at them. Now it seems even the pro WO camp feels those words were meant for them. Granted, both sides can lay claim to being “uncivil” at times and even exhibiting “unrighteous behavior” but that can that be applied to a lot of groups that orbit SDAism.
Being clearer could have made thing better, but it may not. This oblique manner allows the Spirit to work and “if the shoe fits, wear it.”
For the record, it would be nice to have a comment software that allows editing.
The Advent Church it appears no longer present the word of God, like Elisha or John the Baptist.
As a result many unbiblical doctrines are coming in the church.
The standard for the church is the revealed word of God. To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to these it is because there is no light in them.
We move together. We study together and we pray together.
Would Donovan please share with us what “unbiblical doctrines” he has in mind. Just curious.
Not all doctrines are true there is such a thing as false doctrine. The foundation for doctrine as a church I believe is the bible, the word of God. We should expose false doctrine by The Word of God. It is imperative that we maintain a biblical perspective on reality and redemption.
Ideas are being put forward to support doctrines that quite frankly is unbiblical this is not something new to the church, (eg. doctrine of Balam, Jezebel ect.) we have to be vigilant. Was Elisha marginalizing Jezebel and the false prophets of Baal?
The doctrine of progressive creation and Theistic Evolution as well as marriage between same sex are unbiblical doctrines being promoted by some adventist.
Another thing, the wheat and the tares’ will grow together until the harvest. The wheat are those who teach sound doctrines while the tares are those that teach false doctrines. Some “Adventist” websites have specialized in labeling, ridiculing and misrepresenting those who sincerely seek a bible based understanding for doctrines. For e.g. In the discussion on WO if you believe that there are biblical reasons for distinctions in the role of men and women you are labelled as a discriminator, misogynistic, backward, third world fundamentalist (even if you are from NAD and a woman). We should not be afraid as a church to have our ideas challenged, lies well never be truth and truth exposes lies. It appears that though so richly blessed the Spirit of prophecy we are afraid to speak and teach bible base doctrines or ashamed of being labelled. It is not hate to teach that biblically marriage is between a man and a woman this is God beautiful design. Because we have become ashamed of giving the loud cry teaching and encouraging men and women to fear God and give glory to Him. The lifeless doctrines of fallen Babylon is becoming popular in the remnant church. God’s commandments are good. The Word Should be doing the “marginalization” but we have stop teaching. The science of all science is the science of redemption. God is good all the time.
Donavon said: ” marriage between same sex are unbiblical doctrines being promoted by some adventist.”
I am not aware of anyone promoting this within the SDA church. Aren’t you mixing this up with those who oppose allowing it as a national law? As a church for religious freedom we are in no position to keep others from participating in SS marriage. They don’t believe as we do. It would be like forcing us to attend church or stop work on Sunday. On the other hand Christians against it should not be forced to participate in a SS marriage.
We need to protect our and civil and religious liberties.
EM, read the reports on the LGBTI Conference in Cape Town and see why Donovan says so, and why some were replaced from the GC EXCOM.The Agenda is Sodom and Gomorah. I stand to disagree with the statement ‘staying on the boat’ as referring to the SDA Church specifically instead to the faith. Christ established His Church outside of the Jews systems and Traditions and Synagogues. Does that means breaking the umbilical cord? No. Read Hez 9. Then read Page 45 Great Controversy. We do not need to stay here.
What about the “headship” doctrine, or the “perfection” of the final generation, or inerrancy of the Bible etc these are all unbiblical ideas, or anti-trinity doctrines, or infallibility of Ellen White, that are being published and promoted?
One more false doctrine is WO.
Do you not trust our seminary scholars?
Even if all of the “seminary scholars” agreed on every issue, (and they do not) would we really want to trust others to do our thinking for us?
The Pharisees mastered the art of marginalizing. Have the SdA leaders taken the cue from them? Look at what it produced while Christianity opened the door for everyone.
Could it be a call for LGT and the 144,000 to hasten the Second Coming by removing all but the select few? Bill Knott has been made the “front” man for TW as editor of the Review to spread his message of making the church pure so Christ can come. “Clean out the tares now, don’t wait till the end.”
The anti WO group think he is the frontman for the rebel pro WO gang.
For some decades, now, a sizable element of the Church has been hankering for a “return to orthodoxy” along the lines put forward by Brother Ted Wilson. It was necessary that this element regain traction in the administration of leadership, so we could be reminded that an artificially narrowed definition of orthodoxy has powerful, and often adverse, side effects. Many paint Brother Wilson’s Final Solution as a great breakthrough in Godliness and revival, with strong elements of Last Generation theology. This too shall pass; it will not “bring down” the Church, but the Church will be educated as it recognizes through experience that the all-encompassing solutions broached by strongly radical sides of our Church generally occasion more heat than light….
Ed,
With all due respect I see your view as wishful thinking and not at all realistic. Nor do I believe your analysis has any observable basis.
I must disagree with “interested friend” here. The suggestion that “this too will pass away” applies to Brother TW. We will just have to wait him out with benign neglect of all of his messages–unless, of course, he or one of his front persons try something really dumb and precipitates the need for a specific response.
Having read the original article in The Adventist Review—I believe the most telling phrase is this one–“And sadly, the collective Adventist media rewarded them in just the way the national advertisers reward the angry pundits who slash and burn on Sunday morning television.”
This might give clue as to what Knott sees as the problem.
I admit that is a real puzzler. Deepens the mystery.
The Bogeyman of Adventism isn’t president Wilson. Its mouthpiece isn’t R&H. It is Ellen White and her Adventist Library of Congress built by a mixture of well-meaning, hapless, and money hungry, people who placed her in the rotunda, like Lenin, in the Kremlin. She is the ghost of the past (I doubt she intended this) beguiling present “believers” in an impossible failed mission. The official church is therefore petrified. It can’t go forward.
I spent about ten years analyzing Adventism and my relation to it. I exited forty years ago when I determined It was immutably tied to a theological and world view that could never be changed. And It distilled down to one reason only. The Ellen White Factor. I didn’t and don’t hold it against her. I realized a new Adventist outlook with my participation could never happen because she really is Official Adventism and it lives and dies with her perceived view of things. This GC continues the unbroken string of affirmations of my estimation.
Orthodoxy is a cudgel in the hands of political dictatorship. Death is the price for violation. For religion in the USA angst is the only effective punishment demonstrated by Mr. Knott. (More promised soon)! Escape agony. Opt for skedaddle! Or just laugh! Heaven isn’t in jeopardy!
What amazes me is the considerable distress generated within thinking people. Adventism’s unbroken tentacles via Ellen to its past are obvious to all. Why think it could be different?
Dr. Bosehell certainly has made a valid point about the problem that modern Adventism has in dealing with the mixed legacy of Ellen White. About the only thing that (I think) can be stated with some certainty is we can exclude conscious fraud on her part. Many of the “miracle” stories that were circulated about her over the years, i.e. holding a heavy bible for a long period of time, etc. etc. can, of course, be excluded as very poorly documented. She said she was combating fanaticism in the early years, but we now know that she was directly involved herself in fanatical practices. Some of the things she wrote did not help her image but the major problems were created by the followers who canonized her as an Adventist saint who did no wrong and committed no errors of judgement. We have a long way to go before the “real” Ellen White becomes known to the average church member at the same level of understanding that our Lutheran friends have come to view some of the negative aspects of the beliefs and actions of Martin Luther. At least our denomination is not named after our visionary co-founder–we are not called Whitists, although we might wonder if that would be a term that would resonate with some Adventists today.
When my mother, a physician, was taking residency training at a non-SDA hospital in Ohio [sixty years ago], one of the staff physicians there called her a “Millerite.” She was dumbfounded at first; it took her several minutes to realize this appellation arose out of the William Miller connection to Adventism.
Just an aside. No special importance, except that I [like Dr. Taylor] appreciate our name not being “Whitists.”
Larry, I agree that EGW has become an albatross around Adventism’s neck. There is a fundamental dishonesty which accompanies this problem i.e., Adventists are people of the Book. That’s a lie. SDA are people of the Book as interpreted by EGW.
She wrote a lot of good things such as Ministry of Healing and Education; unfortunatrely her theological endeavors are often not helpful.
Most of the confusion in SDA land regarding theological issues is because of her. Both sides of the WO issue had their “gotcha” statements, as with various other topics.
No doubt progress in Lutheranism has also been hindered by fanatical devotion to his writings. He was a fantastic writer, much more helpful than EGW as a Biblical expositor
but he had limitations. Adventists refuse to recognize EGW’s limitations. Defining them is also problematic.
EGW is and was a special messenger from God to send to correct some of the fallacy of church leaders and church members.
Of course those who oppose her and her writing are among those she talks about which want to promote non-biblical ideas into the church.
So with a firm hand..but kind way we should expel those people. Now it’s very clear to me that Hansen and Ervin and Larry Bugs are among this group of people she mentions.
Now we do NOT need your interpretations to read out Bibles…we are totally capable of understanding ourselves.
You have made your choices not to heed EGW’s warnings…Im not a fanatic but I humble myself for a servant of God and EGW was called by God.
Sadly you’ll one day have to answer for it…EGW has proven to be a true prophet…so all I read in the Bible I meassure her words with. So this is why I heed EGWs warnings.
Humbleness is character trait of Gods faithful people.
WO might be one of the ways God uses to separate the chaff from the wheat…I think it’s just the begining.
You’ll probably call me old-fashioned or out of touch with modern age for my belief that EGW was a prophet…but hey I do not really care…as you’ll not be my judge but a just God will be yours and my judge. I can rest confident to His judgement day.
May God keep me humble and keep me on the right path continually…no matter what label people will put on me..I serve the Lord not men!!
Thank you so much for writing this. I could not have said it better. May God help us all.
Thank you brother for your thoughts on this subject. I have just recently come back to the church and found all of this dissent among members a bit disheartening. I was at one time the guy who would try and convince anyone who would listen that eg white and the bible both to be fairytales. I praise God that He has through personal miracles in my life brought me back to the truth. I am so humbled by His love for me..a wretched sinner..and long for the very soon return of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Well said Jorgen Jensen! Why these people remain in the Seventh-day Adventist Church if they find our belief system so odious is something I cannot understand. Why not find a compatible religion? No one is forced to remain in a denomination that they cannot agree with. As for Ellen White’s writings, they blend quite well with the Bible and anyone who reads her works can find how very often she quotes Bible passages and verses. Her writings have been a wonderful source of encouragement and enlightenment to me. With the enormous stresses of life that surround us these days, we can be very encouraged by the many assurances she cites about God’s love just like the Bible does. We are so blessed that God chose to give us more details about what would be happening in the end times and the wonderful reminders that He will care for all the true believers and send angels to minister to our needs in troublous times. Those times will shortly be here.
The GC at the summer sessions were preaching “UNITY”. In their first shots in this their new war against supposed
marginizers, (without identifying them)they come out shooting from the hip, putting all in a quandary, “IS IT I, IS IT I”??
This smacks of “fear”; Of psychological distress; of ineptitude in decision making; of forgetting how Jesus woos the lost and suffering;and delaying or totally losing “UNITY”
Yes, indeed.
On the heels of San Antonio that posed serious fracture might there be wisdom in advancing the idea to “marginalize” the other? If so, would that wisdom be to advance unity or to divide even further? Frankly, I am speechless!
Exactly.
Unity is not what is desired, but conformity. Those who ask unfortunate questions or who think dangerous thoughts need to be suppressed.
Precisely. So, on what theological basis is conformity championed? That is the sit-down question with Elder Knott and Elder Wilson.
Yes our FATHER demand all of these things; conformity and removal of dangerous thoughts. HE does not tolerate spoilt children (the whole depart from me thing). HE teaches us how to deal with such, but we ignored such and now are stuck with such.
Mark 7:7 “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
Anyone have a better plan since we created this mess? We have a lot of self idolizing that want and attempt to define right and wrong for themselves (but GOD already did that); and then be stumbling blocks and lead others.
Are any of you helping with this problem? We also have a dying Church to salvage, many more Souls to save and needs to meet (the falling away). There are 17 million more Souls that stated they were unaffiliated in the US over the last 7 years; but luckily the Evangelical Protestants (of which SDA belongs) were there to pick up a lot of the 5 million the Mainline Protestants lost.
I agree with William Noel above that we need to look at the reasons the Church is in trouble and the Sound Doctrine of the Churches gaining and loosing members. The strong and gaining Churches would never put up with this crap or ideology; period.
Reality,
Let’s look at the Gospel of Jesus, at John 3: 16-17; let’s do so directly. Let’s not look at the church.
There will come a time when the Gospel of Jesus is the worldwide focus, as promised in Revelation 14. It is true, the First Angel proclaims the Gospel with clarity (‘loud’) for the World in its totality (from ‘the midst of heaven’). We can await that, or we can be there in anticipation.
The promise of the prophecy is that we can experience the patience of the saints, their peacefulness, their assurance, their community, in anticipation of the First Angel’s message. We can live in a post-Babylon experience now. We can live is a state of Faith and Trust, and Love, as the commandments of God promise and the faith of Jesus confirms. There is no need to wait.
Or we can claim the experience described by the Third Angel as a necessary cleansing ritual, rather than the plight of those still clinging to self-dependence, self-justification, self-sanctification, “by the power of God” no less.
