Reflections on A Call for Unity
by Mark A. McCleary
The church is one body with many members, called from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. In Christ, we are a new creation; distinctions of race, culture, learning, and nationality, and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation. (Rom. 12:4, 5; 1 Cor. 12:12-14; Ps. 133:1; 2 Cor. 5:16, 17; Acts 17:26, 27; Col.3:10-15; Eph. 4:14-16; John 17:20-23). (footnote 1)
The paragraph above is the 14th of our 28 Fundamental Beliefs. Just as the Sabbath commandment is in the middle of the Decalogue to show its central importance, so this statement on unity is placed in the middle of our Fundamental Beliefs. The statement reflects Jesus’ prayer for mankind before he went to the cross, “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are” (John 17:11 KJV).
After the 60th Session of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist in San Antonio, I wrote an article entitled “After the Alamo and Back Again”, wherein I made metaphorical reference to Santa Anna calling for centralist Mexican control and Texan revolutionaries acting to appropriate their rights. I used this metaphor to express my view that the our church’s hidden underbelly of structural racism, ministry marginalization, and male supremacy were the primary mitigating factors against organizational unity. In that article, I said that re-elected President Ted Wilson’s plea for unity before the “big” vote during that session might be viewed as political rhetoric if it isn’t followed up with substantive grass-roots expressions of social unity, rooted in humility and grounded in love.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church could learn from our Protestant cousins, The African Methodist Episcopal (AME), AME Zion, and Christian (aka Colored) Methodist Episcopal (CME) congregations, who struggled with disunity within their former parent affiliation, the white-led Methodist Church. Growing out of the leadership of George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, and John and Charles Wesley, Methodism was once the leading Protestant denomination in America. But intra-church disunity gave rise to ecclesiastical revolutionaries such as Richard Allen (AME, Philadelphia, 1794); John Jamison Moore (AME Zion, New York, 1796); and the Christian Methodist Episcopal church of Jackson, Tennessee (1870). (footnote 2)
I believe that the same spirit that laid siege to the Methodist Church is eating away at any significant unity in the Adventist Church.
Near the close of business at the end of the session, a “Question of Privilege” was offered by a delegate who serves as a Vice President of the North American Division (NAD). He suggested taking a moment of silence for solidarity with the people of the Emanuel AME church in, Charleston, SC, where a gunman had shot nine unarmed people who were attending a Wednesday night Bible study. (This occurred the day after South Carolina Governor Haley had said of the Confederate flag, “This flag, while an integral part of our past, does not represent the future of our great state.”) A Question of Privilege comes under parliamentary rules as a privileged motion and interrupts everything except a vote in process. It requires recognition by the chair, who in this instance asked “Didn’t someone say something about that this morning?” The chair’s casual response to the motion, and thus to events that had shocked and polarized our nation, is similar to an attitude exhibited on a previous occasion, when a newly elected president of a regional conference asked the previous NAD President if, during morning worship, they could pray for the newly elected 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama. The request was denied with the retort, “You pray for him.” These attitudes seem to be emblematic of the attitudes of upper-level Adventist administrators. These attitudes do not express unity and should be corrected, along with the “white flight” which has led to the shrinking urban presence of white congregations in the United States.
Adventism was under siege before our General Conference session in the shadow of the Alamo. Our climactic vote against women’s ordination cannot hide our intra-Church disharmony, disharmony that stems from insensitivity, an exclusive mindset, and deafness to both internal voices and external friends who want the church to succeed. The continual dysfunctional attitude and aloof behavior of too many members contributes to my distress that our church continues to maintain a ‘good old boys’ segregationist spirit. Such behavior betrays unctuous motivations that swim in the depths of human subconsciousness as forgotten sea monsters. These monsters have hampered the unity President Wilson called for in his statement as a delegate before the women’s ordination vote, and in his final Sabbath sermon.
We could learn from the white Methodists who did not fully include its black members, or the Assemblies of God denomination (founded 1914), which developed a segregationist discourse even after receiving its ecclesiastical endorsement from its Holiness parent movement, the Church of God in Christ (COGIC, 1907), which had been led by a Black man, Charles Mason. (footnote 3)
This is relevant to President Wilson’s call for unity, because it relates to Adventism at the social level. It is what early black Adventist pioneers such as John Mann, J.K. Humphrey, and Louis Sheafe battled with, and our gifted female clergy struggle against today: embracing our message while struggling against Adventist leadership insensitivity, non-inclusion, and Jim Crowism (Morgan, 2010). If the late Earl E. Cleveland, or Charles D. Brooks, both former field secretaries, were able to address these issues, they could testify of first-hand segregation in the old General Conference lunchroom and office space. Perhaps the reader might then better grasp my reflections and understand the urgency of my reflections on unity.
We can learn from the poor social interactions that led to the Battle of the Alamo that honest communication that includes all of our diverse voices must be encouraged, listened to and responded to according to the principles of recognition and empowerment. Every Seventh-day Adventist should be encouraged to express the Three Angel’s Messages in their own way. Let not Church leaders and local stakeholders demand, or even hint, that people stop clapping or involving their body in affirmation or worship (Psalms 150) or marginalize them from certain ministries because of their gender.
In conclusion, I suggest, first, that our church push forward in the spirit of the Sixteen Points Program (footnote 4) and not retreat or succumb to fragmented egalitarianism which is the obverse of Paul’s idea of kingdom unity (Galatians 3:27-29). Such pushing empowers rather than excludes any of our members or potential members from leadership positions, at the local or upper levels of administration. We have lingering matters that are related to the women’s ordination issue of General Conferences of the past, that in many ways supersede it and demand immediate attention if President Wilson’s appeal for unity is to be realized.
A second suggestion is that our dear president, as our spiritual high priest, stand like a tree planted by the rivers of righteousness and social justice and speak against the inertia of white flight, by challenging the white descendants of our founding pioneers to practice Jesus’ prayer that we be one even as He and His Father are one (John 17:22)—in the city and the suburbs, in all thirteen divisions, in the lives of men and women, young and old. Remind these descendants and their offspring that to be unified means to emulate Paul’s model of inclusion rather than uniformity (Rom. 12; 1 Cor.12; and Eph. 4). If our churches do not practice inclusion and empowerment, how can we reach “every nation, kindred, tongue and people”?
Stories say that the Sabbath was being observed in Africa long before white missionaries showed up. White missionaries did not invent, nor were they the exclusive arbiters of, biblically grounded religious expression. Research has shown that Africans were shocked when white European missionaries came with Sunday worship. (footnote 5) (Mark Finley tells of being called the “Sunday white man” by the Ghanaian people until he confessed he was “Saturday white man.”(footnote 6)) This is evidence that diverse Adventist cultures have valid ways of seeking and sharing Present Truth without sacrificing its essence, or their ethnic, cultural, or gender differences.
May we in the true sense of unity, but not uniformity, work with President Wilson, encouraging every conference worker and pastoral leader to preach, teach, and exhort unity that rubs shoulders with people different from one’s self while not winking at or tacitly supporting behaviors of disharmony, disparity, and disassociation. Present truth is not for men over women (Gen.1:26-28) or the suburbs over the urban, or First World spaces over the globally marginalized and exploited, but a message and movement that promotes and practices justice for “every nation, kindred, tongue and people.” Maranatha! Even so come Lord of Unity and help us make our President’s appeal a reality by solving social disharmony and not behave as if we are at the Alamo again.
Footnotes
2. William W. Sweet, Methodism in American History (New York: Methodist Book Concerns), 31-34; Frederick A. Norwood, The Story of American Methodism (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1974), 20-21.
3. Anqunnet Fusllier, ed., “The Divine Origins of Church of God in Christ,” The Corner stone (1985), 32-33.
4. Jacob Justice, 150-151. This action grew out of discussion about structuring divisions in the early 1900’s. The deliberations prompted further discussion concerning union and regional [black] conferences, including a proposal for black unions. This affirmative action plan was initially voted for a two-year experimental period, as way of addressing racial injustice in the church.
5. Charles E. Bradford, Sabbath Roots: The African Connection, L. Brown and Sons Printing, 1999), 87-119.
6.This was reported (February 2015) by Pastor Sednak Yankson, NE Conference ordained pastor and Ghanaian during his Black history lecture presentation at the Liberty SDA church, Windsor Mill, MD. He was a contributor to Sabbath Roots: The African Connection.
Bibliography
Bradford, Charles E. (1999). Sabbath Roots: The African Connection, L. Brown and Sons Printing, 1999.
Fusllier, Anqunnet, ed., “The Divine Origins of Church of God in Christ,” The Corner stone (1985): 32-33.
Justice, Jacob (1975). Angels in Ebony, Toledo, OH: Jet Printing Service.
Morgan, Doug (2010). Lewis Sheafe: Apostle to Black America. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald.
Norwood, Fredrick A. The Story of American Methodism: A History of the United Methodist and their Relations. Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1974.
Reynold, Louis, B. (1984). We Have Tomorrow: The Story of American Seventh-day Adventists with an African Heritage. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association.
