Skip to content

40 Comments

  1. Sam Geli
    29 July 2015 @ 8:45 am

    Brother Hoffer writes in his blog “I know Ted Wilson personally and have for many years. The resounding applause that greeted the announcement of his reelection and again at the worship service on Sabbath morning, is a testimony to his faithful leadership. And to charge him with negligence in not openly expressing his personal position on women’s ordination is positively outrageous. Don’t people know that the chairman is supposed to remain neutral? What did you expect—that he swing the vote one way or another by his influence? I am appalled at such a stab in the back!”

    Brother Hoffer, I appreciate your service and your goodwill for the church. From one retired Pastor to another, let me say that submission is NOT about surrender to principle, or hiding your differences.
    Regarding your article,
    1. Brother Hoffer, even Ted Wilson will admit that he was NEVER neutral in the subject of WO.
    2. Applause, even having a vote in your favor is NOT in itself “a testimony to his faithful leadership”.
    3. The Bible teaches that we should submit to one another out of a reverence for Christ, to esteem others better than ourselves, to obey those who have authority over us, and most of all, to submit ourselves under God’s authority and His Law because God will resist all who refuse to submit and humble themselves but will only give grace to the humble and humble people are submitting people.

    Submission works in all directions, my friend and colleague.

    • EM
      01 August 2015 @ 6:19 pm

      A really good response. Anyone who has been in church work for very long knows that biases exist and many decisions are made on them. It is not demeaning to admit this. I believe the great majority of church leaders–perhaps all– sincerely believe in their biases. This is not to say they are not good men who care deeply about others–or at least some others.
      The biggest test for any leader is a willingness to listen. I stopped long ago putting my trust in religious verbage coming from leaders or any one (at least until or unless I know them). It is more what one does than says.

  2. Ervin Taylor
    29 July 2015 @ 9:07 am

    One would assume that we all appreciate the tone and sentiment of Pastor Hoffer. His has every right to his opinions. But his facts are a problematical. But apparently he wishes the rest of us to ignore totally simple reality in a number of areas, both scientific and political.

    “Submission”? Submission to what? The good pastor’s view that the current GC President received the applause because of a “testimony to his faithful leadership” is a little comical. “Faithful to what”?
    I was there. I could see where most of the applause was coming from.

    It could not be better stated: “Submission works in all directions.”

    • William Noel
      29 July 2015 @ 4:51 pm

      Erv,

      Personal addiction to particular topics of theology or science is difficult to break, but it happens when we follow the example of Jesus and become devoted to ministering the love of God. I sometimes am amazed and chagrined to look back and see the things that I used to think were important before I discovered that sharing the love of God was what mattered most to Him.

  3. earl calahan
    29 July 2015 @ 11:27 am

    Bro. Hoffer, bless you and your witness for our Lord Jesus. i too feel a need to
    confirm that Bro. T. Wilson, earlier, very strongly expressed his negative opinion of WO. Also he used the statement you’ve used above with regard to other issues, some listed as FB’s, as if you do not believe as {I’ve quoted} his printed assessment and belief, was “you are disqualified as a Seventh Day Adventist”;
    only he stated “you are not a S.D.A.”!!
    Can you accept that a officer of the Church would make that statement?? And yet he stated it to the whole church”. This is totally unacceptable, an insult to the rank and file of the church. There is a multitude of differences in God’s people’s beliefs, yet God does not say to us “there’s the door, close it when you leave!! God’s house should be open to every sinner seeking His Way, Jesus Christ
    i conversed several times, eye to eye, with Neil Wilson, personally, in my home, and he had a different perspective on several issues that were different than the son’s. Was Neil, the receiver of a different SPIRIT than the son?? The putting forward of an issue for a vote, knowing the result beforehand, because of the definite Curtural outlook toward women, was disgraceful and displayed gross incompetence of the GC OFFICERS. It was irresponsibile, and the terrible backlash, and possible schism of the SDA.
    Those responsible should definitely resign. Don’t call any man “FATHER”, subitt only to GOD.