We claim to be the church of the Three Angels, and yet we seem increasingly frozen in time like all of Babylon, awaiting rescue. The rescue is in the promise of the Three Angels’ Message, the promise that is reality for each created being, each generation, each century, each millennium.
We do not possess the Three Angels’ Message. Its promise possesses us. Or we are described by the plight of those identified by the Third Angel.
The promise of the Three Angels’ messages can only be realized among a people who are empowered by the Holy Spirit and ministering in the manner of Jesus. Patiently holding-on and waiting for a prophetic fulfillment as you suggest is not our solution, it is our root problem because we’re sitting and waiting for God to do something when He’s waiting for us to start doing what He’s already told us to do and given us the power to accomplish, but we’re too faithless and fearful to even try. Holding-on and waiting for prophetic fulfillment makes you an unfruitful bystander, an unfruitful, dry branch destined to be fuel for the fire when the earth is cleansed of sin.
Is the world really looking for the Three Angels’ Messages? That Babylon is fallen?
The world is looking for an anchor, some hope and trust that is only found in Christ as He should be presented. Jesus never gave a message about three angels: That was John’s vision and it has catapulted into the most important message of Adventism instead of the One who should be front and center.
How many people have been turned away from the stern message so often given that they will be lost if they do not accept all the SdA beliefs? Is this really the conformity desired? Why would it be when it is sending many former members out the back door?
Elaine,
I agree. A lot of Adventists have confused the Three Angels Messages with the Gospel. Jesus told us to proclaim the Gospel, period. The 3AM should give us urgency to proclaim the Gospel, but we’ve become so focused on proclaiming the 3AM that we’re not doing a good job of proclaiming the Gospel in North America (and other places where the church is faltering or even declining). We need to understand anew the difference between the two and focus anew on experiencing and delivering the Gospel.
“Jesus never gave a message about three angels”
John claims that his vision was given to him by Jesus Christ. This would be the same John who wrote a Gospel and three Epistles about Jesus Christ. If any Bible writer would know about Jesus Christ it would have been John.
Maybe you should go back and read the Revelation of Jesus Christ again. The central figure in this book is Jesus Christ, who appears throughout the book in numerous metaphors.
Throughout my many years in the Adventist community, many times I have had it explained to me that the “churches of Babylon” are preaching Jesus, Jesus, Jesus to a fault, and that their wishy-washy message needs to be bolstered by and balanced against the more meaty ingredients of warning and fear. In fact, it has been explained to me that Babylon has “gone soft on sin” and so forth and that in the lurch Adventists need to fill that void, lest the Lord be further delayed by lack of warning.
I personally am a very “people person” and find inspiration in understanding and following the example of such individuals as, well, Jesus Christ. But there are those who do not bond well with people, but require logical and philosophical proofs and formulas to bring about changes for the good in their lives and practice.
It would be a fine thing if we recognized that we must present our faith in various ways to win the day in our proclamation, and I have found in my ministry that a lot of people “get on the Adventist airliner to heaven” on the relational side of the fuselage; an approximate equal number on the basis of argumentation, logic, and debate over Bible passages. We need both kinds of witness to reach a breadth of population, but we seem to invariably try to uniformatize the equation to a one-size-fits-all, and it’s there that we see congregations torn asunder and good faith squandered in the alleyways of judgmentalism and desire to marginalize others….
Very good, William, I agree.
Revelations 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
This is the patients of the Saints; two requirements.
CHRIST was the sacrifice, to those drawn by and doing the will of the FATHER; definitely not to condemn.
No we do not possess the message of the Three Angles. We do not have the privilege of Babylon; or we face the fate. We cannot just sit around waiting rescue; nor should we have ever thought we could.
In my humble opinion only; I agree the Message to be for all; and all times.
Revelations 14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
This one worries me; is this not where we are? Are some not trying to do force this issue and their personal opinion down GOD and everyone else’s throat; as in Mark 7:7 “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”? Then complain they failed? Then complain when others begin correction?
What does it matter if Babylon is fallen if the world isn’t seeing the power of God working through you and attracting people to Him? It doesn’t.
What does it matter if you have a form of godliness that lacks any of the power of God? It doesn’t.
So, why do you remain so focused on prophecy and throwing scripture at people instead of seeking the empowerment of the Holy Spirit? The power of God is merely illustrated by prophecy but is found and experienced in the Holy Spirit.
Reality (“reality” about what?) says “Yes our FATHER demand[s] all of these things; conformity and removal of dangerous thoughts.” Ah, I really don’t want to get technical here but “conformity” to what? And “removal of dangerous thoughts?” Which ones?
Dr. Knott’s solution:
“So here’s a call to shut our ears, protect our pulpits, change the channel, and withhold our dollars from those of whatever ideological camp who practice the uncivil and unrighteous behaviors we witnessed before San Antonio…”
God’s solution:
ans 3:28 – There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 12:12-27 – For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also [is] Christ.
Romans 12:15-18 – Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.
Brother Knott needs to read and study more the Bible’s call for inclusivity and ignore the urge to marginalize!
Yes.
If we follow the suggestion: Withhold our dollars from those who practiced uncivil behavior witnessed at S.A. the first world would keep their tithes and offerings in their own countries and not send any to the large groups at S.A. who insulted so many.
Elaine, I think that now is the time to focus on the local churches; there is where the real power resides. And that means that the members may be in control, if they want. Just cut the flow of easy money upstairs, which just pours into the GC’s coffers, and things may start to change.
Well,… I know it’s not going to happen, because of the fear that has been instilled in people’s minds in general.
Yes George. The spotlight of the Christian should be on those in our communities, who have need of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The known world has been penetrated with the message of Jesus, at the expense of the Western world. The missionary need is here, in our neighborhoods. People are miserable, and don’t realize they need the LOVE of our Savior Jesus, to lift their real burdens, and give them a view of the precious gift of associating with the GOD of mercy, of grace, and that most sought after desire of all, P E A C E. We derive our greatest Earthly P E A C E by participation, in study and in worsip, together, of our beautiful and loving JESUS. Open WIDE, the doors of your churches. Invite everyone, “EVERYONE”, the poor, the sick, the blind, the crippled, the spiritual hungry, all colors of skin, all seeking, all needing help, and comfort, and peace that only Jesus can supply. OPEN YOUR DOORS AND INVITE ALL TO THE HEALING OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. THERE ARE NO PREREQUISITES OR FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS TO QUALIFY. ONLY YOUR DEPTH OF DESIRE FOR DELIVERANCE FROM THE HELL OF THE EARTH.
It seems to me that Dr. Knott has recommended that we marginalize those that are clearly uncivil, and those who are clearly hostile to the Seventh-day Adventist church.
I wasn’t in San Antonio and did not watch any of what transpired there; so I cannot know who was uncivil or who expressed hostility to the church. This editorial appears to have been written for the sake of General Conference attendees.
My criticism is that the column could/should have been written before the General Conference in San Antonio; as it was clear that it would be contentious, and it was clear that there are indeed those of us who are uncivil, and those among us who are clearly hostile to the Seventh-day Adventist church. Was it not?
Perhaps had this editorial been written prior to San Antonio, the uncivil and the hostile would have conducted themselves somewhat differently. Nevertheless, I perceive definite utility in somehow unofficially marginalizing the uncivil and the hostile.
The more uncivil, the more fearful. And self-justification and self-sanctification both are the offspring of fear.
Enjoying bread and drink while people starve and thirst is what marginalization is about. Justifying marginalization is the work of the anti-Christ, to only slightly misuse the metaphor.
Marginalization has no place in Christendom.
The path to civil behavior is the Gospel of Jesus, not refutation and threats of isolation.
Or so I miss something here, Stephen?
As someone who did not attend the San Antonio festivities, did not observe them online or on television, and who does not oppose women’s ordination; I am referring to the uncivil—no matter their position on the issue in question; and to those who are just hostile to the Seventh-day Adventist church—and they would of course know who they are, far more so than would anyone else I’d think.
What am I missing Bill, my friend? Unless someone is in one of those categories, and knows that they are (or were) uncivil or are hostile to the church, why would the advocacy of marginalization of the uncivil and/or hostile be troublesome?
I believe that Dr. Knott made a good case; that Paul indicates that sometimes the marginalization of such conduct is appropriate.
This editorial links lack of civility to lack of respect for the church. I link lack of civility to fear.
When Jesus cast out demons, he did not require that the sufferer first become civil. This editorial appears to require civility before being willing to affirm the Gospel to people.
The Gospel personally affirmed casts out fear and engenders brotherly love.
Absolutely nothing about this editorial offers affirmation to the fearful, that is to the disrespectful.
Indeed this editorial affirms a right to indignation. And if ever there were a right to indignation, Jesus would possess such a right. Yet he saw himself independent of such a right and became one of us while we are his enemies, not just disrespectful.
The solution to the frayed edges of the church is not a fortress, it is a tent the size of the whole World, Paul notwithstanding.
I think your point about fear is on-target. How many Adventists have been taught that they can have confidence in their relationship with God? I was taught from my earliest days in the church to be afraid of God and that He was searching for sin in my to condemn me. It was only after the faith I was taught collapsed that God was able to reach into my spiritual darkness and the first thing He touched me with was the assurance the He loved me and was with me.
Even Jesus expressed serious indignation and making a whip to use to chase the money-changers out of the temple was an act of rage enforced with acts of violence. It expressed His intolerance for those who defiled that place of teaching and those who extracted a price from others seeking reconciliation with God. So, as I look at the sad state of the church in North America, I think the time has come to begin expressing that same sort of intolerance for those who are marginalizing the transforming power of redemption and denying the empowering work of the Holy Spirit.
Part of the problem is the vocality of the uncivil and hostile in proclaiming that they are the “true” SDAs. This combines with the vast lack of spiritual vigor in the church in North America to make some of their arguments seem attractive and even convincing.
Success in any business requires that you get rid of whatever is not contributing to delivering the core function and the achievement of goals. Successfully marginalizing the non-performers and critics in the church requires that we have an obvious contrast between those who are empowered by the Holy Spirit and those who have only a powerless form of godliness. But that is an unrealistic expectation where the majority are powerless and just defending their religion.
“…marginalizing the uncivil and the hostile.”
Are you referring to thoseq who booed Elder Paulsen and also boycotted the electronic vote?
I agree–I have no idea what is being referred to and apparently not many here do either. My first thought was that it meant those on both sides of issues.
I did read many nasty quotes/comments said by both sides. Insults and worldly protests are not the same as giving opinions. Some of the most abusive seemed to come from the “headship” group, like the man who said the earth should open up and swallow the rebellious.
I would say ignoring insults is better than “marginalizing” people because of its current usage. It’s really an unfortunate choice of words in my opinion and is clearly divisive and open to divisive speculation.
The “media” (who?) was only reporting. Was it Adventist media or outside? The idea that a large church seemed to turn down WO was news to outside journalists. You can’t blame them for reporting.
The best way to handle the opposition I learned from JFK who came out and listened to protesters and treated them respectfully. That made an impression on me, and we long to see that in our church and government leaders.
Re Marginalization
Remember the KGC and what their main activity was?
Well, what about now having a KGC to materialize marginalization in our Church???
SDA – Could it actually become a kind of Soviet Denominational Activity?
Thank you for this enlightening article!
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Hey Kenn, it’s great to see you here.
This article is fantastic. It seems it hits the point (marginalization) at the right time! … 🙂
The editor of the Review cites “unrighteous ad hominem attacks upon church leaders [and], respected theology teachers?” If he wants to edit a magazine to defend Brother Wilson and his team at the GC, he is in the wrong place and in the wrong job. Certain publications like “We Affirm” and periodicals supporting “Amazing Facts” and others might be interested in his talents. Then he can measure his success at calling for the “marginalization” of present church critics from a different vantage point.
I miss the good “old” review edited by iconic figures such as Brothers Nichol, Wood, and Johnsson. They were never delegated to being apologists of GC administrators. Never do I recall any of them calling for “marginalization” of those with different points of view on any subject. What Bother Knott has done is going to give encouragement and ammunition to those who want to stifle dissent.
I recently came across some published remarks by NAD President Dan Jackson’s about the Review and Herald operation: “We’ve poured money into businesses that should have been allowed to die. We should have celebrated them, let them go to their rest, and redesigned the future” (quoted in Stephen Chavez, “Whither Publishing?” Adventist Review, Dec. 11, 2014, p. 18, 19).
Brother Knott should remind himself what the Review is for, and his duties and responsibilities as editor which do NOT call for him to “MARGINALIZE” anyone!
What about renaming the R&H to PRAVDA???
This would be much more appropriate considering what is going on.
Perhaps Knott should be marginalized. This is sending a terrible message and how can it be misinterpreted when it is a recap of S.A.?
The term “pravda” is usually translated as “truth,” but as Russians use the term, pravda would be more accurately translated as “the official word.”
Has the Review lost it’s essence?
Is it neither “TRUTH” not the “OFFICIAL WORD”
Perhaps I’ve been “marginalized” by Brother Knott
(See my previous comments above)
You are right, PRAVDA means truth in Russian, and in Czech as well (my language from home). But in Russia it was ludicrous to use the word for the newspaper that never told the truth about anything, since is was just a manipulation tool to misinform the population and disinform the world.
Give the Adventist Review a new name–Pravda. What an inspired idea!