Scott, Robert (2000). After the Alamo. Plano, TX: Republic of Texas Press.
Sweet, William W. (1933). Methodism in American History. New York: Methodist Book Concerns.
Mark McCleary is the senior pastor of the Liberty Seventh-day Adventist Church in Windsor Mill, MD. He’s earned a D.Min from Palmer Theological Seminary, and Ph.D. in Conflict Analysis from Nova Southeastern University. He and his wife Queenie have been married for over 40 years, and have three grown children. Dr. McCleary enjoys watching sports, reading, or playing chess, sudoku, Wordy HD, Word to Word Association and doing research for his writing.
“May we in the true sense of unity, but not uniformity, work with President Wilson, encouraging every conference worker and pastoral leader to preach, teach, and exhort unity…”
I read this article with much interest, since for a long time I have been thinking about the problem of unity in our church.
When we consider “unity” it’s essencial to be aware that one of the main components of true unity is tolerance – in terms of accepting diversity of concepts, ideas, and points of view. True unity cannot happen in an environment of intolerance or any kind of discrimination.
Therefore, I must express my surprise when I read what the author wrote about Pastor Wilson in the quote I selected above. How can we talk about any aspect of unity, as related to Wilson’s leadership, considering the whole ‘soap opera’ about discrimination of women in our Church?
Any call to unity by Ted Wilson is, in my opinion, an oxymoron. One cannot call for unity and at the same time advocate and support something as divisive as dicrimination of women.
“When we consider “unity” it’s essencial to be aware that one of the main components of true unity is tolerance – in terms of accepting diversity of concepts, ideas, and points of view. True unity cannot happen in an environment of intolerance or any kind of discrimination.”
It should be obvious, George, that what you would consider “acceptable tolerance” is not tolerant to others in the SDA church.
In which case, you have not solved the problem, nor even identified the problem in a definitive way so it can be dealt with.
So, you gave your opinion, and in the end, it is only that, your opinion. Even if your conclusion is true, it doesn’t solve the problem. In the end, you would not tolerate what you think is intolerant. Just as others hold your opinion as intolerable.
The division is here. It won’t go away. And there is no solution but separation. There will be no “unity” simply for the sake of unity. People will hold their convictions over and above any political “unity” the church can sell the members. Now it is true, that those who hold unity above the necessity of pure truth and doctrine will be the majority by far. So you posted on the right forum to get massive doses of affirmation about your comment and conclusion.
Bill, first until there is a definitive stance on women’s ordination in one fashion or another what George is saying is true. There is currently no dividing line in the church on this issue and until there is people on both sides of the issue will need to get along. If either side views the other as intolerable they you need to understand what Christ said the wheat will grow up with the tares and eventually God will work it out and until then just work with others as best you can.
Second realized that even Christ and God the Father weren’t unified in what they wanted to happen on earth. If you think I am off base remember what Christ said “not My will but Your will be done.” Instead of focusing on what divides us currently as a church, for now, focus on what unites us as a church and get the message of Christ out to the people. Sending love in Christ.
“Bill, first until there is a definitive stance on women’s ordination in one fashion or another what George is saying is true.”
Well, Mike, for George and those who agree with him, and for myself and those who agree with me, we don’t care what “the church decides”. We intent to go by what the bible says. And for Some like George and me, this is a salvational issue and not some political issue of indifference.
I am sure the early church, when they changed the day of worship appealed to “unity” and it is a powerful tool when you hold the “bully pulpit” like those who advocate WO do. Those of us who oppose it, are not the major influence or authority in the SDA church. So those who advocate Women’s ordination can call for “unity” since they will determine on just what to unify on.
Again, people refuse to see the real problem and offer all kinds of solutions that are not relevant to the problem.
Unity is developed and not spontaneously combustive. Keep talking about Women’s Ordination if that’s your issue of choice. Remember, people are “intelligent” and must be negotiated with and not attacked. Do you think the Black Lives Matter and the escalating police videos of misbehavior matters of discussion and dialogue or they’ll have to work themselves out somehow? You, me, and involved/interested participants have to come together and listen (2 ears) and talk (1 mouth) about these things. My article is my present way of igniting and or joining the discussion.
Bill,
I get your point. And you are right, it’s all only my “opinion.” There are many opinions on this issue, but again, they are just “opinions.”
That’s exactly my point: if we can tolerate one another’s opinions we can still reach some kind of unity. The problem that, as you said, needs solution is, again in my opinion, when people try to impose their opinions on others pretending that their opinions are now “truth” and the only right ones. Then there is no chance for unity.
This is the case with Ted Wilson; he talks about “unity” but makes sure that, for instance, his “opinion” on discrimination of women prevails. Just look at how many maneuvers he performed in the past few years. As I predicted before it started meeting, at the end the TOSC effort indeed became a fiasco. Paul Ratsara lied in reporting the conclusions of the BRI in his Division, and what happened? Nothing! Then came the “in-famous” question created in a state of emergency to send to the SA/2016 Session for voting, which mislead the people voting.
Well, those things are not my “opinions,” they are facts that anyone can easily verify.
“That’s exactly my point: if we can tolerate one another’s opinions we can still reach some kind of unity.”
Again you fail to see the problem. We can’t tolerate everyone’s opinion. We can not unite with Sunday keepers who in their “opinion” think Sunday is acceptable for the Christian community.
The SDA church must make a definitive statement about which is which, and then let the church divide. Just as the early church had to make a statement about Sunday sacredness.
The “problem” is not solvable by political agendas based on “unity” for the sake of unity. And until this is clearly understood, the church position can not be acceptable to anyone who has any convictions about the issue.
“The division is here. It won’t go away. And there is no solution but separation.”
As frequently seen in any Family Guidance Clinic, and let this be a lesson to all of us, it is not the actual problem that breaks the family but the attitude towards the problem that breaks the family. Correcting this long engrained trait is fundamental before working on problem resolution.
Yes, the division is here and it won’t go away until a workable solution is agreed upon. Putting limitations on possible solutions is certainly not the right attitude.
” it is not the actual problem that breaks the family but the attitude towards the problem……”
That’s right, Elmer. And if the attitude is indifference on one side or the other, then the problem can be solved by a difference solution than if both sides think the issue is non-negotiable.
But many, if not most people think the issue is negotiable and can’t possibly see what all the fuss over an issue that is almost irrelevant in their understanding.
And by the way, many who support WO don’t consider it a negotiable concept and they “ram rod” women on the church with a tenacious agenda that defies common sense. They are smart enough to know if they can get enough affirmation by numbers, it will be more and more impossible to overturn their agenda for the equality of women in all administration roles.
There is no solution to solve the problem but division.
If there is no solution but division, perhaps there should be another branch of the SDA Church and divide as other churches have done. This solution will make those who find salvation in their church and their ideas very uncomfortable. I am not so sure. Perhaps another group/movement may develop that will have true unity in Christ. I think EGW once alluded to this possibility.
Or it may be a movement growing within other churches from which people will come out. Perhaps we could become part of Babylon.
Confusing and sounds frustration. “It’s here, won’t go away, separate… until a workable solution.” That sounds like evolutionary-based conflict resolution. God says, “Come now, let us reason together…” (Isa. 1:18). Disputing parties won’t find solution unless they come together and talk and listen and settle on win-win solution.
You sound adamantly positioned against President calling for unity. I disagreed with him/them on the WO issue, but my article takes the glass half-full approach that his call must be more than rhetoric and lived at the grass-roots level. I refuse to just oppose “him/them”, but work for and toward unity where I am. I hope he/them and all of us will affect the same where we are.
Wow. “You pray for him.”
I have no words other than, “I’m so sorry.”
Your comments sound like if you had written the article it might be entitled, Reflections on not “Praying for President Wilson in spite of his call for unity”. There’s no hope of redemption in just being sorry w/o getting your head and and heart in helping to make things better. What about 1 Cor. 13–Long-suffering…?
I’m intrigued by the idea that our denominational leaders should insist white people live in the inner city, that “white flight” should be explicitly frowned upon. I don’t think anything of that sort has ever been proposed before.
When this where-to-live question has come up before, the only thing I’ve heard advocated is that we escape the city to the country, and only commute into the city to help people and witness to them—not live there. I believe this is a concept we get from Ellen White, and it has been promoted by Elder Wilson. Am I correct on that?
“…the only thing I’ve heard advocated is that we escape the city to the country, and only commute into the city to help people and witness to them—not live there.”
Loren,
I was raised hearing this idea from the pulpits, and reading it several times in many of EGW’s “boox.” One thing that was always mind boggling to me was that people who advocated (preached, taught) this idea didn’t live outside the cities themselves. It was always like, “do what I say…”…
Why is it that so many people behave so hypocritically? My only conclusion is that they do NOT believe in the concept! They follow the SOP very selectively, being very quiet about things that are inconvenient to them, but then pressing upon others those other ideas that they believe in. And, ohhh man, they would die… for those ideas they accept….
So much more to elaborate on this issue, but it doesn’t seem to be worth it.