  4. Bill Sorensen
    29 July 2015 @ 11:34 am

    As Dr. Taylor pointed out, this issue not about what a nice person the GC president is. No one can be nicer than the Pope if and when it suits the church’s purpose.

    Some of us are demanding loyalty to the bible. We have no other agenda. And it was more than obvious that the real goal was unity, not loyalty to God’s word. When the GC president stated he would go along with whatever decision was made, it was obvious he did not consider this a biblical moral issue, and if he did, shame on him to the highest degree. He was willing to abandon his morality for church unity? What kind of example of leadership is that?

    You won’t sell submission for the sake of unity to either side that have moral convictions. People like yourself fail to see the real issue and offer advice and an opinion that is not even relevant to the intensity of the situation.

  5. Bugs/Larry Boshell
    29 July 2015 @ 3:12 pm

    There is a wistfulness that shows up in Pastor Hoffer’s article that reflects a longing for simplicity, a wish for the fields of ambrosia (peacefulness). I admire anyone who can “submit” themselves to this place of repose. Multitudes of the “faithful” are there, in and out outside of Adventism. Billy Graham, for one, has made public statements of his residence there.

    But some of us aren’t allowed there. Perhaps it is a curse, a condition of heredity, rebellion, skepticism, or just cussed orneriness. It might just be an intense desire to understand the universe in the tradition of Newton, Galileo and Darwin, darn the cost. But whatever it is, we have thought patterns that willingly nuke tranquility in favor of the white water rapids of intellectual rafting.

    I admire Pastor Hoffer’s love for, and contribution to his church and find no fault with his personal opinion since he has earned it over a long ministry.

    I’m simply suggesting to him that there is a large body of his mentally and restless compatriots to whom “submission” means a different algorithm of belief than for him, where “peace” means endless “search..” And that their continued presence in the Adventist Church is living proof they are “real Adventists.”

    Submission produces faux unity. Christ’s new commandment unifies authentically, that we love each other like he loves us.

    As most know, I left the Adventist church a long time ago. But still I have respect for it and those who…

  6. Bugs/Larry Boshell
    29 July 2015 @ 3:14 pm

    As most know, I left the Adventist church a long time ago. But still I have respect for it and those who remain in it.

  7. Erivn Taylor
    29 July 2015 @ 3:56 pm

    I have rarely read a better focused analysis of a blog than the one above by Bugs/Larry Boshell. For example “”Submission produces faux unity.” Well done!

    • Elaine Nelson
      29 July 2015 @ 4:23 pm

      Bugs has given a good description of some of us who probably inherited skepticism, rather healthy or evil, depending on observers, but that is in our DNA and we are forced to question rather than blindly being led by those who may be in authority. Perhaps it could either be a blessing or curse for the church; others will decide.

  8. William Noel
    29 July 2015 @ 4:45 pm

    Jim,

    Thank you for an excellent reminder that we need to be subject to Jesus and follow the example He gave us for loving others.

    The reason the church in North America and other places is growing so slowly or even shrinking is because so many Adventists have a form of godliness based on theology and ego about their views on favorite doctrines, but none of the power of God because they have lost touch with Jesus. That any of those arguers might one day discover that love and learn to minister it will truly be a miracle of redemption.

  9. JeannieBrown
    29 July 2015 @ 5:43 pm

    Unfortunately, Ted Wilson is a “chip off the old block.” He has inherited the Germanic manner of management of his father Neal Wilson — which is, to whip everyone into compliance with the leader, while coating the process with religiosity. This, to him, equals unity.

    I don’t really believe Pastor Ted even knows any different management style. I knew his wife’s family quite well, many years ago, and to me this is 180 degrees different from that family’s method of teaching, leading, guiding those who looked up to them. I believe his wife must be receiving God’s grace and strength every single day, in order to be able to go along with her husband’s autocratic ways.

    Let’s just realize that this is Ted’s way of carrying out his perceived duties as president. He doesn’t speak for me, and I don’t worry about the things he says. I know God loves each one of us, and that He will take each of us home to live with Him unless we actively resist. We don’t need “unity” in our religious practices; we need a love for God and for His Son Jesus, and a total dedication to Him. We were created with freedom of will. We were each created with unique features and personalities, so as to be able to stand out as unique individuals. There is no need to merge our beliefs and practices into some perceived creed [even though we claim not to have a creed].