PS For those who perhaps have forgotten, Pravda was the name of the principal propaganda outlet of the old Soviet Union leadership. I am told that the word means “Truth” in Russian.
The editor of the Adventist Review speaks much wisdom. It matters not who he’s thinking about (after all – it’s a no-brainer), he’s just speaking truth to power.
His ‘reclaiming the library’ editorial a few years ago, speaks volumes.
Good for him for that editorial then, and the current.
The editor of the Adventist Review has a unique role in Adventism. I would suggest He’s using his role more than appropriately, and seeking to be in the control neither of ‘his proprieter’, nor of any other interest group.
The Review continues to inspire with a quality of journalism that rises head and shoulder’s above Spectrum, Advindicate and yes, I dare to say, even AT.
Of course he is doing his job well. He is PAID to do that!
Since he is part of the manipulation/propaganda machine, he has to do exactly that. And people are expected to not make negative comments on it, or ask any embarrassing questions.
Since he is an official voice to his boss(ess), we are most probably hearing the voice of the current GC’s administration. Mr. Pravda should be prouud of his job and of those who he represents!
Where are, again, the witches? The hunt is on!
David Neal on August 13, 2015 at 12:54 pm said: “The Review continues to inspire with a quality of journalism that rises head and shoulder’s above Spectrum, Advindicate and yes, I dare to say, even AT.”
Perhaps to you, who probably have not been “marginalized” by Bill, this Bill Knott editorial at the R&H is the zenith of journalism in the Adventist culture. Because you say so, doesn’t make it so, and yet here you are reading AT. More experienced, unbiased research from the PEW organization has a more objective approach at measuring “quality” in “journalism”.
Journalism quality has been measured using a variety of methods from both the demand and the product side. Held and Ruβ-Mohl (2005, 56ff) identified four ways that quality has been measured, as reported by Gertler (2013, 15): Distilling observations in these efforts, here are some of the common content quality characteristics that have been suggested:
“1. Presentation quality – High quality journalism should have high production quality and be accessible to a wide-range of community members.
2. Trustworthiness – High quality journalism should be accurate and credible, which can be measured in various ways.
3. Diversity – High quality journalism should be diverse in the number of sources, issues, topics and ideas within information bundles and across the community.
4. Depth and breadth of information – High quality journalism should provide a deep and broad understanding of issues and trends.
R&H gets a…
For David Neal and others “unmarginalized”
gets a C-
C- (generous)
Sorry, but in ALL of these four areas the Review is found wanting. R&H is heavily subsidized with a readership of over 33 thousand from a group of 16-18 million, not presenting any original research, scholarship, or alternatives to the status quo of advancing the usual news and topics. Take for example the reporting about the WO issue before and after SA.
On a scale of 0-10, zero being propaganda with absolutely no attempt at being objective (i.e., news you get on the FOX channel) and 10 being at the level of the old New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor (i.e. news you get on NPR).
The Adventist Review would get something like, at best: 0.001
0 for CNN and Public TV and radio as well!!
Sorry, “interested friend,” that is not what serious professional journalists who are not ideologues think. Your political orientation is showing. Do you watch FOX news a lot?
Did you mean -0.001? … 🙂
When someone publishes a vicious idea like marginalization, the publication is not worth being mentioned.
I wonder what the “infidels” would think seeing the “fidels” fighting trying to marginalize others in their own churches. Is this some kind of innovative evangelistic technique?
NPR is every bit as biased as FOX. I don’t really like to listen to either one, though I do read the dispatches from both online.
Bias can show-up in how reporters present stories. It shows-up even more strongly in how their editors choose which stories to present.
Which news outlets you consider to be fair and balanced tells a lot about you.
“The Review continues to inspire with a quality of journalism that rises head and shoulder’s above Spectrum, Advindicate and yes, I dare to say, even AT.”
Well, this is questionable, to say the least. And the article by Bill Knott is evidence that your evaluation is less than viable. He gives no explanation of just who he is talking about. It may well include himself.
On the other side of the coin, many who support A-today and/or Spectrum seem to think a church has no authority to define itself and then discipline those within the church who attack the objective givens that are not negotiable.
Any church has a right to define itself by certain objective givens and even disfellowship those who attack these stated teachings. But this is not the view of more than a few who post on A-today and/or Spectrum.
Rather, they believe the church is to be some “clearing house” for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to teach what they please without discipline and/or challenge all in the name of religious freedom.
This is a warped view of religious freedom. You can leave the fellowship and teach what you please. But you have no freedom to advocate your view in opposition to the stated givens that are non-negotiable.
It is time for some people to “get a life” and quit the cry baby tactic and simply move on. If you don’t agree with the stated givens, you are free to go else where as any church community would agree as the only viable response.
The Adventist Review is “speaking truth to power” [?]
“The [Adventist] Review continues to inspire with . . . quality journalism” [?]
Surely, Mr. Neal is joking. Or perhaps he is not aware of a publication category called “house organ” or “house journal.” The Adventist Review [AR] is a classic illustration of that type of journalistic endeavor. The “house” or proprietor in this case is the General Conference of SDA.
Does Mr. Neal really believe that the AR editor is free of the control of his “proprietor”? If he does, I have a bridge I would like to sell him.
If Mr. Neal is serious, might I ask if he would point us to any time the AR published something that did not support the agenda of the current administration in power at the GC.
One can find a snipe easier and quicker than find a journalist at the AR, past or present.
Just as no professional biologist doesn’t believe in evolution, no professional journalist has ever been or is presently employed at the AR.
It contains the most insipid and pedantic writing anywhere. Even the letters published are glowing and praising the leaders and church. But it reflects the ideology of those in the Silver Tower who only communicate among themselves in full agreement.
A smile is a species of birds. I have seen many snipes. But not in cemeteries at night. You just need to know where to look and what to look for.
One seldom finds what one is not looking for.
Following the “Pravda” comparison, regarding R&H,
“Бодли́вой коро́ве Бог рог не даёт.”
God does not give horns to cow that butts
I believe he refers to independent ministries such as Stephen Bohr’s, Doug Batchelor and others who use TV to spread their shrill voices on WO and obviously profitted from the controversy (as they always do!). These so-called “independent” ministries are heavily DEPENDENT: on shrillness, alarmism, sensationalism and fanaticism. Doug B. has already been banned by one Conference after San Antonio. Good call!
Do you happen to know which conference from which Doug B has been banned? That would be an interesting story as to how that happened. It certainly is a good call.
Wait a minute Erv! You’re being inconsistent. How can you on the one hand criticize Knott for calling for marginalization, and then on the other hand call the marginalization or alleged (or rumored) banning of Doug Batchelor to be a “good call”?
If you are criticizing a call for marginalization then you should disapprove of banning/banishment.
I thank Mr. Foster for his comments and agree. He is absolutely correct. Mea Culpa. Sorry about that. My comment was inconsistent. Contemporary Adventism is and should be a “big tent.” No one should be marginalized–left, right or center. We hope that we all–left, right, and center–could agree on that.
I sincerely appreciate your admission of inconsistency; but I’m not necessarily ‘sold’ by your assumptive ‘close.’ I’m thinking that to the extent that we have uncivil elements within Adventism and hostile elements toward Adventism under our tent, that they should be marginalized; or more precisely, that their uncivil or hostile conduct and words should be marginalized.
This of course would include conservatives, moderates, or liberals who are uncivil and/or hostile.
Are we drawing to fine a line relative to marginalizing a person or organization. It being hostile or uncivil, is to the perception of the one marginalizing. We recognize we are having a general
differential in the SDA Church relative to doctrine and communications with the head office, as they are developing policy of marginalization of????????????.
Why doesn’t Ted Wilson stop hiding behind his lieutenants, and step up to the mike and lay it all on the line for the SDA Church. The Church is currently in “limbo land”.
“Why doesn’t Ted Wilson stop hiding behind his lieutenants, and step up to the mike and lay it all on the line for the SDA Church. The Church is currently in “limbo land”.” Earl Calahan (today, at 10:37 am)
People who, instead of leading, have the need to manipulate the crowds don’t know any other technique than the one you describe.
The Florida Conference. The following is my copy and paste of what I have read on several Facebook sites:
LETTER FROM PRESIDENT MIKE CAULEY, FLORIDA CONFERENCE – DISCOURAGED CHURCH FROM FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH INVITATION TO DOUG BATCHELOR (who had been invited to speak in Florida, at Spring Meadows SDA Church):
“Recently Florida Conference of Seventh-day Adventists recommended a change in programming to one of our local churches. Doug Batchelor, Speaker for Amazing Facts, had been scheduled for a one-week meeting this fall at Spring Meadows church.
However, the Florida Conference Administration views Pastor Batchelor as a polarizing influence in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This concern revolves around the subject of women’s involvement in ministry, both as local elders and pastors, and that the position that he has taught openly for several years is not in harmony with the position and policy of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
Florida Conference continues to support the 25- to 30-year-old position of the General Conference of encouraging women to use the gifts God has given them for ministry, both as local elders and in pastoral leadership and ministry. Therefore, we discouraged Spring Meadows church from following through with the invitation to Pastor Batchelor.
Mike Cauley
Florida Conference President”
The Florida Conference. This is my cut and paste from several Facebook sites:
LETTER FROM PRESIDENT MIKE CAULEY, FLORIDA CONFERENCE – DISCOURAGED CHURCH FROM FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH INVITATION TO DOUG BATCHELOR (who had been invited to speak in Florida, at Spring Meadows SDA Church):
“Recently Florida Conference of Seventh-day Adventists recommended a change in programming to one of our local churches. Doug Batchelor, Speaker for Amazing Facts, had been scheduled for a one-week meeting this fall at Spring Meadows church.
However, the Florida Conference Administration views Pastor Batchelor as a polarizing influence in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This concern revolves around the subject of women’s involvement in ministry, both as local elders and pastors, and that the position that he has taught openly for several years is not in harmony with the position and policy of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
Florida Conference continues to support the 25- to 30-year-old position of the General Conference of encouraging women to use the gifts God has given them for ministry, both as local elders and in pastoral leadership and ministry. Therefore, we discouraged Spring Meadows church from following through with the invitation to Pastor Batchelor.
Mike Cauley
Florida Conference President”
Those independent ministries are in bed with the GC, and vice versa. As long as there is monetary advantages, it will “grow and prosper.”
They are simply taking advantage of the GC, getting money given by church members and using it for propaganda. Then they talk as if they actually represented the SDA denomination. This is just crazy.
What happened to our Church? Who is running (and ruining) it so badly? Is this going to stop, or is it going to become still worse?
Couldn’t be Doug’s ministry, since Elder Wilson expressed his appreciation for Amazing Facts by name at the GC Session in San Antonio. And since Elder Wilson is aligned with Steve’s theological positions, and who has for decades been a loyal soldier for the denomination, it’s highly unlikely Knott through the Adventist Review would be brave enough to go after these two prominent Wilson supporters. So I’d try other options, Andre, if only because established media ministries like Amazing Facts, Secrets Unsealed and 3ABN are secure and well-postioned under the Wilson administration–a fact Bill is obviously well aware of. To be honest, it sounds more like you have a personal ax to grind than any objectivity in mind. Hope I’m wrong, though.
I hope you are correct on this. That is what I would think, however, let’s admit AT does hit hard at times and invoke a sort of them vs. us mentality. It’s not innocent of divisiveness.
A board like this does provide an outlet for hostility the part of some.
I think Bill Knott’s editorial was directed at ALL extremes of the Adventist milieu. He did not and will not name names for very obvious reasons. His views are more Centrist that those who fund his magazine. And if perhaps he might be susceptible to fear of those who could or would hurt him that would be understandable.
I agree with Bill Garber that fear is a major animator for increasingly shrill rhetoric from all sides. The shrill rhetoric may also be an indicator that fear has progressed to loathing and even hatred. And fear is an equal-opportunity animator. It inhabits all sides of racial, political, economic and religious divisions.
Love is the antidote for fear. The is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. All will know that you are My disciples by your love for one another. Love one another as I have loved you.
I would urge everyone who writes and comments here to examine your own motives. Are you picking at specks in the eyes of others while ignoring the planks in your own eyes? Are your opinions and your manner of expression animated by love or by fear?
There is a fallacy in the idea that one must ignore the planks in our own eyes before seeing the specks in the eyes others. Were that followed, there would never be any disagreement with whatever is said as no one is free from all eye problems.
If we waited until we were perfectly free from all errors ourselves, there would be dead silence and all comments would be useless.
Because we can only see with our eyes and perspectives should not prevent addressing problems. No one, even the writers here can follow that line of reasoning or else there would be no articles or comments.
Jim Hanstra’s attempt to defend Bill Knott’s editorial in the Review, is a weak attempt to (as Sarah Palin would say) to “put lipstick on a pig”.2 Tim 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love…
The verse says God is giving us power and love. A double blessing: power & love or Power of Love”
Let us ask an important question: why do we fear? We are afraid because we feel powerless. We feel that we can’t change something. We fear because we feel helpless. As long as you have power to change some evil, then fear cannot take over.
The Bible says that we have power to resist the devil, and he will flee from us. We can heal the sick. We can call on our angels for protection. Listen, we do have power. We can overcome evil with good. When you recognize that you have power, then fear cannot stay. Fear cannot coexist with power.