Loren, You have probably heard of outpost evangelism. It was popularized in some circles by a booklet written by W.D.Frazee, “Enoch’s Outpost.” Bill Dull [ Living Springs] was one of its most successful practitioners, along with Agatha Thrash [Uchee Pines] and numerous others. A comprehensive manual on the subject was published under the title, ~”City Outpost Evangelism.”
Following Enoch’s example as described by EGW, a country property was to be secured outside the city and people introduced to its offerings through vegetarian restaurants, bakeries, health lectures, health food stores, blood pressure screenings, etc. People would be contacted at the inner city venues and then invited to the outpost for further instructions in Christian faith.
Bill Dull and his team also gave impromptu lectures on Biblical topics in public places such as parks. Great idea with sound EGW support. For the most part, this work has been promoted by “Self Supporting” institutions like Wildwood.
Tony Alamo basically followed this plan working in Hollywood, inviting sex workers and street kids to a place he had in a more rural area. Charles Manson and Koresh followed a similar approach.
Not a bad idea but it’s not easy running a successful vege restaurant, nowadays. These places are sometimes stigmatized as “cults” and may represent a more extreme form of Adventism than many long time members are comfortable with.
The matter of White Flight is not about where one lives although has racialization as a factor (ie Caucasian only covenants, Redlining), but about formerly White SDA congregations now become peopled by non-whites. I am not about force, but highlighting a phenomenon of alienation that is symptomatic of disconnection, phobia, and “I want to come over to your side of heaven to hear ya’ll sing when we get to heaven,” as I heard too many times from White SDA upper level leaders visiting all Black of joint SDA gatherings.
>>“I want to come over to your side of heaven to hear ya’ll sing when we get to heaven,” as I heard too many times from White SDA upper level leaders visiting all Black of joint SDA gatherings.
Astonishing that someone would say that.
Even more shoking to me is the suggestions people of color often receive as to where they may “find a church more suited to their tastes”. I’m sure many of the people who say these things are well-meaning. However, what is often heard is “you’re really not welcome here”.
I’ve never heard that sort of statement, Craig. What is the context? I’ve had people complain that they don’t like the SDA faith community because they don’t feel comfortable drinking alcohol around us. I tell them that’s their problem; I’m not here to judge them. But I really hope they don’t let their discomfort cause them to give up on God or stop searching for a faith community where they do feel comfortable drinking. I don’t care for the cacophonous monotony of contemporary praise music services. If I was in a church that embraced praise music and expressed my tastes, would it be inappropriate for someone to tell me that I might find another type of worship service more to my liking?
Look, I understand that racism exists, and maybe you heard someone say that; maybe you heard someone who reported it; maybe you just made it up. I don’t know. But there are non racist reasons for Chinese churches, Philippino churches, Chinese churches, Spanish churches, etc. there are even non racist reasons why one might find multiple predominantly Caucasian churches within a very small radius. Saying, “You’re not welcome here” is pretty horrible, and it may be said for other than racist reasons.
The ability to detect and cry racism has become as popular a sport as “Name that tune” or geocaching. That’s nonsense. We should be able to respect cultural differences without feeling there is something wrong with us if we prefer our own cultural fare.
At the wedding ceremony the new couple agree to be “as one” where there were two individuals. But that never means that only one will be the decision maker and the other will obey and follow. Long ago a psychologist said that there should always be two strong individuals able to express their differences without rancor or coercion.
That was a very radical concept of marriage in all of biblical and world history where the man made all the decisions for the family.
Why can’t that principle be applied to all willing member of any group or only two? Many situations do not require complete agreement: Compromise is not a dirty word. We forget that in a world church there are not only many different opinions and they have never been identical world wide. Cultural practices are most important to maintain in many societies and insofar as they aren’t major doctrinal differences, there is no reason that one central figure should make unilateral decisions on non-doctrinal issues.
Women’s place in the world church is not a doctrine of the church; nor should it be. This is a cultural tradition and choice that has no biblical support with official statements by the church. If the early Christians were directed by the Holy Spirit not to make unnecessary demands on new gentile converts, why is the 21st century church ignoring that great biblical principle as its motto?
“If the early Christians were directed by the Holy Spirit not to make unnecessary demands on new gentile converts, why is the 21st century church ignoring that great biblical principle as its motto?”
Elaine,
It all falls back to that destructive virus called “headship*.” Which is nothing else but “male power and control” in one word.
Where did it come from? Until a few years ago this words was unheard of in church, it was not part of our vocabulary. But, coincidentally, as women started to conquer positions in our society (and church as well), it seems that SDA men panicked… and had to do something about that “liberation.”
Imagine: women voting, women working outside their homes, women driving, etc. Geeesh, they had (have) to stop that female abuse and interference in the males’ business in Church!….
Therefore, the solution they found, and implemented, was named “headship.” They are not aware about the “grave consequences” that will happen at the end of the day if discrimination of women is not eliminated from the Church rapidly. But, before this happens, the main need is to replace discriminators with people who oppose any kind of discrimination – and it will never happen under the current administration.
——–
* I honestly think it should be spelled a little bit different…
“Where did it come from?”
I think the late Bacchiocchi coined the phrase “male headship” in his discussions on the matter. And George, you deliberately misrepresent what those of us who support male headship mean by the phrase. You deliberately make it sound like some “slavery” subjection that has no affinity to what male headship means in the bible, or by those who advocate it.
“Forced subjection” is what slavery is. “Willing subjection” is the biblical concept to define male headship. When a woman marries a man, in the biblical context, she willingly subjects herself to his authority because she trust him and believes he will protect her personhood and individual rights as a human being. And if he over steps this understanding and tries to enforce some kind of “slavery” concept, she can and will simply divorce him.
“Willing subjection” is the biblical model as all true believers willingly subject themselves to Christ’s authority who patterns the perfect servant leader and authority over the church. And this is to be reflected in the marriage.
But to support your agenda, you must try to claim it is “slavery subjection” that is forced obedience and not willing obedience to the divine mandate. Bible Christians know that your view is not the biblical model. But since the bible model has been abused in society and forced subjection often the norm in sinful human relationships, it suits your description of male headship.
Hi Bill,
Thanks for taking the time and spend your mental energy to deal with the issue being addressed here. I feel that a good conversation about it can be fruitful and beneficial to all of us. Let me go through some of your statements:
“you deliberately misrepresent what those of us who support male headship mean by the phrase. You deliberately make it sound like some “slavery” subjection”
Sorry Bill, but please don’t distort what I am saying. In no time have I compared headship with slavery. This would be gross on my part. The problem in this case is not “subjection,” but rather denying women their rights to be human beings in the full meaning of the term. Everything always goes back to power & control issue.
“what male headship means in the bible”
“‘Willing subjection’ is the biblical concept to define male headship”
I don’t know how you plan to do it, but trying to define the biblical meaning of something that is not in the Bible seems to me a little bit too challenging, don’t you think? It’s like saying, “It’s not in the Bible, but the biblical meaning is…” I am not sure that you will be able to attract the attention of good thinkers with such a weak word exercise.
But go, give it a try.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
“your description of male headship”
There is another flaw here, because I have no description of my own of what headship is. I take what the supporters of this heresy propose, and just deal with their own material.
“When a woman marries a man, in the biblical context, she willingly subjects herself to his authority “
I am not surprised that Ervin Taylor and his wife are laughing at your statements. Statements like these are usually made by males who have some kind of need to feel “superior to” and “powerful over” a female. The problems of those “headshipers” are nothing but their own insecurity, fear of becoming overpowered, often frustrated at home where they can’t be the emperors because their wives won’t allow them to. So they take their weaknesses to Church, where they think other women will “willingly subject” themselves to the fantasies they carry in their fearful mind.
The worst, though, it that they do all those absurdities in name of God and of true religion. What a shame!
“I am not surprised that Ervin Taylor and his wife are laughing at your statements. Statements like these are usually made by males who have some kind of need to feel “superior to” and “powerful over” a female. The problems of those “headshipers” are nothing but their own insecurity, fear of becoming overpowered, often frustrated at home where they can’t be the emperors because their wives won’t allow them to.”
Well, there you go, George. Implying and creating some false scenario to “sell” your agenda of just why men advocate male headship. But I will just give one bible example that could be multiplied over and over. And that is this, Sarah called Abraham her “lord”, not because he ruled over her like some slave owner. But because she knew and understood her role as a Godly believer who did not want to rebel against the God ordained authority that He established in Eden and re-affirmed after the fall.
Three times in Heb. 13 verses 7,17 and 24 Paul exhorts the believing community to “obey them that have the rule over you (in the church).” And he obviously advocates a “willing subjection” not some “slave” relationship in the church community.
So for anyone to mock and scorn the God ordained system of government as some “slave” concept and male ego weakness is hardly the reality. As I said, in the world of sin, men have often abused this God given authority and acted contrary to the principle stated in the bible.