    I believe this is but a sign of the nearness of His coming.

  10. Rogelio Gutierrez
    29 July 2015 @ 6:03 pm

    “1. Brother Hoffer, even Ted Wilson will admit that he was NEVER neutral in the subject of WO.”

    For credibility’s sake, Pastor Geli, maybe you could provide concrete evidence to support this assertion? Personally, not since 1995 at the GC Session have I heard any public comment, or even rumors of one, coming from the lips of Elder Ted Wilson. By the way, consider this a genuinely casual, uberfriendly request because I’m sure we’re both commenting here for the betterment of our beloved church. Blessings to you and yours, Sam. 🙂

    • Jack Hoehn
      29 July 2015 @ 11:48 pm

      Rogelio, those who knew Pastor Wilson’s church in Washington DC area knew he opposed women elders in his church. The composition of TOSC was neutered by selecting WO advocates like Doug Batchelor with no other qualification than that they opposed WO. As President he is allowed to bring in VIP Delegates to the GC, previously used for political figures. This year all were WO opponents. His public discourtesy to the ordination of a woman was widely noted in the Adventist press as Elaine mentioned. His behind the scenes attempt to silence Angel Rodriguez in favor of WO/and against male headship has been mentioned elsewhere in comments on ATODAY. Personally I know that he refused to attend his Adventist sister’s second wedding because he did not approve of the marriage. This does not show the generous kind loving spirit one would like from a brother to a sister, no matter what the issues. Others may know more than I know, but the consensus is he acts like one who believes in Male Headship and against Women in Ministry being recognized by our church.

    • Sam Geli
      01 August 2015 @ 5:04 am

      From my previous blog on July 29, 2015 at 8:45 am
      “….even Ted Wilson will admit that he was NEVER neutral in the subject of WO.”

      Brother Gutierrez’s response in his bog July 29, 2015 at 6:03 pm was
      “For credibility’s sake, Pastor Geli, maybe you could provide concrete evidence to support this assertion? Personally, not since 1995 at the GC Session have I heard any public comment, or even rumors of one, coming from the lips of Elder Ted Wilson.”

      First of all there are MANY things you and I “have heard” and at least in my case many more I have not heard of. Stay tuned. For Brother Ted to stand up and claim that he will abide by the vote “either way it goes” just before the vote was taken, is not and probably never was intended as a statement of neutrality on the WO issue. Particularly, in the context of many actions that were not “neutral”. The meaning of the word neutrality is important: Webster’s New Edition
      1. the state of not supporting either side in a war, disagreement, etc.
      2. behavior that does not show strong feelings or strong opinions
      Secondly, read the blog entries that followed our exchange. They are informative

      Thirdly, I would expand what I said, from a comment by a person who has known Brother Wilson for many years, his own father, Neal Wilson, publicly said: “Ted is decisive. On matters of policy or doctrine he is NOT neutral, or passive.”

      Brother Wilson is of course able to speak for himself as we all are.

      I also wish you blessings to…

  11. Elaine Nelson
    29 July 2015 @ 7:16 pm

    There is the picture and report from observers in Australia where he attended an ordination service where several men were ordained. But when a woman was ordained he turned away in a posture that spoke much, according to the observers.

    • Jim Hamstra
      08 August 2015 @ 8:07 pm

      Correction. The woman was NOT being Ordained. She was being Commissioned which was and still is totally in harmony with GC policy.

      By agreeing to participate in the ordination of the men while refusing to participate in the commissioning of the woman, Ted Wilson made a very strong and unmistakably clear statement about his personal position. He is opposed to commissioning women as pastors even though this is the approved policy of the GC.

  12. Rogelio Gutierrez
    29 July 2015 @ 8:15 pm

    “a posture that spoke much, according to the observers”

    Thanks for your response. I actually read about this experience a blog not long after it happened. And soonafter there were countering rumors from Wilson supporters another blog. But nothing, to my knowledge, was ever substantiated with regard to a clearcut statement of support from Ted Wilson whether for or against the ordination of women. Perhaps Sam knows of some statement of record you and I may not yet be privy to. Not sure. Either way, thanks again for your quick reply, Elaine.