Knott’s editorial and call for “marginalizing” ANYONE is just plain wrong and in your core you know it. Let us ask an important question: why do we fear? We are afraid because we feel powerless. We feel that we can’t change something. We fear because we feel helpless. As long as you have power to change some evil, then fear cannot take over.
Knott is using the “bully pulpit” of the Review in a feeble attempt to bury significant differences that need be worked on.
Prejudice is based on two ingredients, not knowing (ignorance) and being afraid.
Love does not marginalize.
“Love does not marginalize.”
I fully agree. Though there is a place for “tough love” its purpose is not to marginalize?
“Let us ask an important question: why do we fear?”
There are many reasons. Fear of powerlessness being but one. Fear of pain being another. Fear of loss yet another.
“The Bible says that we have power to resist the devil”
Read the rest of the passage. We do NOT have power to resist the Devil. We are admonished to draw near to God, because God has power to resist the Devil. The Bible message is not about our power – it is about our weakness and God’s strength.
“Jim Hanstra’s [sic] attempt to defend Bill Knott’s editorial in the Review”
Huh? Did you actually read what I wrote? Saying Bill Knott’s fears might be understandable does not constitute a defense of what he chose to write. I think “marginalize” was an unfortunate choice of words.
I did suggest that his critics might apply the same standard of scrutiny to much of what is written on this web site.
Be careful how you judge one another, for in the same manner that you judge others you yourselves will be judged.
Love does not marginalize? I disagree. It contrasts good and evil and by so doing marginalizes evil just as light drives-away darkness.
Knott is pro-WO hence my conclusion that his call for marginalization is towarss the shrill voices who are against, Batchelor being the foremost. His allusion to “change the channel” can only refer to televangelists.
*towards
Andre: You still appear to assume too much, since Knott never specifies that his topic is women’s ordination, and “change the channel” could simply be a figurative expression, one I myself have often employed in wanting to quickly move past something. Besides, Doug’s voice isn’t at all “shrill” for the majority of the church, as the San Antonio vote confirmed, which is why I think your conclusion is little more than a partisaned leap of logic. That said, can I sincerely appreciate why you think him a “shrill voice”? Of course. I’d feel the exact same way about Amazing Facts were I in your position. So I get it. I do.
As much as I disagree with Brother Doug Batchelor on a host of issues I would not want to “marginalize” him or anyone that does not share my views. If I only listen and pay attention to those that agree with me I will never learn and never grow as a person. Someone once said that the
“The best way to substantiate
truth is to question it”
So as difficult as it is to read or listen to some dissenting ideas and persons, I pray for truth and God’s wisdom to prevail and to remind myself that I am not the only one to have truth.
Doug’s infamous sermon against women’s ordination is his landmark, jarring contribution to the subject. Knott is careful not to single out any subject but one would be hard pressed to find a better fit for what he is attempting to convey. San Antonio was mostly about WO. The shrillness from the independent-perfeccionist-LGT camp was notorious. His use of “change the channel” figuratively was shrewd as it can hit many of these camps at the same time, including our television preachers.
Is this what we have come to?
Where we have to be “careful”, “figurative”, and “shrewd”?
Why can’t we be authentic and fair?
Sam Geli on August 14, 2015 at 9:19 am said:
“As much as I disagree with Brother Doug Batchelor on a host of issues I would not want to “marginalize” him or anyone that does not share my views.”
He will never be the target of marginalization. Those who disagree with him, yes, those who “dare” to have a different opinion, are being targeted to be marginalized by him and the likes of him.
Individuals who have an inner need to control others are very difficult to help even if they get some psychotherapy.
i agree Sam, “why can’t we be authentic and fair”. Leave no one to question your comments, or your allegiencies, because you have purposely used questionable input so to mislead or cause question. It’s called “politics”.
i also agree with Jim. We should all search our individual motives, for our own truth, to make sure of our loyalty to truth and fairness. i have assessed this, and yet i still ask “Why doesn’t this leader step to the microphone and tell the membership, what he believes are the Amazing facts of “qualified membership in the SDA Church, TODAY. WHAT IS A GOOD SDA TODAY, BELIEVE, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Mr. Taylor has marginalized himself by rejecting most of the very doctrines upon which the bible and the Adventist movement are based upon. And then he complains that the leaders of the movement want to marginalize those who embrace the his leftist heterodox views. Bill Diehl, editor. Present Truth Magazine
I thank Mr. Diehi for his comments, especially since he is the editor of Present Truth Magazine. Adventist Today welcomes the entire range of opinion within the Adventist community–left, right, and center. It models what the Adventist Church should be.
Just a quick question: Would Mr. Diehi please be a little more specific as to the “doctrines upon which the bible and the Adventist movement are based” which I reject. Just wondering.
Mr. Diehl has now introduced the novel concept of “self-marginalization” into the discussion. He claims that Ervin Taylor has done that. Does this mean that those persons who disagree with “Present Truth Magazine” are thus automatically marginalized? How much of the Bible or the doctrines of the SDA church can one disagree with until one is “marginalized”? Is there any “hope” for Brother Ervin in his “marginalized state”? What does Mr. Diehl suggest I do with Brother Ervin if I encounter him personally? Do I allow him to wash my feet at communion? Do I invite him to my house? If Brother Ervin has a single daughter can I allow my single son to date her? Just how far can I associate with someone who is “officially marginalized” by you or the church? This brings me to my last question, how do I know you, yourself-Brother Diehl are not “marginalized”? How can I be absolutely sure that you are 100% true blue “unmarginalized”?
I read the whole comment by Bill Knott and am quite disappointed. It is either cunning or outright opportunistic.
The cunning will fail – if he indeed had Advindicate, Amazing Facts or 3ABN in mind (as some indications would strongly suggest), they won’t notice, but gladly interpret the comment in another way. If he had Atoday or Spectrum in mind… Too late – they have been marginalized already for quite some time.
If on the other hand this is an opportune opening for a witch hunt (as the language would suggest: “systematically exclude those elements [sic.]”, it would be about the most despicable thing a journalist could possibly do.
Will it work? Anybody knowing anything about “systems” will be able to tell you, it won’t. Or to express it in terms of church history: “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church” And certainly the inner church persecution has been tried before… For once a discussion of Jesuits and the inquisition might have its place.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have this marginalization thing down to a fine science. Even if I agreed with the JWs “core beliefs”, I could never join an organization that has the JW policy with regard to how to treat those who are considered “apostate”. If I were not already a member of the SdA organization, I might be willing to try to understand what Bill Knot means by “marginalize”. Or maybe I’d just assume he means “shun”–in which case I’d avoid such an organization.
To those who consider Christianity to be an institutional religion, maybe all this squabbling makes sense. To those of us who consider Christianity to be a personal–not an institutional–religion, it would be amusing if it weren’t so sad.
The protestant reformation was about a new set of priorities. The methodist movement ” . The advent movement ” .
Should I be marginalized if I place more emphasis on religious liberty and fiat creationism than on the doctrine of “the remnant” or “the investigative judgment” or “the assembling of (adventists) together” or “the health message”?
In the 21st century, there are people who believe that, by 1850, adventists had prioritized Bible doctrines and that whatever that order of priorities were in 1850 should never change.
If I can’t find a place (geographically) where there is room for disagreement about what those priorities should be, perhaps the only hope for fellowship for those of my ilk is cyberspace.
Not knowing where Mr. Metzger lives, if would like to email me at erv.taylor@adoday.org, I will be happy to indicate to him an Adventist church community where there is “room for disagreement” about what contemporary Adventist priorities should be. It is a place where “big tent” Adventism is the norm.
Opps, the correct email should be erv.taylor@atoday.org. Sorry about that.
I’ve read it. First let me say to those who decry the quality of journalism…Knott got you talking about his article! Always a hallmark of interesting journalism.
Can we take a more practical approach to this problem? We have something similar happening in our congregation. Several members have decided that if they read it on the internet and it bashes the church, it must be true. And they feel they are entitled to spew their vitriol by taking over Sabbath School study, interrupting worship, handing out letters bashing the pastor, conference president, etc.
This congregation is always loving, open and non-judgmental; we have offered repeatedly to study the Bible with them. But they don’t want to study–just make wild accusations which have no Biblical or logical sense.
So is there a case for “marginalizing” them….maybe the better word would be minimizing the impact these “false teachers” have on the members, visitors, new Christians in our pews.
While Knott may be applying the “marginalizing” to the broader spectrum of voices, especially surrounding the recent GC, when we bring the concept closer to home, I think we all would agree there can be a time for deciding what gets taught in our own congregations and our denomination. When we became members, we accepted the teaching of the church. If we don’t believe those teachings anymore, then its time to re-examine our commitment to this church.
Trish, a possible solution for your members would be for the
Pastor to invite those with alien thoughts,and disrupt services, and malign others, to a church board meeting to
share their new light with the Church Elders and staff. If there is no meeting of the minds of the issue, and the rebellion continues to disrupt the congregation, the disruptive ones should be put on notice of disfellowship. i
believe in a big tent, but active rebellion can not be allowed to continue.
A couple of comments:
Making people talk about “myself” (my article) is not necessarily a hallmark of good journalism; “interesting” – maybe.
The other issue is more serious. Yes, I know of churches who even had to get restraining orders against certain people who liked to disrupt worship services. Yes, I have decried myself that too often we have not spoken out when an “other gospel” was preached. If such things happen, we may need to separate, indeed. But this is not what Bill Knott has been calling for. He wants to “thoughtfully and systematically exclude those elements”, i.e. is calling for something like an inquisition. This is not the same as saying “the demonization of those who support women’s ordination needs to stop” (which yes, are thinly veiled ad hominem attacks). The systematic purging of the church works with assumptions that neither will work (start it, and you’ll have none left – and/or new problems popping up all over the place), nor is it Christlike (it is reversing John 10:16 in a rather ironic manner). To call for it at this time – right after San Antonio, when many Adventists are sore, deeply hurt, ashamed of their church, doesn’t make it any better.
I think the issue of marginalization hinges on what methods and measures are applied. I’ve seen plenty of it in my lifetime in the old theme of “If you’re really and Adventist then you’ll support this evangelistic outreach!” Are we measuring compliance with a human concept, or finding and following the obvious leading and empowerment of the Holy Spirit? Too often we are contrasting to show what we are against instead of delivering the power of God that attracts. Let’s make sure we’re delivering the powerful positive so it will do the contrasting for us.
Andreas,
I do think you are making inaccurate speculations here or “jumping to conclusions” to use a cliche. I have personal reasons for saying that–it’s out of character will suffice.
The major problem is the choice of wording– “marginalization” has a very negative, even ominous meaning in today’s society, and was not a good choice. Let’s not demonize the writer.
EM,
I am willing to listen… and thus have tried to investigate the issue a little more. Thus the reprimand is accepted. There still is a sense of unease about the journalism (there may have been political reasons for not being clearer in what the editor actually meant, granted, but not necessarily good).
Allow me just to defend myself against the phrase “demonize the writer”. While I know, what you mean, in a time of Doug Batchelor and Laurel Damsteegt I would like to be on record that I never did or would demonize Bill Knott – or anybody else for that matter. Thanks.
Never a time to marginalize?
Trust ME. I am respected. I have a platform from which to speak.
IF this were true then my methods of study and presentation should be a model of truth finding.
IF I skim through a scripture, grabbing the words that work for me ignoring anything I don’t like AND then announce that I SPEAK FOR THE CHURCH AUTHORITATIVELY and ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME…
The standard is not the Word of God in this case—MY THINKING IS.
IF I truly am the voice of the church then why do we need a GC Session?
FEAR SELLS PRECIOUS METALS and is welcomed by those living in a bubble of conspiracy theories. BUT FEAR does not wear well over the long haul and it promotes a “follow me” thought pattern high on trust and low on thinking and careful study.
YES, we need to vote for ministries that REALLY build up the work of Christ using the funds entrusted to us. This is the marginalization that is needed.
Is there room for disagreement? For sure. Let’s settle our differences by being committed to each other WHILE allowing the Word to actually speak.
The world is NOT FLAT in spite of statements to the contrary.
This whole discussion has left my head spinning round and round.
George Tichy wrote: “He [Doug Batchelor] will never be the target of marginalization.”
You really seem to have a firm grasp of the current conditions within 21st-century Seventh-day Adventism, an oft-proven political landscape that some of your theological colleagues refuse to acknowledge–for some strange reason. Either way, this kind of intellectual honesty and balanced reasoning is always appreciated, whether it’s pointed out or not, by those on either side of the argument.
I recall reading an article many years ago (written I think in the 1970s) that was published in a denominational magazine (I regret not saving the article). A prominent general conference leader, who was interviewed in the article, suggested that Adventists who did not support the current (at that time) worldwide denominational evangelistic program should actually “question their security” due to not aligning with the leadership. Implying that they might lose out on eternity. Also, anybody ever been fired from denominational employment? it can be brutal. I would argue that the practice of marginalization is in the denominational DNA, manifesting when it serves the interests of those wielding institutional power. I like the idea of a Big Tent; but of course there are times when the behavior of an individual or group can put even the most inclusive and ethical leadership in a difficult position. The fact that Mr. Knott does not name names makes it impossible to discern what he is trying to accomplish, whom he is speaking for, and whether he trying to serve the greater good, or those in positions of power. He certainly has some of us all knotted up over his vague threats.