““Forced subjection” is what slavery is. “Willing subjection” is the biblical concept to define male headship. ”
Bill, you do have a point in here as I see this pattern in my mental health clinic where some women “willingly” submit themselves to their male perpetrators even at a cost of losing part of their God-given rights, or as our US constitution would say “inalienable rights” for financial protection. But this alternative is worse than “Forced Subjection” as you had termed it in that the burden shifts to the perpetrator to exercise his moral obligation instead of taking advantage of someone. An example would be Eve when she “willingly” subjected herself to the guile of the serpent. You know how that story ended.
What scriptures do you use for Male Headship? If you list 1Tim 3 or 1cor 11, or Titus, I suggest you reread them because they do not use your terminology, speak about husband-wife headship/submission relationship. I also suggest you read Rom. 16:1 wherein Paul commends Phoebe as a deacon. Did he contradict himself or had male headship folk misinterpreted? Have you noticed that most of the commentary is not about my article but a fragment “hot issue” (ie racism, women’s ordination). My reflections were on point per commentary disharmony and disconnect.
“structural racism, ministry marginalization, and male supremacy were the primary mitigating factors against organizational unity.”
An unsupportable statement if I ever saw one.
The “headship” principle is a sound one when we look at both the Scriptural example as well the Pauline writings. The feminists and their supporters will likely never accede to the truth of this principle and the most plausible reason, IMO, is the inroads into our culture that the feminist movement has been successful in making.
The debate is over as the GC at SA made a decision that WO is not part of SDA doctrine. It’s wearisome to hear
the perpetrators of WO continue their adherence to the culture rather than to Scripture.
“The debate is over as the GC at SA made a decision that WO is not part of SDA doctrine. It’s wearisome to hear
the perpetrators of WO continue their adherence to the culture rather than to Scripture.”
My turn to say, “An unsupportable statement if I ever saw one.”
Check your facts. My understanding is the 2015GC vote on the WO was to answer the request of the Divisions to ordain women. It rejected the request and choose to work with its current by-laws. The rejection was to officially acknowledge that Divisions had no business who to ordain and that the privilege who to ordain belonged to the Unions. That is it. Let me know if you agree.
“The debate is over as the GC at SA made a decision that WO is not part of SDA doctrine.”
This is an example of what I talked about before, saying how distorted the information about the vote in SA was: There was absolutely no vote on, “…that WO is not part of SDA doctrine…” This is NOT what the vote was about, and it’s so clear that I actually am thinking that the anti-WO crowd is distorting it on purpose – or based on mere misinformation ?
What was voted?
The question was clear, asking if ordinations issues should be ALSO handled by the Divisions, and not only by the Unions – as it was before and still is now. There was NO vote on WO.
What happened then?
Simple: the anti-WO just hijacked the content of the vote and immediately started saying that WO was defeated; a perfect example is what Mr. Sufferingsunfish just said above, “the GC at SA made a decision that WO is not part of SDA doctrine.” This is not accurate, it’s not true, it’s an undisguised attempt deceive people who are not well informed.
How to verify it?
Easy: Just go to the Adventist Review site and read it by yourself:
http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story2988-%E2%80%8Bgc-delegates-vote-%E2%80%98no%E2%80%99-on-issue-of-women%E2%80%99s-ordination
(continued on next post)
(continued)
The first paragraph says it all:
“Delegates turned down a motion that would have allowed each division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to decide for itself whether to ordain women to the gospel ministry in its territory.
What happened right after the vote was an obvious “maneuver” aiming to convince (deceive?) people that “WO was defeated.” It was all a big manipulation, which actually worked for many, especially for those going back to Africa convinced that they defeated WO by vote. What vote? The vote was NOT on WO at all.
What bugs me the most in all this story is the blatant, undisguised, planned, unethical, immoral use of false statements to convey to the public a wrong, distorted, falsified message about what was actually voted in SA/2015. And this intellectual dishonesty happening among the Remnant???? How can that be???
TOSC backfired on what Ted Wilson was expecting when he created the committee, so it’s conclusions were quickly replaced by that i-famous question. The problem seems to be that those who wrote the question dropped the ball completely, and missed the target. It indeed created, “grave consequences” for the GC, whose last resort then was to manipulate the content of the question .
And here we are, reading people saying things that are inaccurate, distorted, and false. Obviously the GC won… with some people…
I’d always heard about “The Stepford Wives” but saw it for the first time tonight. A perfect example of the brain washing on women, especially with the power of the church, representing God to so many. If male superiority is taught early women are conditioned to believe, that it is really God who desires men to lead. This either teaches young girls that God’s will is for them to submit to male authority or either they will leave the church and that picture of God. We are seeing the results of that every day as both young men and women are not afraid to challenge those beliefs. And the church, oblivious, struggles to retain the young.
Good idealistic reasoning aiming to address our social disconnections. However, sound resolution must include putting disputers’ issues on the table for consideration. Within a macro situation, unless, upper level leadership initiates the process, it is left to the fragmented media offerings as provided by AT ,etc. I agree that some solutions won’t be perfectly 100% accepted. Nevertheless, if the parties talk openly and honestly and work it out between themselves, I believe that would be truth for them. Our church is a multi-layer macro organization that needs broad discussion on these topics until Jesus returns. Keep talking and listening and then do justice, love, mercy, and walk humbly with God and man.
Mr. Sorenson posted a truly funny quotation: “When a woman marries a man, in the biblical context, she willingly subjects herself to his authority . . .” Who says Mr. Sorenson is incapable of humor? This is a sentence a stand-up comic would use and get a great laugh from the audience. My wife of 56 years and I laughed and laughed. Mr. Sorenson is a riot. I hope he contributes more funny lines.
Erv,
For over three-hundred years (1662 – 1966) the Common Book of Prayer provided the basis for wedding vows for English speaking people throughout the world (the biblical context contained therein). For giggles I reproduce the wife’s vow:
Wilt thou have this man to thy wedded husband, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou obey him, and serve him, love, honour, and keep him, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live?
The Woman shall answer,
I will.
I (wife’s name) take thee (husband’s name) to my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.
As I’m sure you know the ‘obey’ and ‘serve’ are not mutual and are excluded from the groom’s vow. Here is the groom’s vow: With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Jews did/do not traditionally exchange vows but they did verify the bride price and the dowery under the canopy.
Even though it was many, many, many years ago, I can still remember when my wife now and I were deciding on the wedding vows, we came to the place in the traditional formula where the wife was supposed to say the “obey” thing and one of us, I can’t recall if it was my wife or I, said something to the effect — what idiot put that in the vow? When both of our children got married, it was not even brought up — the “obey” word had long since dropped out. I’m sure the grandchildren think it is a quaint leftover from the Middle Ages. That’s why I’m sure that Mr. Sorenson was telling a joke about this.
Professor,
You listen so intently and respectfully to the ancient rocks and the truths they tell, but you dismiss the accumulated Christian wisdom of thousands of years with a mocking question, “What idiot put that in the vow?”
Disrespecting your ancestors accumulated wisdom while venerating the prophetic voice of the rocks they trod under their feet is at a minimum wrongheaded and possibly idiotic.
Unfortunately Bill was not joking. He really believes that way, and it’s OK as long as he does not force his views and interpretations – and opinions – on others.
Regarding the vows, and all words used in the past, no wonder all that “obey” etc was only on the side of the bride! Who was in charge of the world for thousands of years? MEN!!!
Those wedding vows may be written in the manual used by clergy, but they are not biblical. I’ve been to many weddings and the couple write their own vows and today the word “obey” is rarely used nor should it be. Obedience is for children to hear from parents.
” I can’t recall if it was my wife or I, said something to the effect — what idiot put that in the vow?”
Dr. Taylor, I think many, if not most of us, know full well that you hold little respect for the bible and the spirituality it advocates. That you and/or your wife would make such a statement is not surprising to forum readers. We know you feel liberated from scriptural mandates, so no one should be surprised by your comments on any biblical issue.
I know how hard it is not to scorn the ideas of those who attack the bible and the God of scripture. It is recorded on more than one occasion even by the prophets and it always ended up in a bad situation for them. Moses scorns the people who mock him and he strikes the rock in frustration. Elijah scorns the false god’s on Mt. Carmel and makes fun of them to his loss of faith and runs from Jezebel when it don’t turn out like he thinks it should.
Paul scorns the Judaizers who follow him and make his life miserable as they teach corrupting doctrines in his churches. Galatians is classic. But God told Elijah after he ran, you don’t “convert” people by a three ring circus like Mt. Carmel. Elijah learned the lesson. I am working on it. And sometimes, not too successful in my endeavors.
But it does seem more than obvious to me, and surely to others who post, that you have no respect for the bible or its teaching on any level. And you use every opportunity to affirm my evaluation.
Bill, please, I beg you, talk about the issues, don’t attack people personally. OMGoodness, what is wrong with some of you guys? You can’t exchange ideas for 10 minutes without resorting to telling others how bad Christians they are, how against God they are, plus all other judgments that we often see. Read again what you wrote to Ervin Taylor! Oh my, this is discouraging!
