Top Adventist Leader uses Web, Video to Talk Directly to Members about His Goals, Concerns
by
By AT News Team, November 15, 2013
It is unprecedented, according to the official Adventist News Network bulletin. Pastor Ted Wilson, president of the General Conference (GC) of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has released a video "state of the Church" message on the Internet, taking his goals and concerns directly to Church members. Traditionally this message has been presented as a Sabbath sermon during the annual meeting of the GC executive committee.
Wilson thanked God for the rapid growth of the movement which began in the late 1840s with a few hundred people and now includes an estimated 25 million adherents in more than 70,000 local congregations operating in all but a handful of nations. He restated his top goal of "revival" and shared again a quotation from Ellen G. White, the woman who was the most prominent of leader in the formation of the denomination; "A revival of true godliness among us is the greatest and most urgent of all our needs."
Wilson listed four key concerns: (1) a loss of a sense of identity as a unique prophetic movement; (2) changes in traditional norms related to "diet and dress, recreation and amusement, and Sabbath-keeping;" (3) "the danger of disunity;" and (4) apathy and lack of involvement by many members. He stated that God has given the denomination a "divinely inspired organization" and "mutual agreements called church policies" and appealed to members "lay aside personal opinion" and support denominational policies and structures.
"Brothers and sisters, I appeal to you, as I appeal to my own heart, to make a full, complete, total consecration to Christ," Wilson ended his message. He then prayed for the denomination and others seeking the "truths of the Bible."
The entire, 40-minute video can be viewed and downloaded at this Web site: vimeo.com/79438041
This story is based, in part, on a bulletin from Adventist News Network (ANN), the official news service of the denomination.
I am not sure, how many people actually will watch this 41:37 video; but not wanting to assume anything I did and found it symptomatic in many ways.
Where and what this presentation will accomplish remains to be seen. It certainly demonstrates the strong sense of mission of the president.
Well according to my Bible it is Jesus Christ that has triumphed and will triumph.
The church that prevails to the Second Advent will be the church that first and foremost, lifts-up Jesus Christ. The only way to enact lasting positive change in my own life or the lives of thsoe I love is by accepting Jesus into my heart.
"It" being Ted Wilson's presentation of "It" being Jesus Christ?
savy politics
Shining says it all and Andreas Bochmann is right on with the analysis–Savy politics aimed at his constituency using a vocabulary they appreciate and issues with which they idenitfy. At least, he or his right wing advisors know how to package effective propaganda .
Wilson knows there are more "adherents" in Pretoria than Peoria.
It's always important to know who are you paying constituents.
Reading Revelation 14, it is pretty clear that it is the angels themselves, not some denomination, that proclaim their messages.
What then is the work of a church?
Perhaps there is no work.
Perhaps the struggle for the church is the struggle of the so-called rich young ruller, to let go of the resutls of his work and embrace the truth that there was nothing he could do to save his soul–or in the case of a church, the souls of others.
Can you imagine the explosive power of such a message, a message that would once and for all testify to the mistaken belief (a mark in the forehead) that there is something we have to do (a mark on the hand) to save our soul?
Talk about the wine-blinding sense of wrath to be experienced by those who seccumb to Babylon's false assertion that one can of their own hand secure the pleasures of salvation independent of the Love of the savior. Fornication is not a casual choice of words.
Elder Wilson's closing apple, is … "Brothers and sisters, I appeal to you, as I appeal to my own heart, to make a full, complete, total consecration to Christ. I appeal to you to embrace the prophetic calling that Jesus has given to this church, His remnant church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, a church that is on the march in the Advent movement. I appeal to you to lift the standard high in your own life. I appeal to you to become actively involved in witnessing for your Lord, as we anticipate Christ’s soon second coming. Will you make this commitment right now, as we pray together?"
Sadly, human efforts to self-consecrate, human efforts to self-embrace a church, human efforts to self-raise the standards of one's behavior, human efforts to self-engage in wittnessing (whatever that is–testifying, now that's the Biblical path) … are neither prelude nor outcome of salvation.