Of course I could be wrong, but I have an impression that many who express consternation with Knott’s marginalization concept are already afraid that, for whatever reason, they are among those being threatened with marginalization by the current GC administration.
Generally speaking, it doesn’t seem that those displeased with the current administration would have much of a problem if the administration and its ideological allies were to become marginalized; and in fact it appears that they spend an inordinate amount of time and intellectual energy in that very pursuit.
The fact is we would all prefer, to some extent, to marginalize those whom we consider to be uncivil, or generally at odds with—if not hostile towards—our views; or in any way detrimental to the causes we espouse or favor, or dead wrong. (So, forgive me for failing to take the protestations against marginalization very seriously.)
Fear of being marginalized is a good thing if it drives a person to re-examine the basis for their faith and to learn directly from God the role He wants them to play in the church. I would prefer to be marginalized now while I still have the chance to change my ways than to find myself condemned by God to eternal destruction because I didn’t obey his instructions now about becoming fruitful for Him.
Good point, and obviously true if I am honest with myself. The dominant group usually makes the rules and runs the show. However, for the editor of the official denominational paper to call for marginalization by name is a bit shocking. It would be more likely, it seems, to be urged to not forget the minority groups in our midst, and to be slow to condemn the other whose beliefs and convictions may differ from my own – for the sake of maintaining unity, or unity in diversity. It feels like this sends the message that the General Conference is taking the gloves off in an effort to purify the church.
(this was a response to Stephen Foster)
I concede that the word ‘marginalize’ and the idea of marginalization are divisive. But then incivility and hostility are much more divisive; which is the very point that is being lost in this discussion, unfortunately.
Knott’s version of marginalization would constitute efforts toward purifying the church of incivility and hostility; which would be a good thing.
Maybe so. Of course, the concern is that incivility and hostility are code words for insubordinate and heretical. If that is not the case, then perhaps his article makes good sense. I wonder if he could have made a point to emphasize that he was referring simply to such behavior that most would agree is inappropriate. I would question whether the behavioral problem is really so huge to warrant such harsh language, and so suspect that he is referencing something besides behavior. His article in April urging folks to give themselves an honorable discharge from the church if they are not really and truly Adventist (which I don’t think he really explained what constitutes a true Adventist…it is a very strange piece of writing), would lead me to believe he has been commissioned, or has commissioned himself, to try to initiate some sort of purge. Most likely, most will simply ignore his strange turn.
I agree. Does GOD marginalize (the whole depart from ME thing)?
No HE Loves us; absolute and all inclusive.
Did HE give us one apple and rule; that we broke?
Did HE give us the Law, to protect others; in that we failed?
Did HE sacrifice his SON; but that still was not enough?
Did HE not tell us what was, is and will be (and again); but we can’t read?
Are we not scum of the earth without HIS Love? Has HE not given us everything and every opportunity in HIS Love? Are we not spoilt children, stomping our foot and wanting more? Maybe this is how we humble ourselves as a little child to enter the KINGDOM; because spoilt children are all we see? Is this not self marginalization and failure?
Do our opinions or viewpoints mean anything? “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
Do we own the Sound Doctrine put in place to protect others? “Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.”
Some have compassion; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire. Have you not figured out that the more you know should only show you how much you don’t know? We all have the mental capability of a rock and the moral ethics below the rock; compared to HIM. Does marginalization not assume you have the ability to provide something to marginalize; fear in loosing that which we are unable to even offer?
Many of our Adventist churches have NOT met the needs of disabled persons. The marginalization of people with disabilities can be compared with the ways we marginalize those who look, sound, and think differently from us. Marginalizing people with disabilities and encouraging them NOT attend our churches is costly and sometimes illegal.
Empowering people with disabilities to participate in and attend our church services is both ethically, socially, and economically beneficial.
Marginalization is social disadvantage and relegation to the fringe of society. It is a term used widely in Europe, and was first used in France. Social exclusion is the process in which individuals or entire communities of people are systematically blocked from (or denied full access to) various rights, opportunities and resources that are normally available to members of a different group, and which are fundamental to social integration within that particular group (e.g., housing, employment, healthcare, civic engagement, democratic participation, and due process).
The Nazis marginalized the Jews, haven’t we learned that this treatment of persons is not what God wants us to do. Marginalization is not the way we should treat others. Why is this still a problem for some?
Sam, this is your calling and I agree. CHRIST relieved the suffering and healed. We ignore, fail to respect or help. We marginalize them; against HIS example and Commandment.
We fail to understand the sacrifices of our soldiers, police, firemen, Elders, Deacons and the multitudes of others that are here to protect; disabled or not. The problem is much bigger. As exampled, evil uses this to it’s advantage.
CHRIST was also the perfect example of handling those that “think” differently; ask the Pharisees, the money changers, the Disciples, the fig tree and others. In the money changers example “the Zeal of thine house had eaten me up” was remembered (John 2: to Psalms 69:). Should we not have that Zeal:
Isaiah 9:
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
In many cases we mix commandments for us as individuals with commandments of and as members of the body of the Church. It seems we spend little time as members of the body; being individuals is much easier (less work but less growth, works, support and protection).
A few comments:
1- First, thanks for this IrvTaylor
2- This (Knott’s editorial) seems eerily like one of those “memo’s” sent to the entire organization when it’s obviously directed at a few specific and completely unaware people. Why not just send the memo to THEM??!!
3- Note how closely Knott simple reuses the same template from his equally exasperating (though, painfully longer) essay back in the spring (April) titled “Am I an Adventist?” — spend most of your time massaging language with so many caveats, raise a cloud of vagueness, and pleadings how innocent and pious Adventist really is, then drop the hammer in the last paragraph or two. In the April essay, it’s a plea to “just leave” if you can’t accept the party line. (Implied: we’re too timid to toss you out, so just toss yourself out…)
4- With this editorial, Knott dutifully recites how awful marginalization is and how welcoming and inclusive our Adventist community really is. (Really! We really really are nice people!) Then the hammer: go ahead and marginalize. THIS time it’s for a good cause! We’re being polluted from within: what more noble a cause than our own purity!!
5- But note how the ante is being ratcheted up: in April, it was “just leave” — now it’s we’re gonna ostracize you until you’ll WANT to just leave.
continued next post…
continued…
(sorry for length)
6- I polled at least 20 close friends of mine (all with knowledge/experience in Adventism) about the April essay. NONE of them agreed with Bill! Not a one!! — Question then: for whom does Bill even SPEAK??? If not the laymen in the pews, who??
7- Does Knott have a clue just how marginal HIS view actually is?
8- Given what we know is an anticipation by Adventism (eg EGW) of a “shaking” are we witnessing the first moves of an attempt to PRECIPITATE that very thing?
9- What can we expect next to further the goal of eliciting a shaking?
10- Sadly, I don’t see Knott extending much “good faith” towards his dissenters.
11- PLEASE speak more clearly Mr Knott! You obscure with all your clever indirectness.
12- Good News (ie why we are to exist, the basis of our being) is related to all this … how??
Perhaps Knott is deliberately not being clear to put fear in the hearts of some, no matter what position they hold.
Fear is a great motivator for some. For others, it motivates some to leave such an organization that can only operate on either fear or corercion. Who needs that in any church?
Didn’t read the editorial but felt I have after your comments. Ever since the GC ended the way it did I feel a significant change has occurred. For the first time we witnessed a rebellious threatening spirit coming from the conservative class who quietly felt that to vote for WO would a turning away from Scripture. Many in favor of WO now appear to be quietly going through the motions of church. Elder Knott left enough clues to be Sherlock Homes. Knott was in favor of WO vote. He said to marginalize by turning off the TV. 3ABN and Doug Bachelor both were publicly vocal against WO leading up. A 3ABN viewer survey revealed over 80% against women elders in the church. Walter Veith of TV fame was a non factor. My guess is the RH editor appeared to break rank with his superiors and wrote one from the heart. By not naming names he got one off his personal chest. I say we cut him some slack while the church globally tries to recapture its footing.
Interesting angle, Glenn.
I sure took it the other way. Side by side this editorial with “Am I an Adventist?” where Elder Knott urged members who in good conscience are unable to fully support all of the voted beliefs of the church to honor the 9th commandment and resign their membership.
Nothing here reverses Elder Knott’s faulty theology and destructive vision for the church he advocated in his earlier editorial. Indeed, it amplifies his errors by advocating actual social warfare against whole classes of the fearful among us.
This is an utterly horrific position coming from an ordained church leader.
When church leadership sees itself more valuable than a member, it diminishes its power and authority, which resides in the membership and not in the positions held by its leaders.
How can any member reading this editorial not imagine, “When will my vision for the church be in Elder Knott’s sights, and by implication the sights of the President’s Executive of the General Conference?”
Elder Knott makes no idle threat, but rather appears to be telegraphing a battle plan.
The church leadership is simply continuing to lose power each time a leader addresses anything church related these days.
How much time are you calling for us to be patient, Glenn? Any other reason for hopefulness?
Bill, doesn’t the fact that you “took it the other way” suggest that you just may have mistaken the piece altogether?
I read it to be a diatribe of sorts against incivility in particular and against hostility toward the church generally. You’ve pretty much acknowledged that you read it as an effort to stifle, if not ostracize, those who have an adversarial ‘relationship’ with the Wilson administration. Glenn Striemer, among others, read it as an effort to stifle, chastise, and marginalize the most vociferous opponents to women’s ordination.
Is it possible that you’ve misinterpreted Knott? I’m just saying…
Actually, since Striemer hadn’t literally read it, perhaps I should say that he “took it as an effort to stifle, chastise…”
This whole conversation appears more and more to be an exercise in futility, because no one seems to know who the editor was actually talking about. If that is what he intended, it is even more strange. It’s like a good comedy, waiting for the plot to resolve. On the “voted beliefs” were initially understood to be descriptive of what most Adventists generally believe, not a prescriptive requirement for membership in good standing.
I meant to say: on the issue of the “voted beliefs” of the church, it needs to be clearly understood that the whole idea of a statement of fundamental beliefs was initially intended to be understood as descriptive, not prescriptive. Somehow that has gotten turned around.
Someone should write an article about it pro and con–objective, if possible.
How has it become prescriptive rather than descriptive? Please, a little explanation with proof.
Yes!
The ambiguity in the article is deplorable.
As an editor you have to mean what you say and say what you mean. The first rule for any editor is to respect your readers. It undermines the integrity of the official church “paper” to call out it’s readers like Knott has done several times. Where is his editorial board? Read how the NY Times reminds everyone of their responsibilities.
“Reporters, editors, photographers and all members
of the news staff of The New York Times share a
common and essential interest in protecting the integrity
of the newspaper. As the news, editorial and business
leadership of the newspaper declared jointly in 1998:
‘Our greatest strength is the authority and reputation of
The Times. We must do nothing that would undermine
or dilute it and everything possible to enhance it.’ ”
Guidelines on Our Integrity, New York Times, May 1999
Knott’s editorial would not be allowed if he worked for the N.Y. Times.
Bill Garber said it best in his posting on Aug. 15:
“Nothing here reverses Elder Knott’s faulty theology and destructive vision for the church he advocated in his earlier editorial… This is an utterly horrific position coming from an ordained church leader…”
The ambiguity that is criticized and lamented is, I believe, a result of people failing to accept that Knott was referring to people who have been uncivil, and to people who are hostile to the Seventh-day Adventist church and its organizational administration.
Since this can (and doe describe liberals and conservatives; including those who favor and those who oppose women’s ordination, it seems ambiguous because both sides want Knott to have been critical of the other side. He’s criticized for ambiguity because he was effectively critical of people on both sides.
It was a written, editorial Rorschach Test.
Typographical correction: Since this can (and does)…
OK, but who draws those lines. Is someone uncivil, or simply angry and frustrated and wanting to be heard? Some of our New Testament heroes, including Jesus and Paul, at times did things that may have been interpreted as uncivil, but were totally appropriate considering the issues being addressed. Also, is someone hostile, or simply being prophetic in speaking boldly to an organizational administration that is supposed to serve the membership and practice accountability. The tent needs to be large enough for vigorous and emotional dialogue, without calling for large scale social ostracism when the debate is intense. A democratic, non-authoritarian, and highly educated church is going to have problems it its leaders are intent on stifling intense conversation in the name of unity or faithfulness to mission.
What is hostility toward the Seventh-day Adventist Church and its organizational administration?
To some people that would mean any form of questioning of any action taken or any statement made by any member of the executive committee of the General Conference–any suggestion that there might be a better way to do or say something than the methods or language currently employed.
At the other end of the spectrum are those who think someone can only be accused of hostility toward the Seventh-day Adventist church or its organizational administration when he is impugning the motives of a member of the executive committee or referring to the organization as a daughter of the great whore.
I believe and hope that the majority of the members of our denomination live somewhere between those two extremes.
Seventh-day Adventists already have a mechanism for “marginalizing” people whose language indicates the latter of those two extremes. We simply don’t elect them to the church board. That gives them almost no say with regard to what is said and done.
When will “we” use that same mechanism to “marginalize” those at the other extreme–those who believe offering constructive criticism is a sin?
Our parents taught my siblings and me to not criticize officers unless we had suggestions about how to do things better. Do “we” “marginalize” people who have suggestions by insisting that they must implement the suggestions themselves?
Knott was deliberately obtuse which lowered the Review even further for all intelligent readers. Regardless of his intent he did far more to alienate the readers of Review which has already descended to the lowest position since its inception.