Look at this conversation, for instance, Bill. Right in the beginning you started talking about my “agenda.” What agenda Bill? What are you talking about? Can’t you relax and just talk nice with others without putting yourself on a pedestal and kicking others in the head just because they see things differently than you?? I would love to have good conversations with you, but, Oh my, you deteriorate every single exchange by using personal attacks. I know you can do better, but, what is preventing you from doing it? Geesh….
George-
Your agenda is quite evident to any 8th grader when reading what you write here and as a spectrumite. It takes no genius to discern your obvious proclivities. Looks to me like you have a lot of time on your hands.
SSF,
There is no “agenda” here, only discussion of facts. You know that. Just because the facts are disturbing to those who discriminate against women is no reason to divert the attention to some possible “agenda,” a conspiracy, or so. I don’t make or make up the facts; they just exist!
Regarding my time, well I certainly have enough time to write for those who have enough time to read it. Apparently you are one of those benefiting from my writings – which means that you also have, “a lot of time on your hands..” …. Keep enjoying the reading!… 🙂
George, are you a refugee from Spectrum? I note that you are still grousing by the Spectrum limit of one comment per article. Is that why you are here? I recommend that AToday limit comments to three so that we can save a bit of cyberspace!!
“George-
Your agenda is quite evident to any 8th grader when reading what you write here and as a spectrumite. It takes no genius to discern your obvious proclivities.”
Of course George has an “agenda” in spite of all his denials. I’ve always said a little honesty on this forum would go a long way in helping to have an intelligent discussion. But many hid behind the obvious and claim they are really open to an honest dialogue.
Then George accuses me of “attacking people” because I oppose their ideas. Hello??? We are, what we believe. I guess he ignores Dr. Taylor who said…..
“But I suspect that all of this is too complicated for Mr. Sorenson. Whatever the case may be, I do hope that he continues to provide the rest of us with his humorous statements.”
In other words, Sorensen is stupid, silly, and inane and has no ability to comprehend the great wisdom I have to know and understand these issues clearly.
The forum has so much duplicity, that any objective reader would laugh out loud at others who accuse me “attacking people” while they attack me freely without a word of reproof.
But I am not the one who complains about being “attacked”. In spite of my “inane and silly lack of comprehension” I know that what we believe is who we are and to attack anyone’s ideas that they claim is truth is an attack on their person and who they are.
And I thought Mr. Sorenson was joking. It’s worse than that. He is serious. Dear me.
Since he is serious, may I offer a serious non-confirmation of his interesting idea that I do not have “respect” for the bible. May I say, I am not surprised that someone of Mr. Sorenson’s apparent persuasion would suggest such a thing.
The obvious problem with that kind of assertion is that the question seems to presuppose that “the bible” is a single entity that is must be evaluated as a single unit. Clearly, one would hope that even Mr. Sorenson knows better. (On the other hand, perhaps he doesn’t).
As has been stated over and over again in many forms, the bible is a collection that spans the entire spectrum of credibility and modern relevance–from the talking snake in Genesis (my favorite) and floating ax head to one of the most sophisticated theological narratives in all of ancient Near Eastern literature, the Book of Job.
But I suspect that all of this is too complicated for Mr. Sorenson. Whatever the case may be, I do hope that he continues to provide the rest of us with his humorous statements.
” I do hope that he continues to provide the rest of us with his humorous statements.”
I honestly hope he doesn’t! Because here we are in an environment where knowledge should be shared, opinions, exchanged, thinking encouraged – and we are wasting time missing a great opportunity to grow together and to learn more.
This has been one serious problem in Adventism, i.e., spiritual arrogance. For some reason this “I am right you are wrong” attitude has been corroding many aspects of people’s spiritual lives. It’s a terrible thing, but it appears that many people cannot operate intellectually unless resorting to those same old ideas that make them believe that they are the only ones who know God, or, even worse, that they themselves must certainly be some kind of “gods” as well.
I would contend the first problem is Spiritual ignorance; then the second would be spiritual arrogance.
We are commanded to speak, exhort and rebuke with all authority from HIS Word. What if the people are the issues and you are the problem? If the purpose of this and all forums is not to lead souls to HIS Love; then I would suggest reviewing your purpose in life. If you are unable to help yourself; then how are your ideals and opinions ever going to help anyone else? Is this not the ignorance and arrogance of failure? Look around, its obvious.
Titus 2:
11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.
To paraphrase the lawyer’s joke: When the law is on your side, use the facts; when the facts are on your side, debate the law; when they are both against you, attack the person. Bill resorts to the old childish last resort: accuse the person: “so’s your mom.”
So your contention is that Bill believes in the BIBLE and you don’t.
Then your conclusion is that Bill is foolish?
May I ask Mr. Sorensen where I stated that he is “stupid, silly, and inane?” I merely said that he was humorous in many of the things he writes. If Mr. Sorensen can find such a statement, perhaps someone else is posting in my name. If so, I must take action to make sure that does not happen again.
“And I thought Mr. Sorenson was joking. It’s worse than that. He is serious. Dear me.
Since he is serious, may I offer a serious non-confirmation of his interesting idea that I do not have “respect” for the bible. May I say, I am not surprised that someone of Mr. Sorenson’s apparent persuasion would suggest such a thing.
The obvious problem with that kind of assertion is that the question seems to presuppose that “the bible” is a single entity that is must be evaluated as a single unit. Clearly, one would hope that even Mr. Sorenson knows better. (On the other hand, perhaps he doesn’t).
As has been stated over and over again in many forms, the bible is a collection that spans the entire spectrum of credibility and modern relevance–from the talking snake in Genesis (my favorite) and floating ax head to one of the most sophisticated theological narratives in all of ancient Near Eastern literature, the Book of Job.
But I suspect that all of this is too complicated for Mr. Sorenson. Whatever the case may be, I do hope that he continues to provide the rest of us with his humorous statements.”
All you have to do is read your comment, Dr. Taylor. Mind you, I am not the one complaining. The “cry babies” are complaining about my comments about your comments, and the comments of others.
Let me admit from the start that facts do not change behavior for the most part.
So far there are 23 comments here.
4 Comments address phrases or modest points in Dr. McCleary’s article.
19 comments address people commenting about comments by other people.
Friends, Dr. McCleary deserves our engagement with regard to his assertion that we take seriously the 14th Fundamental Belief of the church and President Wilson’s call for unity. Dr. McCleary is calling for us to move closer to one another, no matter the indelible differences, whether gender, age, race, education, social status, physical local, economic happenstance, educational experiences, and so on.
This is not a yawner. We are not doing all so well in this regard as Seventh-day Adventists. This is, Dr. McCleary infers, a people problem, not an ecclesiastical problem. In fact, I believe ecclesiology seems to be erecting barriers to unity by calling for votes, which is divisive on the face. And worse, votes are claimed to be how God speaks to the church. There was no vote during the first General Conference session in Acts 15.
I am impressed by Dr. McCleary’s advocacy to cross the trenches dug by ballots and embrace one another as equivalents in the creation. I realize this is an all too lose of a summary. Feel free to make it better. Please make it better.
Amen, Bill. Mark has raised an important topic. Unity means different things to different people. But I think if we are looking for unity in values or ideology, we may be missing the boat. I feel that Christ’s call was more for us transcend our differences rather than trying to resolve those differences or surrender to the relative convincing force of our fellow believers’ truth claims.
How do we transcend ideological differences and theological priorities? Through love – love for one another – the one commandment Jesus left with His disciples who were struggling for privileged positions in the kingdom they anticipated. We need to learn to love one another in our differences. Instead we make the mistake of thinking that we need to resolve our differences before we can experience unity in Christ.
It’s relatively easy to love those who see the world the way we do – people who share our values and priorities. But we are much more effective in communicating Christ to the world when they see us loving one another in our differences. Christ doesn’t transform our hearts and minds in order to save us. He saved is so that our experience and acceptance of His salvation can lead to transformation. If only we could start loving one another as Christ loves, unity in Christ will be an inevitable effect.
Very good post. So why can’t we start here? I think it’s because there are some here who cannot make that choice. (You know who you are.) to be tolerant, a unifier and not a divider, (like the peacemakers in the Sermon on the Mount). They miss the meaning of the Bible because they are so sure what it means to them is right. And, of course, it is literal–even to the trees that sing in Psalms. Such people miss spiritual food given like manna to His true believers.
MT 10 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Yes EM we know who it is that troubles Israel.
You’re on it, words in action over words alone.
Malachi 2:
10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
The Simple Truths; HIS Law, HIS Word, HIS covenants and HIS people all belong to HIM. To attack any standing for and in such is an attack on HIM. Those stand for HIM are commanded to speak, exhort and rebuke within all authority.
We create and sanction our own little causes. Then we struggle to fix everything within own little ideologies, but the problems are individual, the people are individuals. We want to create ideologies when cannot individually help ourselves. Then we wish to assemble and push those ideologies.
If you are addicted to the cause and only want to be a pusher; then look at self and admit it. One should always try their spirit and the foundation of their stand. Is it HIS Spirit and HIS Foundation? Can we prove our foundation to ourselves, others and HIM; if we really look at the Truths? Have you really tried?