    • Jim Hamstra
      08 August 2015 @ 8:03 pm

      Actions speak louder than words.

      Ted Wilson’s actions regarding WO shout out to any who will observe.

      And his views on WO have been widely known in and around Silver Spring for years.

      And before he said that in the interest of unity he would support the outcome of the vote, he prefaced this with the comment that “most of you know my beliefs on this subject” (close paraphrase – sorry I do not have the exact quote but I watched him live on TV and the meaning of his comment was very clear).

  13. Rogelio Gutierrez
    29 July 2015 @ 8:16 pm

    “a posture that spoke much, according to the observers”

    Thanks for your response. I actually read about this experience on a blog not long after it happened. And soonafter there were countering rumors from Wilson supporters another blog. But nothing, to my knowledge, was ever substantiated with regard to a clearcut statement of support from Ted Wilson whether for or against the ordination of women. Perhaps Sam knows of some statement of record you and I may not yet be privy to. Not sure. Either way, thanks again for your quick reply, Elaine.

    • Tim
      31 July 2015 @ 9:57 am

      The key to that statement is “according to some observers”.

      I am dubious of that read motive and intent into others actions and then become reporters.

      They may be right, and may not be. To me it lends little credibility to either side.

    • RT1C
      01 August 2015 @ 5:02 am

      Paraphrasing since I don’t have a transcript in front of me, but I was in San Antonio during the debate on WO, and when Ted Wilson made his brief floor speech he introduced his remarks by saying that he believed the delegates already knew his position on WO so he wouldn’t state that now, but was asking for unity. It was a way to remind delegate of his views without appearing to advocate for them, but surely everyone understood that by unity he wasn’t asking them to unite in opposition to his well-understood views. And I don’t know why Ted Wilson would have said that the church understood his position if he had never stated/demonstrated it, as Rogelio Gutierrez seems to be arguing.

  14. Bill
    29 July 2015 @ 10:13 pm

    Brother Hoffer,

    Being retired, you must remember the subject of movement versus church back when the church had first reached a million members. It was in the 1950’s. To some the feeling was that structure was eclipsing spirituality. There was open puzzlement. It is no small thing to attain one million members for a 100-year-movement that had become a church. Something even then seemed lost, already.

    The risk is always that policy will isolate members and congregations from the inspiring breath of the Holy Spirit. Policy is always designed to avoid more than to advance. In short, as innocent as it always starts, policy is always the end of a movement.

    Policy makers are always hopeful that innocents will embrace submission.

    Before policy, the first Seventh-day Adventists sensed themselves embraced by the presence of the Holy Spirit, and thus loving one another in the midst of surprisingly different expressions of faith when reading their creed, the bible.

    Now 18 million members later, Elder Wilson is talking about real Seventh-day Adventists, as though there are others.

    I’m inspired by the account of John pointing out to Jesus one claiming to represent Jesus but who was not among Jesus’ disciples. John asked him to make the distinction official. Jesus replied: “Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” And in the second retelling of this event, “For he that is not against us is on our part.”

    For Jesus, there is no real Christian,…

    • Bill Garber
      29 July 2015 @ 10:55 pm

      … Just Christian.

      • Stephen Foster
        30 July 2015 @ 1:12 am

        “Now 18 million members later, Elder Wilson is talking about real Seventh-day Adventists, as though there are others.”

        Bill, “there are others;” and the suggestion that there are not is an example of “faux unity” (as Bugs has put it). There are those who are “against us;” i.e., against, or opposed to, or in disagreement with much if not all of what Seventh-day Adventism has ever been about…yet they remain affiliated for various (if not mysterious) reasons.

        It’s not really clear what is gained by denying/ignoring the obvious and the self-evident; except perhaps a false sense of unity.

        • Bill Sorensen
          30 July 2015 @ 7:36 am

          “It’s not really clear what is gained by denying/ignoring the obvious and the self-evident; except perhaps a false sense of unity.”