His silence in he face of all such comments expressed here only shows the exalted position of the leadership in publishing should an inflammatory editorial.
NYT is also a very biased newspaper with an agenda and not usually objective in its goals.
Roger Metzger writes wisely against marginalization. Why has Bill Knott in the Review, not apologized for his editorial?
Whenever one group of people accumulates more power than another group, the more powerful group creates an environment that places its members at the cultural center and other groups at the margins. People in the more powerful group (the “in” group) are accepted as the norm, so if you are in that group it can be very hard for you to see the benefits you receive.
Because I’m male and live in a culture in which men have more social, political, and economic power than women, I often don’t notice that women are treated differently than I am. I’m inside a male culture of power. I expect to be treated with respect, to be listened to, and to have my opinions valued. I expect to be welcomed. I expect to see people like me in positions of authority.
Those marginalized are only able to participate on unfavorable terms, at others’ discretion, which puts them at a big disadvantage. They often must give up or hide much of who they are to participate in the dominant culture. And if there are any problems it becomes very easy to identify the people on the margins as the source of those problems and blame or attack them rather than the problems themselves.
My church has much work to do to become more inclusive. NO ONE SHOULD BE MARGINALIZED.
I’ve attended about a hundred Baptist worship services in the last two years. This morning’s sermon was an example of how some people are marginalized.
Pastor Ayers knows me well, having had opportunity to read or/and study my manuscript, Abraham, Father Of the Faithful (subtitle: Who will inherit what was promised to Abraham?). He knows what my denominational affiliation is and he knows I believe it is the faithful of every nation–not just Hebrews–who will inherit what was promised to Abraham.
Today was the first time in over a month that I had attended a Baptist worship service and I think he has reason to believe that my absence has been because I don’t want to lend tacit approval to him teaching certain things.
This morning he was at it again. His reference to worshiping the Lord on Sunday didn’t need to include the phrase, “of all the days of the week”. His reference to the millennial reign didn’t need to include the phrase, “on the earth”.
Pastor Ayers is one of the least dogmatic preachers I have encountered but even he is willing to include phrases that are absolutely not essential to the proclamation of the gospel.
When an adventist pastor includes phrases with which he knows some of the members disagree, is it because he wants to encourage them to stay away?
The decline in membership is no great mystery to me.
Of course we all marginalise!
I’m a liberal, and far more than most who are branded that in sdaism – and so-called Adventist liberals in reality are mostly very conservative on the spectrum. Anything to the left of far right is “liberal”.
Yet I, as a liberal, am sympathetic to drawing the line. There are people who are very disruptive and painful are destructive to a community. There are times to draw the line. Where to draw the line is where the dilemma comes in. Bishop Ted would now have us not speak of issues around women any more. To him the case is settled. To speak out against his preferred decision is disloyalty and subversion. Others will have their lines that aren’t to be crossed. I have people in my church and life who create havoc and seek to avoid and put boundaries around for my own sanity.
The issue is how do we give people freedom and maintain healthy boundaries in our lives and churches. How do we include all in our churches and maintain a healthy church community.
I was at church the other day and chatted with someone afterwards. But there came a time when I had had enough. I didn’t want or need to hear any more from them, hear their incessant idea or interact any more. That goes on and on each week. I get overwhelmed and don’t want to have much interaction with this person. So yes, I am marginalising them to stay sane and not overwhelmed. I try to briefly connect as I can, but there is only so much I can stand for my own sanity and…
Roger, I hear you.
Every speaker has an agenda.
I have yet to hear a sermon that doesn’t include non-biblical things. Adventist has so many things that are assumed knowledge, yet they are part of an Adventist mythology. Sometimes they are things eggwhite wrote that have assumed unquestionable status (even unconsciously) or ideas that have developed in the milieu of adventism over time. Including the Uncle Arthur Bible Story version. There are things that have been read into bible stories and passages (even as simple as Daniel being vegetarian – Jews knew of no such concept. Or Esther being part of a beauty contest – when it was a series of one night stands where the king checked out sexually every one of the virgins in the extensive lineup. That’s what the bible clearly says.)
I hear every week statements by speakers and pastors that are spoken as if they are the truth, as if this is what God says or wants. Yet they are all interpretations and understandings of that person in relation to what they are talking about and referencing.
It would be far better to speak not as if it is all absolute truth, but rather a personal experience and encounter with the text and life and say this is what it means to me. This is how I experience it. Take what has meaning for you from my experience. Don’t take it as the gospel truth in everything I say.
Roger, I hear you.
Every speaker has an agenda.
I have yet to hear a sermon that doesn’t include non-biblical things. Adventist has so many things that are assumed knowledge, yet they are part of an Adventist mythology. Sometimes they are things eggwhite wrote that have assumed unquestionable status (even unconsciously) or ideas that have developed in the milieu of adventism over time. Including the Uncle Arthur Bible Story version. There are things that have been read into bible stories and passages (even as simple as Daniel being vegetarian – Jews knew of no such concept. Or Esther being part of a beauty contest – when it was a series of one night stands where the king checked out sexually every one of the virgins in the extensive lineup. That’s what the bible clearly says.)
I hear every week statements by speakers and pastors that are spoken as if they are the truth, as if this is what God says or wants. Yet they are all interpretations and understandings of that person in relation to what they are talking about and referencing.
It would be far better to speak not as if it is all absolute truth, but rather a personal experience and encounter with the text and life and say this is what it means to me. This is how I experience it. Take what has meaning for you from my experience. Don’t take it as the gospel truth in everything I say.
Incivility and hostility are admittedly somewhat like the late former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s default view of pornography; that is, we know incivility and hostility when we see it, and obviously different people can see them differently, depending on the circumstances.
The point is that Knott was not advocating that those who exhibit such conduct (in the view of a plurality?) be disfellowshipped; but that they be marginalized as a deviation from the norm (perhaps so as not to become, or be confused with, the norm); no matter what ideological or theological camp from which they’ve come, or in which they may be placed.
If this is indeed what Dr. Knott was saying, it sounds reasonable to me.
In churches as in families, what is decided is often not as important as HOW it is decided.
Institutional religion, by its very nature is hierarchical. Most people want to be told what to believe and what to do so institutional religions will always be popular.
The problem is that not everyone wants to be told what to believe and what to do. The layman who thinks of his denomination as hierarchical and wants to be told what to believe and what to do assumes that if someone doesn’t respond to dogma, it is because he is “not spiritual”. Besides, if the layman really believes that he is parroting what he has been taught, he thinks that decisions in the church are easy. Anyone who doesn’t agree with him is wrong and should be marginalized (not given equal standing within the organization).
How decisions can be made in an organization that is not hierarchical would require more than 300 words but it seems obvious to me that the reticence of the pioneers of the advent movement to create a formal organization was primarily because they thought such an organization would inevitably become hierarchical.
If the people will lead, the leaders will follow. That is more easily stated than accomplished however.
what they did to Jesus is what they’re going to do with His people who speaks the truth. History will repeat what the pharisees and church leaders did to Jesus and His disciples. Persecution starts inside our church. Sad to say, that some of our leaders abuse their position to push satan’s agenda. These people can either be “infiltrators” or influenced by the enemy’s deceptive tactics in this last day. I believe that the truth will triumph and God’s true followers, the “remnant” will come out victorious. Lord Jesus please come soon!
Since we have already been “marginalized” in the Dakota conference (where we live) for teaching against WO, for teaching that Christ came in our flesh, for teaching the “old time” sanctuary message, for teaching that victory–all things–are possible with God, for teaching that our bodies are the temple of the Lord and we have a responsibility to care for it as He says, etc, I am not at all surprised by this. I think it is becoming the new status quo. God help us!
Since we have been “marginalized”–banned from speaking in the churches of the Dakota Conference, this does not surprise me at all. Why were we banned? For teaching that Jesus came in our flesh and overcame all sin; that we can do that to by His abiding, indwelling presence; that the sanctuary message is still present truth!; that the three angel’s messages are still present truth; that the health message is still truth!; that country living is still present truth. Yep, marginalized for being SDA. This is only the beginning. The end is no longer coming….it is here. Oh brother, sister, be faithful! Soon Jesus will come! Isn’t it exciting! We get to see Jesus soon!
It is unwise to make flesh our arm, as the Bible says, in the first place. If we refuse to depend upon the Conference for our existence, then it will not even matter to us if anyone chooses to “marginalize” us. Who cares?
That’s what people get for neglecting to have their own Independent Ministries. And I mean TRULY independent from the Conference Leadership. If you depend upon them, then you ought to EXPECT that they are going to try to manipulate and control you.
This is kind of one of those “well, DUH!” things… or at least it ought to be. We are right in the middle of the Omega Apostasy. A person really only has their own self to blame if they make themselves dependent upon the Church Leadership.
Mike Cauley’s letter as quoted above states:
“However, the Florida Conference Administration views Pastor Batchelor as a polarizing influence in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This concern revolves around the subject of women’s involvement in ministry, both as local elders and pastors, and that the position that he has taught openly for several years is not in harmony with the position and policy of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
“Florida Conference continues to support the 25- to 30-year-old position of the General Conference of encouraging women to use the gifts God has given them for ministry, both as local elders and in pastoral leadership and ministry. Therefore, we discouraged Spring Meadows church from following through with the invitation to Pastor Batchelor.”
The problem is that the GC WP permits women to be ordained as local elders only when the division’s executive committee approves, & thus it explicitly permits differences in viewpoint on the ordaining of women as local elders. Women cannot serve as licensed or commissioned ministers unless they are first ordained as local elders.
On the one hand Mike Cauley states that the Florida Conference does not allow visiting evangelists to express a different viewpoint, and on the other hand the GC WP explicitly permits different viewpoints.
I think we need to go with the GC WP. For one thing, unless the division committee approval was unanimous, opinions would differ even within…
… that division committee.
I would not be at all surprised if the untoward action by Cauley will catapult AF and Pastor Batchelor into a public spotlight that may result in more souls being brought to the foot of the Cross.
This is very poor publicity for the Florida Conference and may signal that it’s time for Cauley to be replaced.
Whether ’tis better to be marginalized or homogenized : that is the question.
“Our concept of policy has always been that it is the sum of “General Conference actions voted in former sessions and Councils.”
Such a statement is not legal. Just as a statement about speeding “Our concept of policy has always been that speeding is illegal.” Such a statement is used only to fortify a tradition, not a written policy. Such a statement cannot be enforced. What is the penalty for not following a tradition?
The NPUC statement was written AFTER the G.C. (Aug.15) and does not establish that it has been voted by the division or union presidents, only that it wishes to claim tradition which was not previously stated in the corporate policy.
Let not any living hand, of minister or layman, be laid upon you with the statement, “You cannot go here, you must not go there; we shall not support you if you do not go at our bidding; or if you do not give yourself to the work of bringing souls into the truth in some certain place designated by us.” God will bless you as you continue to search for lost souls in out-of-the-way places.1
Shall the “regular lines”, which say that every mind shall be controlled by two or three minds at Battle Creek, continue to bear sway? The Macedonian cry is coming from every quarter. Shall men go to the “regular lines” to see whether they will be permitted to labor, or shall they go out and work as best they can, depending on their own abilities and on the help of the Lord, beginning in a humble way and creating an interest in the truth in places in which nothing has been done to give the warning message?
Bill Knott’s comments are chilling. We must “systematically exclude” those that are “hostile to our life together.” Sounds like blackballing to me. These comments were shocking to me: So what should the good Adventist do? Here is Dr. Knott’s solution: “So here’s a call to shut our ears, protect our pulpits, change the channel, and withhold our dollars from those of whatever ideological camp who practice the uncivil and unrighteous behaviors we witnessed before San Antonio. Yes, move them to the margins; draw the boundaries of our community in such a way that only repentance and changed behavior will again allow them full inclusion. It falls to the body of Christ to defend itself when it is under attack from foes without—or within.” This is ludicrous! “uncivil and unrighteous behaviors”?? He fails to realize that many, many people agree with Doug Batchelor’s opinion on WO. Should those of us who agree with him be excluded from the church?
Alarming and disheartening to read the frontrunner of Adventist publications in the last days talking about deliberate marginalizing of people who loves the Lord and expresses their conviction passionately. I see neither a clear “thus saith the Lord” nor inferential principle in the Bible about Bill’s critically judgmental call to action. I do not see Jesus extolled and glorified through this editorial that professedly rely on God’s power for circulation. “Does it reflect the character and spirit of Jesus,” is a question we ought to constantly ask. If I may offer an alternative, unsolicited, call to action… that Bill find himself on his knees searching his soul before the presence of our loving Father. Finding peace in the midst of differing opinions and avoiding unspiritual judgment is a dire need as true revival and unity in the church today. I proclaim blessing to the Lord’s cause… and to his publication, the Adventist Review. Hope no more editorials of this sort is ever released again.
sound like alot of pope ism going on here
Consider these words carefully, please:
“If we are to be a church that
contributes meaningfully to the
ongoing discourse about
JUSTICE in all forms, we must be
a church that celebrates,
embraces, and is the
MARGINALIZED. If you are fearful
of becoming marginalized, you
are part of the problem.”
–Diana Anderson
If my destiny is to be MARGINALIZED
by brother Bill Knott of the Review,
then so be it. I will wear it as a
badge of honor.