This takes a really hard look into yourself. Are you in conflict of interest of and included in the cause? If the cause is about you, do you have the right to demand of others? Do we not hold the responsibility to stand on our own sometimes? Should we not be able to help ourselves before trying to help others? If the cause is not about you, do you have the majority of support those in impact of the cause?
Remember we are here for HIM, period.
Nate suggested that “[W]e transcend ideological differences and theological priorities . . . [t]hrough love – love for one another – the one commandment Jesus left with His disciples who were struggling for privileged positions in the kingdom they anticipated.”
Excellent idea. Just one question: Has anyone ever seen that happening in the real world in any religious community or denomination beyond relationships between individuals? If that’s all we need to deal with, then there is no problem. If we seek anything beyond individual relationships, the “love” principle is often just spoken about and rarely acted upon. Unless someone has an example to bring forward.
I think it happens, Erv, more than you might think. It’s just that little attention is paid to instances of love transcending ideology because it happens on a micro level rather than corporately. As Goerhe said to Ekerman, “We are romantics with a zest for the faraway, the bizarre and the unknown. We have little time or attention for the ordinary and commonplace.” If we are focused on the big picture, which is controlled by media outlets and sources, and that often prevents us from seeing acts of love transcending differences.
That should be “Goethe”. Thumbs….
Now we are thinking, Nathan and Conviction,
This is a gnarly kind of challenge in the abstract. Words seems to be getting in the way, actually.
When Jesus wanted to discuss abstractions, he turned to stories.
So tell us a story, or reference a story Jesus already told. Hummm. Most of Jesus’ parables are less than 1,500 characters long.
I’m thinking of the Road to Jericho story after reading comments by both of you.
You?
So, how do we love in the context of actual skin, actual blood, actual fear, actual hope, actual bible texts?
Or are all of these actualities subsumed in the sense of realizing that that I am doomed to perish if there isn’t a God who loves whoever me is, skin, blood, fear, hope, bible texts rattling in my mind, and all?
And if that is true for me it is true for everyone I meet.
Or to the point, I am everyone I meet in the eyes of Jesus.
Is it harder to see the other as myself when the other thinks of me as socially defective compared with themselves?
Can’t gather around a table for a meal with fellow Seventh-day Adventists at the General Conference because the cafeteria is not racially integrated is a not so quaint bit of history.
What not so quaint bit of social segregation today is testing my personal sense of identity as defined by the everlasting gospel?
It is not a formula.
People whom we love may know we are Christians.
The others may not be part of the story, even.
Someone else’s turn.
Good point, Erv,
I sense Dr. McCleary’s call is to personally overwhelm the system, rather than wait for the ecclesiastical system to be rectified.
Ecclesiology always trails the presence of God is one of the overarching themes of scriptural and post-scriptural history. This is the primary testimony regarding the founding of the Seventh-day Adventist church. No creed, just the presence of the Comforter … after a cataclysmic failure of theological understanding, failure apparently necessary to sufficiently sense the presence of God, Hiram Edson recalled of his experience October 23, 1844..
Maybe ecclesiology is never fixable. Maybe it is always trailing the Comforter. Maybe ecclesiology is always an abstraction. Maybe the only reality is personal reality. And in that context ecclesiology is always in a state of catching up with, rather than leading.
As for personal examples, it was the long-standing confident loving engagement by Black Seventh-day Adventist ministers that accelerated the integration of the dining rooms at the General Conference, not a study committee. Not that principled engagement didn’t at times give rise to tokenism, and repeatedly. Ecclesiology is just a messy business, and no less so than individual relationships.
Dr. McCleary’s call is to openly, engagingly, lovingly, relentlessly relate personally. No matter how out of step ecclesiology finds itself … or we find it, actually.
How are we doing, here, Dr. McCleary?
Thanks for focusing on the article and not so much a personal issue. I thought about President’s call and wondered how might it become real and not just political or pulpit rhetoric of yesteryear. You are right to infer that his call must become our call. I do wish he would emphasize some of things I highlight but his general leadership in social matters would be an improvement and catalyst for grassroots SDA, rural and urban. After all the surveys we’ve done and demographic studies, when will we get it that we are loosing ground in the arena of social relationship building, within and without. Our conservative and traditionalist rank and file will interpret it as prophetic eschatology. I see it as being imbalance for intellectual assent and neglecting basic occupying principles of interpersonal/group and organization agreement (Amos 3:3; Isa. 1:18; Rom. 13:8, 10). By this shall they know you are my disciples if you love one another.
I am confused! Which church does this pastor belong to? The Adventist church has no priests, no high priest, save He Who serves in heaven.
SDA. Sure I confess unequivocally Jesus is my H.P. I assumed you {other reader] would pick up a literary device (metaphor). We all are priests (1Pet 2:9, 10; Ex. 19:5, 6; Is 61, etc.). I wrote to the point that as our GC President, he is our spiritual high priest and “should” lead us toward unity. Stop being so picky and condescending Brother Buhler. Ask a question rather than a condemning query or comment. I hope you understand me better and can work for unity as equals not as your intellectual inferior.
Bill,
thank you for your statement “Ecclesiology always trails the presence of God is one of the overarching themes of scriptural and post-scriptural history.”
This is very helpful. I believe this statement to be sadly true. But there is hope in the realization of that fact. You see I have unconsciously started to think of the church as the head. But of course. It’s not. The church has always trailed along in the wake of the Spirit’s progress. When we realize that then we can relax just a bit. We can take a breath and let God lead.
For some 20 years or so I have quietly waited for a day when the “church” would finally wake up to the discriminatory and sexist values that it was embracing. Then came GC 2015. I thought the time had finally come. When the vote regarding WO went the way it did I was devastated. I was angry. And I’ve been angry since. But then I read that simple but profound statement: “Ecclesiology always trails the presence of God is one of the overarching themes of scriptural and post-scriptural history.”
Whew! Yes! Of course! So, onward I go. Nothing new. I love my church. But I love my Savior far more. It’s the Comforter I follow, my Lord, my Father. I serve as a member of His body. And as we all know Jesus made the terrible, tragic, triumphant way to the cross in a body that was torn and bloody and beaten. But He faltered not and in the end in that body He gained the victory. What a Savior. Hallelujah!
..a day when the “church” would finally wake up to the discriminatory and sexist values…
Like you, I also had some hope that this time (SA/2015) the Church would be able to finally catch up and enter into the 21st Century. I really had the hope, and at some times felt confident. But, to be honest, in the back of my mind I knew better. Knowing for a long time how the ‘system’ works, and how politics are always intertwined in everything in the Church, I was not surprised with the events during the GC session in SA.
Will the Church be ever liberated from this shameful practicemof discriminating against women? At this point it’s difficult to know, especially when people from a certain culture believe that they have the right to dictate to others cultures what they can/cannot do. Not much hope until those cultural differences are recognized, acceptd, and kept under control without affecting other cultures.
“…Church would be able to finally catch up and enter into the 21st Century.” Proof that WO, e.g. is merely a cultural notion. Case closed.
Thanks for the personal confirmation, Steve.
You inspire me and I’m sure many who read here.
Of course ecclesiology trials God’s presence because God always leads from the front.
Two observations:
Almost every time I hear the “unity” discussion, I think of the quote attributed to Winston Churchill: “If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.”
Dr. McCleary’s reference to the president of the General Conference as the spiritual high priest of the Adventist Church suggests an attitude of obeisance that strikes me as inappropriate.
” “If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.”
The statement probably has some credibility in some context. But the fact is, the statement has profound affirmation for both individuals who find agreement about their conclusions.
So, the bible says, “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” Amos
The implication being that such is not possible.
Let me state again, the “unity” many seek on this forum is not on agreement on objective truth. It is agreement that there is no objective truth, and we can have unity based on, “Nobody knows what truth is, so we just accept everybody’s opinion. And by no means, any opposition for that would create division.”
I know my ability to reason is suspect at best and “laughable” at worst, but there may actually be some people who see the point and “disagree” with the whole idea advocated by many on this forum.
Obeisance? It was a metaphor that didn’t have writing space to expound. The H.P. was the chief spiritual leader for theocratic Israel. Priests were prominent teachers of Torah in the OT era. My reference included his assumed role as the “executive and administrative” head of the SDA Church. I never suggested obeisance. Revelation hermetical suggestion–don’t add or take away from what’s written. How about asking what I meant? In closing, what about how you reflect and suggest you and I implement unity within our church?
Pastor McCleary: What I am going to say will probably meet with incredulity and you won’t believe it. That’s what I get from those who consider themselves in the left camp in our country. I feel they are judging me and my conscience. I really do not believe I have any racial bias. I go to church with other nationalities and skin colors. As a child I was interested in cross-cultural reading and later made friends with as many as I came in contact with. Collecting friends from all over was a learning experience and goal.
Why do people react this way to such my honest claim? I think a resolution in the future to some of our racial disunity would be intermarriage. Why is this wrong? I see hardly any of it on the media or in films and an occasional ad.