          And this is what they have tried to project that is totally bogus. There is no unity, and never will be. EGW denies such a false ideology. She clearly states, “Two parties will be developed.” And they won’t be in agreement, nor will there by some political agenda that can bring about such unity.

          Unless, and until those in leadership are willing to admit this fact, they will continue in some spiritual la la land far outside the reality, and vainly hope to create this scenario, or falsely claim they have it.

          We could hope some leaders would “man up” and admit this reality and proceed to deal with the situation exactly like it is, instead of ignoring the reality of a division that can not and will not be healed. No doubt some realize millions of dollars are on the line and they will follow the money and whatever it takes to “feed the kitty.” After all, they live off the church. So, it is difficult, or impossible for them to be objective and consider all the facts.

          So, as Luther said, “There is no way back”. Just so, there is no way back for us either.

          • Bill Sorensen
            30 July 2015 @ 7:50 am

            When they allowed the ordination of women and embraced the liberal agenda, they set in motion the final destruction of the SDA church until and unless there would be a clear repentance and return to the bible and all its teachings.

            The chances of this happening are somewhere between slim and none. But we can affirm there will be some loyal historic SDA’s who will always defend bible Adventism and the principles it was founded on. They may be few, but they will no doubt be vocal and continue to “cry aloud and spare not.”

            This is the true “spirit of prophecy” that transcends EGW, since she has been dead many years. God desired a “prophet” church, not some singular individual that is now long gone and can not now dialogue in the present conflict.

            Every member of the true SDA movement is a “prophet” on some level. If not, they are not really a SDA. We continue to “trumpet” the truth on every level, teaching and being taught. Not abandoning our foundation of truth, but building on that foundation until we have a complete structure of truth that can not be overthrown by any or all forces of evil of men or angels.

            We can be a part of it, or not. God won’t force anyone to serve Him. And as Luther said, “Truth is truth”. No compromise on any level for the sake of unity.

        • Bill Garber
          31 July 2015 @ 11:02 am

          Stephen,

          Founding Seventh-day Adventists were unified by reason of mutually admiring and embracing one another by reason of sharing the same experience of God’s presence, while accommodating a plethora of often conflicting biblical understandings. There is a reason the church decided to claim ‘the bible as our creed.’ They could not agree on their fundamental beliefs. Understandably there were gun-shy so soon after the night of Octover 22, 1844, had ‘blasted’ their most determined biblical belief ever.

          Today, we have replaced the palpable presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives with theological statements in the form of 28 ‘Fundamental Beliefs’ to describe our church. How sad.

          You are right about the obvious reality that people who disagree with some of the Fundamental Beliefs of the church continue to affiliate.

          Why do you suppose that is? Understanding that may well be more valuable than further defending beliefs.

          There is a saying, ‘You can take the boy out of the far, but you can’t take the farm out of the boy.’ Replace ‘farm’ with ‘Seventh-day Adventist’ and you have a good starting place for answering why people continue to affiliate with the Seventh-day Adventist church who disagree with some of the Fundamental Beliefs.

          Do you suppose that the answer is related to the Holy Spirit’s presence? I do.

          So you suppose that affiliation is what Jesus had in mind with His statement, ‘Those who are not against us, are for us?’ I do.

          • Stephen Foster
            31 July 2015 @ 6:39 pm

            Bill,

            I believe what Jesus was also effectively saying is that those who are against us are indeed not for us.

            What needs to be acknowledged is the reality that we have Adventists who essentially disagree with all of the fundamental beliefs of Adventism, yet still affiliate with Adventists. I don’t believe that being in fundamental disagreement with Seventh-day Adventism is the same as being for Seventh-day Adventism; or that being in fundamental disagreement with Protestantism is the same as being for Protestantism; or that being in fundamental disagreement with Christianity (the faith-belief that Jesus the Christ was sent by God to be the propitiation for all our sins; and by faith-belief in His sacrificial death and intercession, we are saved from the wages of sin) is the same as being for Christianity.

  15. Dan Bates
    31 July 2015 @ 10:02 pm

    This is not in direct response to the article but more a general response to the comments to this and many other opinion pieces.