Is it not the futility of human efforts that the Holy Spirit had in mind when Ellen White noted that Righteousness by Faith is in verity the Three Angel's Messages?
Elder Wilson's appeal feels perilously close to Babylon's appeal by inference. Not that this is his intent. Not at all. It is that he apears blinded by his personal need to succeed with his personal vision of what it personally means to be General Conference president, rather than to be looking and watching and seeing and reporting on where the Holy Spirit is actually and already leading the church.
"Reading Revelation 14, it is pretty clear that it is the angels themselves, not some denomination, that proclaim their messages."
The angels represent God's people who give the messages. At no time will we see literal angels coming down from Heaven to warn the world of its impending end. The same way we will not see literal dragons or seven-headed beasts at any time. Revelation speaks in symbols. Christ has committed the work of proclaiming the three angel's messages – which are the everlasting gospel – to His people (Matt28:19-20).
I don't mean to be picky (well, I guess I am) but this text in the Bible says angels, not humans, are the actors here. Are we suggesting that we need to interpret the Bible? When we interpret the Bible to mean not what it says, but what we think it says, are we not starting down the slippy slope to relativism and pluralism and all of those bad things we have been told we should not do by our conservative co-religionists? If we start to interpret the Bible, where will it end? Does seven days of creation mean 7 literal days? Or can we interpret that passage to mean seven long periods of time–even millions of years of time? Do you see what might happen? If the Bible says "angels," it means "angels"! Right?
The Bible must be interpreted – that is true. But it interpretes itself; scripture is its own expositor. The word angel simply means messenger and scripture presents numerous instances were the term is used to refer to things other than spiritual beings – an ordinary messenger (Job 1:14, 1Sam11:3, Luke 7:24,9:52), prophets (Isa 42.19), priests (Mal 2:7) the list goes on.
So allowing the Bible to interpret the symbols it contains itself will protect the believer from the extremes to which you are referring and allow them to arive at a correct position. Revelation is a symbolic book. If we were to take it literally then we would in turn be forced into extreme and unbiblical conclusions such as the idea that a literal seven headed beast will one day arise to wreak havoc upon the earth.
Regarding your example from genesis – there is no other biblical interpretation than the literal. If one would venture to say the creation week is symbolic then one must show from the Bible what those symbols mean. There being none, we can only conclude that it is literal.
Why is it "unBiblical" to believe that some day "a literal seven headed beast will one day arise to wreak havoc upon the earth."? Don't "good" Adventists believe that a literal Sunday law will be passed someday?
I missed the comment that "there is no other biblical interpreatation than the literal" dealing with the Genesis creation narrtives. I'm sure that St. Augustine would a little surprised to hear that.
I can understand the substitution of a human for an angel, if we are dealing with messengers, though that does not seem to be what Revelation is meaning when it uses the term Angel, as in what we commonly term the Three Angels Messages.
In your judgement, is the word Angel as used in verses 6-9, a reference to a church, to a heavenly endorsed message, to a human, to an actual angel, or possibly to something else? To bolster your interpretation, where else in scripture is the word Angel used in this way, and given that support, on what basis do you pick this interpretation rather than some other interpretation, I mean other than your own sense of what makes sense to you?
In a pratical sense, let me illustrate the issue. In the 70's I was teaching at Southern Adventist University (SMC at the time) and was with with a small group of students on a Sabbath afternoon on Signal Mountain. We were, in common parlance, witnessing from door to door sharing information specifically about the biblical book of Revelation. I don't recall whether this was associated with a series of meetings or a more direct presentation with a pamphlet or book.
What I do remember is what the owner of a wonderful home overlooking Chattanooga and the Tennessee River from nearly 1,000' above the valley. He said that, having read Revelation, he found it mysteriously symbolic, with the clear implication that he believed the mystery to be not only beyond him, but surely beyond anyone knocking on his door. He treated us with a smile and good cheer, for which we were grateful as we thanked him and took our leave on the way to the rest of the doors behind which people were not nealry so hospitable that day.