I feel resentment when others say we are all racist. I hate the cliches that are permeating our language like white privilege. Even if true, they serve only to separate us even more. I remember Ellen White once said to “ignore the color line.” I follow that admonition. Our rhetoric is stirring up more anger as Black people dwell on these things and whites resent them, and those who weren’t prejudice before now are. Taking sides always causes anger.
I see Black people on TV as reporters, actors, in ads; I interact with them at church and feel comfortable among them. They are my friends. I have two aunts who married men from the Caribbean. I am married to a Jew (by race).
EM, you sound like someone who has learned live in a world of social and diverse difference while navigating around confrontation with the sensitive matter those Black media persons you have observed. Talk to me about specific points in my paper you agree or disagree with. Ask for clarity or state you opposing argument. My article is about a call I reflected on and merged some historic and present social issues with. I ultimately called for making Wilson’s call a reality. How do you suggest we do that?
Pastor McCleary, I can’t see any disagreement with your editorial. Your use of other denominations is helpful. I would suggest our church president do the following:
(1) Never take sides as in the WO issue; (2) listen, compromise and sincerely desire unity for all and not just a majority. We are not free if a minority is not free to make reasonable decisions for their own work. (3) Educate equality through church literature. (4) As you said, “Every SDA should be encouraged to express the Three Angel’s Messages in their own way. …” (6) There are only ten commandments but 28 FB; they need not be specific but presented as a guide, not a creed. One should be belief in human equality. (7) Eliminate “regional” conferences and encourage members to attend different churches. (8) Encourage inter-racial study groups with some sort of biblical guidelines/workbooks. Encourage members to eliminate political and racial buzzwords that offend and judge others; set ourselves outside the world of politics and ignore the color line. It could rid of us those who really are intolerant!
Have you read Roy Adams book? I value his sincere experience in church leadership. He does not claim racism. I don’t believe it was, but because it could be construed that way, poor judgements were made. You mentioned the don’t-care attitude in prayer requests. It’s that way for any event outside the church, leadership is aloof from the rest of our society in general and other Christians.
Pastor McCleary (con’t)
I have had Black doctors, teachers, and bosses. These are not people who live in the inner city and have suffered poverty. They are intelligent, some are of genius intellect. They have reached out and succeeded. It seems we have more of a cultural problem than race. Even the statistics (one recently coming from a Black scholar) do not bear out the idea that police are killing Black people. Yes, we have had two recent suspicious cases, but the ones that have started riots by a certain mindset turned out to be based on falsehoods (Ferguson and Baltimore). They started with people being so hyped up they believed rumors. We need rumor control. People are being killed over the world by ISIS and we are dividing each other here. I want truth and not emotion. Why aren’t churches and government doing more to stop the violence in cities and allowing/providing proper education? They will not recognize the elephant in the room.
I do resent being judged and I admire those Black reporters and other professionals and pastors who can think outside the box and not be lemmings. Our hope is in them. I voted for a Black president who said he would bring us together and feel he has betrayed us or others have betrayed him. It would be helpful to get your response to my sincere question of why do we judge each other on this issue and continue to keep the pot boiling? Why not some positive solutions or promote inter-racial social groups.
EM, You have made some excellent points while I cannot agree with you that intermarriage is a solution. Certainly, the current WH and former US AG have exacerbated the alleged racial divide. That is a tragedy and plays into the hands of the race hustlers.
In the final analysis I believe the Second Coming is the only solution.
You hit a lot issues. However, I suggest you stick to one thing and seek to understand better from the other person’s point then proceed. If I had read your article I would speak to one thing or ask for clarity rather than rant about unresolved matters. For instance, what does your voting for our Black President have to do with my article? Deal with my article and the examples and or sources I used to construct it. We might get to the Black President matter later. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.
Dr McCleary,
Thank you for reminding us that we are called to be one in Christ. That oneness is found in service to others in the power of the Holy Spirit as we focus not on the problems in society, but on ministering the solutions that are found in God. Ministering those solutions requires that we quit focusing first and foremost on preaching about the Gospel and begin living it in service to others. As I write this, I am in a motel room in Beckley, WV, where we have just finished the most recent Your Best Pathway to Health event. Our leaders expected we would see up to 1,500 medical, dental and optical patients but we actually served 1,561! Being among the more than 730 volunteers who each paid their way to come and participate has been amazing experience and one that will send me back to my home church with a renewed desire to serve even more in my community. We have seen God do amazing things here and God is waiting to do amazing things through each of us if we are willing to quit arguing about doctrine and social issues and start doing things to heal the people who have been injured by those things.
Thank you beyond basic flattery for a literary piece. I grade you “A” because you speak to the article and not a personal side bar it may have given you platform. I find that our [SD} finishing the work and going into all the world discourse has emasculated us from fundamental relationship-building skills. We talk about Jesus and faith then act as if we have to work it out. We call for unity then wink at White Flight, SDA head in the sand on social justice matters. Unity involves real organic people engaged in time and space building trust and being fruitful, and replenishing the earth. Keep doing our Father’s work wherever you are. He’ll tell you “Well done” one day.
An update. The final patient count was 1,722. That exceeded the goal of treating 1,500. I’m back home and just now starting to feel rested after those long days that started early and ended late.
Absolutely William. These events are a great place where our Love is visible. Just over 100 miles north of you there are also many assisting in what they are calling the thousand year flood; the worst impact event we have ever seen. The need and hurt are great, humbling; but the out pour of support is amazing, bringing hope to those impacted and those helping.
We have seen the sacrifice of many, doing what is needed. I see and hear children for the first time demanding to help. I see many giving up vacations to come and help, mostly because of the voice of the children. Their renewed strength and hope is amazing and gives hope in Faith.
HE always makes a way and helping always helps all; including those helping.
Actually, much of it is less than 100 miles from Beckley. We didn’t make a specific count but a number of our clients reported that they, relatives or neighbors had lost their homes to the flooding. Beckley is in the heart of the Appalachian mountains where everything is on a steep hillside and the runoff rises quickly in the valleys where it collects. You really have to see the area to appreciate how quickly it happened or the severity.
Definitely. The hills are steep and the valleys small. We have had to change our approach in access, rescue, infrastructure and deployment. We are still finding people living in outbuildings and tents. Deploying relief and checks on individuals has been very difficult. Some areas were completely cut off.
Temporary housing and rebuild is starting, but there is limited space. There is not a lot of available land that is not steep hillsides. Many locations do not have a warehouse or even a space large enough to build one to hold and distribute supplies from; well less space to build homes on.
Some places require a 30 minute drive to get food or supplies. All of the support services in the area were damaged or gone. Some may never come back. These folks need your prayers.
But I have seen such a oneness of community here; not seen in a long time. May neighbors stockpile certain things and everyone knows who has what. Someone will say this person has this and when you talk to them they say it is in the barn, help yourself anytime. They help load it and may times go help build it. They have such varied and full set of skills, the ability to do and a closeness that is priceless and rare.
A very tired insurance adjustor whom I met at our hotel told me stories of how amazed he was by the spirit of neighbor caring for neighbor in the disaster areas. More than once he went to deliver a check to a client who had suffered an insured loss and had to go searching for them, only to find them helping their neighbors! More than once he was thanked and then asked to leave because he was delaying them from helping others. Those are the sort of neighbors we all need and all need to be!
Spot on William.
Mark, you said something interesting at the conclusion of your commentary: “[Present Truth] is a message and movement that practices and promotes justice for ‘every nation, kindred, tongue and people.'”
Because I think of justice in legal terms – a system of rules and laws to set forth rights and duties, prescribe and proscribe behavior, and establish consequences for their violation – it strikes me that you are suggesting that present truth is neolegalism.
Under Old Covenant theocratic justice, righteousness and justice are interchangeable. But the Kingdom revealed by Jesus and Paul offers little for those who seek restorative justice, empowerment or vindication of their rights. Unity and status in the Kingdom are realized by giving up rights, by the downward mobility of servanthood.
Now earthly organizational unity does indeed require a perception of fairness and justice. But the present truth of the SDA message and movement should not for an instant be conflated with the institutional concerns that you address. Are those things important? Sure, because we no longer live under a priestly dispensation or a theocracy. But how does advancing justice, as I understand that term, square with dying to self, giving up my rights, and living in the Kingdom? Justice demands and compels; love yields and serves from a position of powerlessness. Isn’t that the message and mission of the Church?
Brother Nathan (AKA the OT Prophet?), my use of justice involves socialization in time and space as people and groups balance access to persons, places, and things. Our American experiment has been a work in process–not perfect or flawless, but better than most others. The SDA, Johnny-come-lately movement and message must be challenged to promote and practice justice within if it’s to show itself as a better ecclesiastical role model than others. Otherwise it simply speaks as a tinkling cymbal. My article hints at upper level and grassroots accountability for practicing and not just talking about unity. By this we know we have passed from death to life because we love the brethren (1Jon 3:14).