Email him today and let him know
that his marginalization of you is
welcomed > revieweditor@gc.adventist.org
I am now sure he was talking about those who spread rumors as well as those dividing the church, primarily right-wing “historic” adventists and those who oppose any progress that would help the western countries evangelize.
Apparently my post didn’t go through. I am now convinced that Dr. Knott was referring to those who are dividing the church in western countries. These are primarily ultraconservative voices keeping the church from progressing in evangelism in these countries. (There is no sign it was the “liberals” so breathe easy!)
Sorry EM, but our editor of the Review needs to be aacountable to a Higher standard. His ambiguity was a glaring mistake.
An editor polishes and refines, he directs the focus of the story or article or movie along a particular course. Brother Knotts’s ministry revolves around the larger calling to communicate clearly. Mean what you say what you mean. His role should cut out what doesn’t fit, what is nonessential to the purpose of the story. His job is to convey meaning and understanding. He enhances the major points, drawing attention to places where the audience should focus. A task common to all editors is that they try to ensure that the product they produce is the best it can be in the time available and with the resources available.
Brother Bill Knott’s ambiguity in his editorial, in using the term “marginality”, is not responsible journalism. Although people are sometimes said to be ambiguous in how they use language, ambiguity is, strictly speaking, a property of linguistic expressions. A word, phrase, or sentence is ambiguous if it has more than one meaning. Obviously this definition does not say what meanings are or what it is for an expression to have one (or more than one). The editor’s job is to see that interesting and/or informative articles are produced in a timely and accurate manner, with no factual errors and few writing errors. Using ambiguity as to what you mean is not responsible writing. You can’t be ALL things to ALL people!
Why would anyone want to stay in a church they believe God is not leading? If all who don’t believe God’s Holy Spirit led in the vote at GC & the re-election of TW would just leave our church and start a new one with all the intellectual minds they have, surely they could establish a better one than the one they are constantly trying to tear apart because the voice of the majority minds aren’t as knowledgeable as theirs? Could it be that somewhere in these superior minds that they believe they must remain an SDA in order to be saved (even if in name only), just in case Jesus did establish it as His remnant church? yet life and work in it like Congregationalists? I am so thankful to be a part of this onward & upward moving church, that while there are many Babylonians in it it is not Babylon, while its members may dwindle (even though it is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world), & even at times seem like it is going to fall. We’d better be careful lest we commit blasphemous rebellion, acting as if we know more or better than God how to LEAD His church, as if He can’t control the HEAD of the work til He returns. It’s we the BODY who better search our own hearts to see if we are still in the WAY, or giving head to “seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils”. I am so thankful for God’s grace that drew me back in such a wonderful CHASTISING way. May I be a builder-upper of His church. As for me: If I could be reborn so I can be a “husband”, I may be…
Why would someone remain in a church they believe God is not leading? I think that’s an overstatement of the issue, which may be better described as disagreeing with a decision while retaining belief in the basic doctrines. The ordination of women IS NOT a fundamental belief and I think the opposition to it is clear evidence of how wrong-headed people can become when they are failing to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Will God overcome? Absolutely. Church leaders have made wrong decisions in the past and God has overcome them more than once. My belief in the basic doctrines has not changed and I will not allow the current level of passion in argument change that. So my greater and more immediate challenge is whether those who insist on continuing to war against those who favor the ordination of women will allow others to minister within the church as God has been leading, or whether the passion of their war against fellow believers will do far greater damage to the church.
ordained as an elder or minister, and it will be according to God’s word, since I believe Paul was led by the Holy Spirit, and knew exactly what word to use. So, by God’s wonderful grace, until He comes or lays me to sleep, I will keep overcoming by His blood, and the word of my testimony, for no one can argue with that…Well, on second thought: there are some who argue about anything and with anyone (even with God Himself, at times – I’ve been guilty), but then others tried with Jesus too, so why would I or they be any different? What I should have said was: “No one can take my testimony FROM me.” And I praise Him for that! We must keep asking God for His love to abide in our hearts, especially when it comes to how we treat each other. Many of you do, but there is a coldness here from the words of some. Remember: We all took a vow before God that we believe He established this wonderful church on His word, and through the Spirit of Prophecy. If we change our minds, and stay in the church we are Seventh-day Adventists in name only. We may only truly be a Seventh-day Adventist by conviction, not culture, and God’s word does show us the dividing line, if we just don’t try to take things out of context, and read things into it that just are not there. Maybe Bill Knott was speaking to both sides, and even to his own heart? We need to give him a chance to explain. I wonder how many of you have applied Matthew 18, and contacted him before you came here…
Martha Ledbetter on August 25, 2015 at 5:15 am said:
“… would just leave our church and start a new one…”
Martha, Martha, you are troubled by so many things! Many others have chosen a different path from yours, and no one, not even you, can take it away from them!
1. Stop everything and get a hold of this book an read it!
Jim Griffith & Bill Easum. Ten Most Common Mistakes Made By New Church Starts. Chalice Press, 2008. (122 pages, simple, short, and easy reading
2. Think, what would Jesus do? Read Matthew 5 and 6 carefully…
3. Pray, what does God want me to do for my brothers and sisters who do not agree with me.
4. Consider Peter, the disciple’s reaction after the transfiguration event,–why not cut out everyone else and we three stay here together–it doesn’t work that way.
5. Remember that starting a new church, as you have suggested, is a process of experimentation, innovation, and replication, but always within the realities of the mission field of how it’s responding.
Church Purification 101, number one rule, let it begin with me!
Neglecting the Great Commandment in Pursuit of the Great Commission
Church planting is a spiritual enterprise that can only be effectively accomplished by deeply spiritual people.
Sam, Sam, why do you wish Mary to work; instead of doing the things necessary, to sit at HIS feet and hear HIS word? Why are we constantly discriminated against as the majority in your attempt to impose your opinion on everyone else?
It seemed to me; Martha was politely telling you and those like you to go start you own Church. I would suggest the Bible, but if you want to use the book you suggested; have at it.
Many are starting to feel uncomfortable with you and those like you around their families? Why do you neglect the First and Great Commandment? Why are you your own idol and teach such? Are you paid to be a stumbling block to the Church? You cannot serve two masters; only THE ONE.
No one can figure out why you think you have a horse in this race. The Bible, the Church, the vast majority (male and female) and the vote do not agree with your opinions, actions or continuance. Are we all wrong because we believe in HIS PLAN?
In response to “Concerned Christian” on August 29, 2015 at 5:04 pm said:
1. “Sam, Sam, why do you wish Mary to work; instead of doing the things necessary, to sit at HIS feet and hear HIS word?”
ALL 3 ATE AND LATER DID DISHES1
2. “Why are we constantly discriminated against as the majority in your attempt to impose your opinion on everyone else?”
“LET YOUR LIGHT SHINE BEFORE OTHERS’ MATT. 5:16
3. “It seemed to me; Martha was politely telling you and those like you to go start you own Church. I would suggest the Bible, but if you want to use the book you suggested; have at it.”
DREAM ON, MY #1 BOOK IS THE BIBLE
4. “Many are starting to feel uncomfortable with you and those like you around their families?”
AND SO MANY MORE ARE FRIENDS, BORTHERS AND SISTERS
5. “Why do you neglect the First and Great Commandment? Why are you your own idol and teach such?”
“THE LORD IS THE STRONHOLD OF MY LIFE” PSALM 27:1
6. “Are you paid to be a stumbling block to the Church?”
I DON’T EVEN GET A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO AT!
7. “No one can figure out why you think you have a horse in this race. The Bible, the Church, the vast majority (male and female) and the vote do not agree with your opinions, actions or continuance.”
“…YOU SHALL HAVE GREAT SUCCESS…” JOSHUA 1:8
8. “Are we all wrong because we believe in HIS PLAN?
IF YOU ARE ASKING ME, AN INFIDEL (BY YOUR DEFINITION)YOU MUST NOT BE SO SURE OF WHERE YOU ARE STANDING.
ACTUALLY YOUR…
Sam, you kind of rattle around here.
I thought you were a Chaplin; authorized and sanctioned through the Church. Maybe you are paid by the nonprofit?
No within Love you are not an infidel; more like “Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth”.
You need to have the Bible, actually read and live by it to have great success. Right now all you do is scare us even more with your theatrics.
Maybe you can ask HIM to teach you HIS ways and HE will be you light and your salvation; (stronhold).
And again; what are you trying to have great success at?
Concerned Christian on August 29, 2015 at 6:45 pm said: “Sam, you kind of rattle around here…”
I BELIEVE YOU ARE CAPABLE ENOUGH AND HONEST EMOUGH WITH YOUR IDEAS THAT YOU CAN ACCEPT THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENT FOR BEING FAIR TO WOMEN AND RESPECTING THEIR CALLING TO BE ORDAINED AS MINISTERS JUST AS I AM.
“I thought you were a Chaplin; authorized and sanctioned through the Church. Maybe you are paid by the nonprofit?…”
SO, FOLLOWING YOUR LOGIC IT’S REALLY ABOUT…WHO PAYS MY SALARY AS FAR AS DOING THE RIGHT THING. MY EMPLOYER DOES NOT DICTATE MY CONVICTIONS…MY CREDENTIALS ARE NOT MY CONSCIENCE.
“And again; what are you trying to have great success at?”
THE SAME AS JOSHUA IN THE BIBLE, JOSHUA 1:8, AT OBEYING GOD’S COMMANDS AND ISTRUCTIONS.
IFYOU ARE “CONCERNED” AND AS YOU LABEL YOURSELF “CHRISTIAN” WHY NOT DO THE RIGHT THING AND FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST WHO TREATS US ALL WITH THE SAME RESPECT AND LOVE?
I LOVE YOU BRO!
But Sam, we can read:
Revelations 2:7 “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.”
We can read 1 Timothy 2 and 3 within sound Doctrine and see what and why.
15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
We understand the Spirit will teach and bring all things into remembrance:
26 “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
We see the word of CHRIST in creating a strong house in Matthew 12, Mark 3, Luke 11 and others.
You reference Joshua 1:8 in keeping the LAW and plead BIBLICAL argument; here is ours:
1 Corinthians 11:3 “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”
1 Corinthians 14:”34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
Are they preaching at home? Would you like to build against this or…
How is your endless arguing over such a minor issue building the church? It doesn’t because all it does is divide and polarize. How does condemnation of others for their views on a topic that isn’t even a church doctrine build-up their faith and draw them into a closer relationship with our loving savior? It doesn’t because it reflects the character of Satan instead of Jesus. Your incessant whipping of others over the issue of the ordination of women reveals the shallowness impotence of your faith when we have far larger issues on which to focus our attention, issues like experiencing, celebrating and reflecting the love of our redeemer.
William, the reply was not to you. Are you not the one continuing? This is not a minor issue; perhaps would you instead like to explain away the verses presented.
Are you unable to read or understand the concepts?
Colossians 2: “16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.”
You were rebuked within sympathy and simplicity of the Body already child. We will correct that which needs correction; within protection of the Body.
Our FATHER is tolerant and patient; as are we. We are unable to think of how HE will take these matters into HIS HANDS; well less do anything that would compare or even add to. We turned it over to HIM. HE stated VENGEANCE IS MINE.
Again in total, unless you hit your knee to the ground, loose william and find HIM; we do not want you around our families or children. Is that clear.
Concerned Christian,
Thank you for removing any doubts I might have had about the nature of the spirit of condemnation that is in you. I explain away nothing, but simply appear to have had a very different experience with God than you have had, one that makes me want to nurture faith in others and love God because of the greatness of who and what He is. If I need illustration of why so many of our churches in North America are not growing and even shrinking and dying I need only refer to your postings.
William, you are unable to explain anything; that is the problem. We understand that structure, discipline, rebuke and authority are unknown concepts to you; but it is the biggest part of Love. Rebuke is in the BIBLE 78 times, many times listed as commands; a requirement of conviction. We understand that you have not witnessed a pastor (or anyone else) perform such; but should have been happening all along. Many areas of the US and other Countries fail in such requirement.
This is the reason for the current failure; look around you. Children think they can do anything and then justify it. We would not be placed in this position if parents, pastors and all involved would have done their jobs and taught; in and about Love. HIS Love; not our derived ideas in such.
We Love you and think there is Hope.
Concerned Christian,
Knowing a person is the basis for rebuke and correction. But you don’t know me, so you are without scriptural basis for attempting to rebuke or correct me or anyone else in this forum. Your words are not loving, so what fantasy is causing you to think you are loving someone when you are attacking them as you persist in doing? No, I think you are delusional because you’re obviously far more familiar with the letter of the law than the love of God.
2 Timothy 4:
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
This is the first time that you post without promoting your individual ideologies, bad mouthing the Church or attempting to justify such. In Faith there is always Hope.
You are known your actions. We converse here, no differently than anywhere else. You mention that you were physically and mentally abused in childhood by your parents. Is this the reason or the self justification for your involvement in interfering with correction and protections of others?
CHRIST said in Love to teach the law in Matthew 5:
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Time to grow up and get over whatever “it” is.