I am left to wonder thinking about that encounter 40 years later, if maybe he was living the message of Revelation in ways that neither he nor we at the time could possibly imagine. I'm not saying he was, I'm just wondering based on his spirit rather than his knowledge. He certainly seemed in no way duped by Babylon, let alone himself.
Where is the angel in this little memory do you think?
Erv you need go back in time go to PUC and follow your fisrt love Theology…..
Ah. You found me out. I was indeed a theology major at PUC for about 10 nanoseconds until the late Walter Utt saved me from a fate that would be horrible to contemplate. I should not be so negative about theology, it allows one to be so "creative" with facts.
Erv, you've disclosed the secret of theologians! That's why some of us pursue the more objective disciplines as there can be differences in "why" but the facts cannot be argued. The disagreements i theology are endless because there is no objective evidence; it's all subjective.
Erv: Utt’s influence was not completely successful. It appears to me that you expend a lot of your time energy and maybe some of your resources in or with people/institutions that have SDA theology. It is possible that you may left theology but theology never left you 🙂
I finally got a chance to look at the entire video late last night (California time). It is a remarkable audio-video package. It gives us a window on what the ethos of classical Adventism looked and felt like in the 1930s and perhaps even in the late 19th century. The phrases, the quotations from EGW, "the world is ending soon" theme, the entire sect-like projections are in that video. It is as if nothing had happened in the church for 70 years! Time has apparently stopped for Pastor Wilson. He is in a true time-warp. The sad thing is that many will take this to be what Adventism is like in the second decade of the 21st Century. Fortunately, in many centers of Adventism, it is not and we should celebrate that fact. The suggestion that we should the ignore the GC and concentrate on the local church and, at most, the local conference is an excellent one. If enough laypersons would direct all of their financial support to the local church and to the positive things the church is doing such as ADRA, it would be possible to limit the damage that the GC under the current administration can do to the positive parts of Adventism.
A slight distortion and then an application of the Catholic doctrine of "mental reservations" would be a necessary mental maneuver for a thinking person to swear his admission into the SDA church based on the baptismal certificate. But then, what is the attraction for anyone to join for any reason?
According to this report Pastor Wilson says Adventists have had (2) changes in traditional norms related to "diet and dress, recreation and amusement, and Sabbath-keeping;"
I think he should add to the list: (a) Jewelry (b) Music – rock n roll music in the church (c) coffee drinking – starbucks, coke etc. (d) speaking in the church foyer and irreverance in the sancutary.
How about being overweight and using hair dyes? Or wearing the color red? (Sorry. That one will not work in light of the fact that EGW said that every woman should have a red dress.) While we are at it, how may of our pet peeves might be added to the list? Seriously, making such lists reveals more about the person making up the list than it does the actual nature of the items on the list. Certain personality types seem to need to have to tell other people what they should not be doing or eating or drinking.
Ronald,
A very good summary of the questions that I will address in my SS Class next month!
Since I am not a denominational employee I am unlikely to be censured for using my own syllabus rather than the SS Quarterly. I believe I can answer most of your questions by applying Revelation to interpret Daniel, but I am not sure that Ted Wilson would agree with all of my answers.
I will use your list of questions as a check-list as I complete this part of my syllabus – thanks for your help!
So Jan has explained why people don't like me 8-).
Seriously, this has become the biggest "Don't Ask- Don't Tell" for SDA employees. I am not in this elite (?) group but many close friends and relatives are.
I think the people at the top are hoping the questions will go away if they wait long enough. Maybe the Lord will return and the argument will become irrelevant. Meanwhile I think there are good answers available to many, if perhaps not all, of the questions on your list.
But until we can admit that there is still more to be learned about this topic since Uriah Smith died over a century ago, there is not much point in officially discussing it. Rather there is the nagging fear that we might have to un-learn some old things in order to learn some new things. A chance those now at the top apparently are reluctant to take.