I’m still not clear, Mark, on how you are using the word “justice.” Of course you can define it any way you like. “…socialization in time and space as people and groups balance access to persons, places and things,” strikes me, to the extent that I understand the abstraction, as somewhat tautological. It’s human nature – not a substantive moral perch. To my way of thinking, when we go about that process through laws and regulations – a very worthwhile and necessary endeavor for earthly kingdom organizations, it’s called justice. When we go about that process through acts of love, mercy, self-sacrifice and self-denial for God’s Kingdom, it’s called discipleship. Isn’t the latter our message and movement?
Let me reiterate – I believe our church institutions, in this cultural milieu, should be characterized by fair process and equal application of rules and policies. But the church institution is a collective that cannot love or be unified in spirit. Only individuals can do that. The Church is merely the facilitator of Kingdom movements. So I think we make a mistake if we think of the corporate church as the movement.
Your exhortations, Mark, feel a bit like social and corporate perfectionism. God’s message and movements have never depended on such factors. Even if you look at the SDA Church, it has frequently experienced unity and God’s blessings despite gender and racial injustice.
Cont. below…
So when you suggest, Mark, that the Church should demonstrate that it is a better ecclesiastical role model, you leave me scratching my head. Why? Better than what – for whom? Does anyone think our ecclesiology is divinely ordained, or that it is not a cultural conditioned historic contingency?
And then when you suggest that by “upper level and grass roots accountability for practicing…we will know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren,…” You really have my head spinning, because this feels like complete spin. I’m all for corporate mechanisms of accountability, and I’m all for loving one another. But it feels to me that you are perverting the gospel by conflating the two.
Before Jesus articulated the hallmark of discipleship to his disciples, He encountered them in the upper room – proud, jockeying for position, and eagerly anticipating the imminent restoration of justice by their Lord. But because He knew who is was; because He knew where He had come from; and because He knew where He was going, He took the towel from around His waist and began to wash their feet.
May I offer, Mark, that it is in the practice of the ordinance of humility – not in acts of justice – that upper level, grass roots, and historically disenfranchised believers in SDA faith communities will experience Kingdom unity and
love, thereby becoming a movement and message to the world that we are His disciples.
Nathan, on an individual level you are correct but God has in the past and I believe still does hold institutions/nations to corporate responsibilities. All you need to do is to look to His treatment of the nation of Israel in both the New and Old Testaments to see this. The Adventist church cannot dodge it’s short comings by saying everything should be done by the individual. I have found it refreshing that the church is finally speaking out on recent issues that have affected many personally and I also find it disturbing that there are those who rail against this. If there is a tragedy speak out and call it such or we will sit silent about things which should be spoken out against as we did during World War II with the Holocaust. Evil is easy to recognize and if we don’t raise our voices against it both individually and corporately then we will are held accountable in like kind to what God said to the Israelites in the Old Testament in regards to such matters. Sending love in Christ.
Where did I say, Mike, that everything should be done on an individual level? My point here is not that the church should not speak out against atrocities. I raised that issue on a different thread. My point here is that there is no NT model – certainly not the words or example of Christ – to support the notion that the SDA message and movement should be justice for every nation, kindred, tribe and people. Certainly that is a very legitimate conclusion to draw from OT theocratic principles. But there’s a lot of stuff in the OT about how God proposes to achieve justice that I suspect you wouldn’t be comfortable advocating.
You can’t selectively proof-text your way out of the dying to self model which is the theme of Christ’s life and message to His followers. Tell me, what do you find in Christ’s life or teachings that supports justice seeking agendas? For that matter, what do you find in His example that contemplates a corporate church exercising hegemony over the movement and message?
If organizations are never put in check, then structural wrong will go on without question. They comprise people, micro and macro in linkage. Reflections are subjective and available for discussion when put in print. The last GC Convention is evidence of the public, social, and organized nature of our movement. Yet, individuals like you and me and official folk like President Wilson are the actors that will make or break his call for unity. We in our micro sense of agency and he as the “head” of this spiritual organization that has trumpeted “Go into ALL the World…to every nation….” My article addresses my concern for his call and challenge to help make it a reality. In 200 words or less, I didn’t choose to offer a treatise on social justice per se. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. I hope I stepped in the right direction.
Come on Nathan, show me how to write a 200 word article and use every term as you would mean. Church is corporate and always individual. Justice is not exclusive to the legal arena. It’s roots are irrevocably in social interaction and exchanges. Is it therefore a social science economic connotation alone? “Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere” (MLK). The obverse is true too. My use of justice in the context of unity is fairness, righteousness (right doing). My concern is that our President not just call for unity, but seek to make it a reality among a diverse body of believers. Exhort us to make his call our call and commitment even when it includes reproof of dis-unifying practices (i.e. White flight).
I agree with just about everything you said, Mark, in your comment yesterday at 4:43. It is a modest, but important recognition that the human institutions through which He works need to be fair, incorporate due process and be accountable. But we need not agree or be unified on what constitutes fairness and due process in order to transcend those differences through acts of love and mercy – not policies or belief statements.
I have to think about the term “spiritual organization.” It feels oxymoronic to me. I don’t see Ted Wilson as my leader. I don’t need him to be my leader. He is the president of an organization that has little to no impact on how I go about my life as an SDA Christian. Ideally, the G.C. is the facilitator of spiritual movements. It doesnt become a spiritual organization simply because it promotes spirituality, any more than a hospital is a healthy organization because it promotes health.
As a call is for reform within the institutional infrastructure, you have indeed offered a step in the right direction. I always applaud improvement in earthly kingdom organizations. But if the idea is that your “step in the right direction” will move is closer to the Kingdom that Jesus taught and lived, I have to question whether your step in the right direction may be an illusory distraction. The important thing, it seems to me, is a humble recognition that properly balancing, through policies and rules, access to power has little to do with the Kingdom.
Unity is an abstraction.
And in its absence, we tend to talk.
John Saddington is a software developer.
Here https://medium.com/@saddington/why-change-the-world-500354b8803#.rrptnyx8s is where he wrote this:
Why Change the World.
Why should we want to change the world?
I think it’s because we all know that there is something grossly wrong with it; there is something so fundamentally broken about who we are, collectively and individually.
How do I know? Just look around. Read the news. Scan Facebook or Twitter and behold the atrocities of man.
But perhaps more acutely (and more personally)… take a look at how you’ve treated people this past week. Do a quick retrospective of how you’ve been treated, even by those that we proclaim to love so dearly.
We have harmed them. We have hurt them. We have made them feel less-than. We have ignored them. We have done them wrong. And a few of us have been on the receiving end of the stick as well.
Why change the world? Because it’s not well in its current form. It’s sick. It needs a real doctor’s care.
But before the cure arrives, we have a part to play. We have a responsibility to choose, to act, to do right.
Mostly, we have a rare opportunity, this moment, to ask ourselves if we are spending our most valuable resource in the most valuable of ways. Are you, am I, spending our time in the best way(s) possible?
There are so many better things and ways to be spending our time. And we should go do those t
things
Quote: “I don’t see Ted Wilson as my leader. I don’t need him to be my leader. He is the president of an organization that has little to no impact on how I go about my life as an SDA Christian.” (Nathan Schilt)
—–
Mr Schlit seems to sum up the outlook and worldview of religious liberals who have brought into the church their open rebellion to church authority and leadership – and who have of late roped in some Adventist theologians who have further divided the church en route to open apostasy. By playing to the tune of their state led secular puppetmasters, they have fallen for the pseudo morality and distorted views of equality which has led them to force these cultural norms on the church. Obviously this was triggered by feminism, dress deform and ungodly practices that have crept into the church. Being the lukewarm church it is, I won’t deny that conservatives too may have their flaws, but they haven’t stooped to the level of liberals. Under such circumstances disunity is unavoidable. San Antonio is evidence of this. That’s the reality. What has also become quite obvious is the fact that liberals have become Adventists in name only. They legalistically follow the laws and dictates of the secular authorities whilst rejecting the teachings, beliefs and standards of Bible based Adventism. The road to SA also showed the open racism shown towards the world church by the West. So what’s new?l
Trevor – you have painted with a very broad brush that exhibits no understanding of what I believe. Just like I don’t want the Federal government to have a significant impact on my life, I don’t want the bureaucracy of the G.C. to have a big impact on my life. I am fairly congregationalist when it comes to church organization. I believe God’s Spirit is found, and best operates, in small faith communities. I am anything but a secularist. It so happens that my civic values are fairly consistent with my ecclesiastical preferences. I think power left to smaller governmental units is best.
I certainly am quite liberal by your standards. But by the standards of Erv, Elaine and others who regularly denigrate faith assertions, I am very conservative. So please don’t limp us altogether, even though I know you think we are all going to Hell.
Mr Schilt. Your wordsmith ingenuity is quite a class act to follow and your words in this instance, in my opinion, kinda summed up what most Adventist liberals think of our honorable GC President, Ps Ted Wilson – (nothing really new I would say). You said this; and whichever way you want to spin it, it still remains the rhetoric of Adventist liberals. If you want to call yourself a conservative liberal then knock yourself out.