Concerned Christian,
You suggest that I “get over whatever it is.” Please practice what you preach and get over the issue of the ordination of women. It isn’t a fundamental belief. A group of the church’s best scholars have published research showing there is no scriptural basis for rejecting it. Plus, it was amazing how quickly the opponents of WO adopted “male headship theology” as the basis for their arguments when the New Testament gives us a solid foundation for rejecting it and the gifts of the Holy Spirit are given regardless of race, gender, nationality of social status. So your theology is at least highly questionable, if not utterly refuted and supporting it is not an indication a person is misled or disobeying God. Yet you persist in throwing Bible verses at others whom you don’t know and claiming Divine authorization to rebuke them. The result of your continual attacks is just creating offense when we need to be letting the matter rest and finding ways to heal. Worst of all, your “rebukes” make a mockery of the process of redemption.
So, please, get over WO, learn some Bible-based theology and quit attacking the people you’re supposed to be lifting-up.
1 Timothy 2:
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1 Timothy 3:
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1 Corinthians 14:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
We are not stupid; we are able to read. We are not simple, nor do we rely on the interpretation of children; such is not allowed. For unto whom much is given, of him much shall be required; our responsibilities and commandments are also not removed by children.
Some of the vast theology from the BIBLE around this issue is listed above; for you to easily read and disprove. You egress; the responsibility is yours. We are commanded by HIM, not you; and take this very seriously.
You still have not provided proof of your standing or foundation. We are all one in CHRIST as heirs to the promise; not outside the promise.
If we’re truly “one in Christ,” your unrelenting attacks on others makes me doubt that you’ve ever met the same Jesus who changed my life and gave me a ministry that is bringing people into saving relationships with Him. My church is growing because God is using the ministry He has given me to do it so it is clear your attacks are not inspired by Him. Jesus came to show us His great love for us and nowhere in scripture will you find Him criticizing those who had been injured by sin and the legalism of the Jewish leaders. Only after a relationship has been established is it possible to rebuke or correct someone and when a person falls in love with Him it is amazing how many problems He solves without a word from us. If you want to be effective for God you need to stop lobbing rebukes and correction at people you don’t even know and let God teach you how to love the people you do know.
The Adventist left has moved so far extreme left that inevitably the middle has been dragged further left with the issue of WO providing evidence of this. Dr Knott should be careful what he wishes for – in that I won’t be surprised if he himself will be marginalised for moving left in his support for WO and to a larger extent the AR itself. This would include theologians, pastors and church leaders who support WO. As for incivility and hostility, this is quite relative and is subject to interpretation due to the fact that Dr Knott’s call for marginalisation itself can be perceived by some as incivility and hostility for what it’s worth.
On the matter of liberals vs conservatives, the women’s ordination question can not appropriately be ascribed to either “side” of the equation at this time. I spoke with a number of individuals at GC time who could hardly be described as “liberal,” yet they saw virtue in the ordination of pastoral women. The assumption among those who see answers to important questions as always “liberal” or “conservative” is that people blindly follow the dictates of their political persuasion or personality, when in fact a lot of people are thinking things through far more carefully than many imagine. The idea that one’s vote will usually reflect a certain pre-selected point of view also assumes that people simply do not think, or refuse to think outside the box, on these questions. The fact is they do think in nuanced ways, and as levels of education rise across the globe, the capacity for independent thought seems to be definitely on the rise….making it more and more difficult to simply “blame things on the liberals or conservatives.”
I do not see great flux, at this time, in liberals moving further left, or conservatives moving further right. By and large I see that our extremists have gotten about as far as they can within the confines of our denomination, and moving beyond those walls simply moves them out of the church and on to something else. Call it “self-marginalization” if you will.
Reading these posts is frustrating and painful. I spend very little time anymore reading threads like these. How sad that many in North America don’t see us or our message as unique anymore. The WO issue was nothing more than another attempt by the enemy to keep us off balance and from doing what we’re supposed to be doing. Proclaining the three angels messages of Revelation 14:6-12. Notice how active the new Pope is for establishing Sunday worship? Notice how few in North America are talking about this in the churches? Satan is currently winning in North America. He is an ultimately defeated foe. I wonder how long he will fool those members/leaders in the NAD? WAKE UP BROTHERS AND SISTERS. You must re-focus at this time and stop allowing yourselves from being distracted. God bless. Maranatha.
Frank Webb on September 5, 2015 at 5:29 am said:
“Reading these posts is frustrating and painful. I spend very little time anymore reading threads like these. How sad that many in North America don’t see us or our message as unique anymore. The WO issue was nothing more than another attempt by the enemy to keep us off balance and from doing what we’re supposed to be doing. Proclaining the three angels messages of Revelation 14:6-12…”
Frank, if this is what you believe and feel then STOP READING Revelation 14:6-12 and START STUDYING (as in Nehemiah 8:8) these verses. These verses are telling you correctly what to believe and obey. Study and read carefully verse 12, it says clearly: “Here is the patience of the saints, here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
The faith of Jesus is to reveal the character of God in all of our dealings on this earth. The Bible teaching on equality and justice coming from God and revealing his true character to me is, is just as important as any other of God’s teaching.
Ordaining women as we do men, when it is appropriate, is fair, consistent, and “keeps the faith of Jesus.”
Anything that causes you “frustrating and painful” moments needs to be examined more completely. No pain no gain when it comes to our journey on this earth.
Why would we stop reading Revelations, or anything in the BIBLE for that matter.
1 Timothy 2:”12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
1 Timothy 3:
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
The commands are pretty explicit. We have examined frustration and pain you create, per your request. Explain why you wish to remove HIS authority and replace it with yours. Explain why HE should allow you to continue to create extremely frustrating and painful eternities for those you deceive?
Concerned Christian on September 7, 2015 at 3:24 am said:
“Why would we stop reading Revelations, or anything in the BIBLE for that matter”
STUDYING the Bible is on a different more profound level. Too many are just reading quickly to vindicate their ideas. STUDYING begins with careful and prayerful reading of the word of God. It includes reflecting and being led by the Holy Spirit. As a “concerned Christian” your use of scripture in responding to others and in posting blogs reacting to what you think others have said is missing the mark of understanding. If you study (Nehemiah 8:8) and pray, you might understand others like me much better.
Nehemiah 8:8 “So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” I read, pray and see the verses I quoted above; displayed for you to present your interpretation. Provide your interpretations, prophesy or whatever you wish to call it. Is it tooooo much to as for “your” individual interpretation or guidance of the scripture above; since you approach, egress and wish to impose upon Sound Doctrine and GOD’s PLAN? We keep waiting for your disproof. Are you unable to provide such? It is in the BIBLE for a reason; nothing added or taken away.
I am away for a while protecting your physical and financial security for a while and will await your response.
If you and I were studying Nehemiah 8:8 in my office at home, we would begin with prayer and carefully, slowly, read the text before preceding to other resources, (commentaries, EGW, a variety of Bible versions in English and Spanish etc.)
SETTING AND CONTEXT-WHO, WHAT WHEN, WHERE? BACKGROUND
The subject of ויּאמרוּ is the assembled people. These requested, through their rulers, that Ezra should fetch the book of the law of Moses, and publicly read it. This reading, then, was desired by the assembly. The motive for this request is undoubtedly to be found in the desire of the congregation to keep the new moon of the seventh month, as a feast of thanksgiving for the gracious assistance they had received from the Lord during the building of the wall, and through which it had been speedily and successfully completed, in spite of the attempts of their enemies to obstruct the work.
MOTIVE-WHAT ARE THE MEANINGS, IDEAS, THEMES IN THE TEXT?
This feeling of thankfulness impelled them to the hearing of the word of God for the purpose of making His law their rule of life. The assembly consisted of men and women indiscriminately (אשּׁה ועד אישׁ, like Joshua 6:21; Joshua 8:25; 1 Samuel 22:19; 1 Chronicles 16:3), and לשׁמע מבין כּל, every one that understood in hearing.
APPLICATION/CONTEXT
How do these verses apply to us?
We would SHARE our understandings without any imposition of ideas on each other. I would serve you a meal and we would pray together in fellowship.
In Joshua6:21 and 8:25 and Samuel 22:19 the assembly was destroyed (very indiscriminately); All of Jericho died, even the animals. All of Ai died 12,000 men and women. All of Nob was smote and all died, including animals.
In 1 Chronicles 16:3 everyone got a loaf of bread, and a good piece of flesh, and a flagon of wine.
You are saying you want to kill us all and have a feast?
Come on, you did not explain the verses presented in alternate. We still await (but I do have to leave in a bit).
Try this for some “sound doctrine.”
Nowhere in scripture can you find any command for the followers of Jesus to obsessively discuss and endlessly debate prophecy, yet that is what many do. Instead, the greatest wish of Jesus was that His followers would be united with Him so closely in the Holy Spirit that we would be transformed and He could trust us enough to promise that He would do whatever we ask.
Yes, the study of God’s law in Nehemiah led to revival where the people who claimed to be His people had fallen away and knew little of Him or His ways. Scripture promises that the Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL truth, so there must be more “truth” for us to discover than just what is recorded in scripture. So, why should we be satisfied with staying at the starting point in our life race and just study the Law when we can be learning far more directly from God?
In Acts, those who believed on Jesus received the gift of the Holy Spirit and the church grew as a result of their ministry using His power. Have you received the gift of the Holy Spirit? Are you seeing the church grow as a result of your ministry? I think not because people who express the attitudes you have stated here many times are typically those driving people out of the church. So I think it’s time for you to become an actual believer by letting God be right instead of you, surrendering your will to Him and learning to minister in the power of the Holy Spirit.
The Jesuits among us have deemed this time as urgent and in collaboration with the Pope’s move to promote Sunday worship, they are making their mark to cause a division in the Remnant Church. Time for Jeroboam to take the 10 tribes up north and make for them a golden calf to bow down to, elect men of the basest kind as Elders, way to go Bill knotts, Don Jackson, Mike Cauley etal. I would love to see the foundation of your faith, point out to me where Christ life on earth included this time of marginalization.
Your assignment of a heinous label-at least I assume by the way you use the word Jesuit, that you think it is heinous- betrays a level of disrespect that leads me to think that a response would be wasted. This response is for those who may try to understand that although one doesn’t see the Pope as an evil force, there may be reasonable explanations for it. As I have read the Pope’s comments on the value of observing a Sunday “Sabbath,” he put it in the context of helping to slow the frenetic pace of modern life. I find this interesting and possibly helpful especially in the context of the recent assignment of Loma Linda as a “blue zone.” One of the explanations given for the longevity of many of the citizens of Loma Linda is the SDA custom of setting aside a 24 hour period weekly when the usual focuses and activities of every day life are forgotten. As Adventists, we have been primed to fear that the Catholic Church will spearhead a movement to deny us of our rights to worship on Saturday. I understand this. I just don’t agree that it is likely. The Pope was not talking in terms of a denial of rights.
The religious climate in America as Mrs. White was doing her writings was hostile to Catholics. Protestant churches were wary because of past wrongs and possibly by the observation that Vatican ! (in the 1860s) worked in some ways to concentrate papal power. In my opinion it is no longer necessary to hold on to hurt and defensive feelings based on our church history.
Who needs Jesuits when we have purists who are accusing fellow Adventist of “not adhering to sound doctrine” and similar? Who spout theory about how to grow the church but can’t produce results showing that God is blessing what they advocate? Who won’t lift a finger to show others how to do what they shout and scream we should be doing? Why are you concerned about Jesuits when we already have a large number of such people in the church in North America? Claiming Jesuits is a distraction, a canard Satan is using to keep us from seeing our need to unite with the Holy Spirit and work as He directs instead of chasing spiritual theories.
Concerned Christian on September 7, 2015 at 10:52 am said:
“You are saying you want to kill us all and have a feast?”
Consider this note from the FSB on that same verse, Acts 2:42:
“The early church’s fellowship is evidenced by their communal meals. In such a case, their unity focused on the person and work of Jesus” (emphasis mine).
Eating together does a number of things:
It forces us to slow down.
It allows us to provide and care for each other.
It lets us share our homes in a more personal way.
It creates opportunities for casual conversation. You know how valuable it is to have other perspectives as you study Scripture, why not soak in other perspectives about life?
Or, this can also be a more focused time to discover how we can pray for each other.
While eating dinner with some friends a while back, someone asked: “If God said to you, ‘I’ll change one thing about you right now—whatever you want,’ what would you ask him to change?” We each went around the table sharing some of our deepest insecurities—the things we are constantly aware of in the back of our minds. When we were done sharing, my friend said, “Thanks guys, now I know how I can be praying for you.”
The question slipped into our casual conversation so naturally that our responses were genuine glimpses into our hearts, not canned answers served up for formal occasions.
“Concerned Christian could learn a lot about people when you take the time to eat together.
Randy polk, Bless you Brother for finding your lost love. Praise our Lord, not wanting a single soul to be left behind.
Keep your eyes upon Jesus. Let nothing, hell or high water,
seperate you from GOD’s love and grace.
Shame on Bill Knotts! These type of articles make me want to cancel my Review & Hearld subscription, so many rebellious articles as this~ As a Floridian, I am ashamed of belonging to the Florida Conference after the actions taken against Doug Batchelor and Amazing Facts. I was raised a Catholic, but left when I learned true Bibical truths as found in the Bible and the teachings of the SDA Church. What Mike Cauley did in going to the Spring Meadows Church to have Doug Batchelor and Amazing Facts shut down and thrown out of Florida disgusted me. I thought I had left the Catholic Church and the Pope many years ago, but now I’m left wondering in the Florida Conference…