    I don’t know when I started reading Adventist Today, perhaps the last three years or so. Most of the time I find the responses to the articles and opinion pieces to be more fascinating than the articles themselves simply because it gives a window into what other people are thinking.

    Since the General Conference Session in San Antonio I have grown increasingly concerned over the nature of a lot of articles and comments. It has led me to wonder what kind of spirit are we allowing to guide in our discussions?

    Ephesians 5:29-32:

    “Do not any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.”

    Just food for thought—for all of us!

    • Sam Geli
      01 August 2015 @ 8:53 am

      I have found it a blessing and a true learning experience to be a part of the blogging community at AT. Some comments (including mine) could be put more gently and probably more eloquently. But it is liberating and ritual growth experience for me to be able to participate in dialogue.
      American lawyer Cass Sunstein, in his splendid book Why Societies Need Dissent, expressed the view long held among exponents of theoretical democracy that dissent is the leaven which propels societies to be productive, innovative, creative, attractive to human beings from diverse cultural backgrounds; that dissent unleashes the regenerative capacities which enable societies to thrive and not atrophy. In fact dissent, defined as the public expression of disagreement with majority-held views, is the essential component of open democratic politics, as it underpins the operations of the various “freedoms” – the freedoms of association, media, religion, speech – to protect which we have been repeatedly told by leaders of the world’s major democracies since 1939 that we must go to war. Dissent in all organizations, minor and major, whether the local book club (or the electronic blogs of AT-my comment), is a forum for proposing alternate views, for bringing additional information to bear on decision-making processes which could have far-reaching consequences for those responsible for the work the nation (or of our church-my comment.

      • Dan Bates
        01 August 2015 @ 8:52 pm

        Thank you for your comments. I too believe in the importance of “healthy” dialogue and discussions. My concern is the tone and nature of the discussions.

        It just seems to me that because we feel passionately about our particular point of view (whatever that may be) we tend to make accusations or statements that are not always the most positive or beneficial to others who are reading. God does not look kindly on slander and I think it is important to keep that in mind. I speak from one who has made that mistake far too often and have had to learn the hard way.

  16. Sam Geli
    01 August 2015 @ 5:57 am

    The following word clarification might prove useful to this discussion of “faux unity”. Specifically what does the word “faux” mean?

    Synonyms for faux:
    fake
    false
    imitation
    imitative
    unreal
    counterfeit
    fabricated
    factitious
    spurious
    substitute
    affected
    contrived
    feigned
    insincere
    plastic
    synthetic
    unnatural
    vegan
    pretend

    Antonyms for faux:
    authentic
    genuine
    real
    natural

    • Ervin Taylor
      01 August 2015 @ 3:47 pm

      “vegan”? Did that get slipped in to see if anyone was actually reading carefully the comments?

  17. Reality
    01 August 2015 @ 8:25 am

    Another definition of faux unity (but it does include many of these words:

    2 Timothy 3:
    1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
    2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
    3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
    4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
    5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
    6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
    7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

    • William Noel
      01 August 2015 @ 10:24 am

      Why so much attention on identifying what is false instead of focusing on doing what God wants us to do so people will see His love in action and be drawn to Him? You don’t have to know what darkness is to cast it out because all you have to do is turn-on the light and the darkness flees. What are you doing to turn-on the light of God’s love in the hearts of others?

  18. Sam Geli
    01 August 2015 @ 2:38 pm

    William.
    Remember
    “In the history of Nineveh there is a lesson which you should study carefully. . . . You must know your duty to your fellow beings who are ignorant and defiled and who need your help.”—Ellen G. White, The Southern Work, p. 80.
    I love your blogging ministry. I may not always agree but I respect and listen what you have to say. Thank you! You are authentic and caring.

  19. EM
    01 August 2015 @ 6:27 pm

    Sam Gell
    You started us out with a really good response.

    Anyone who has been in church work for very long knows that biases exist and many decisions are made on them. It is not demeaning to admit this. I believe the great majority of church leaders–perhaps all– sincerely believe in their biases. This is not to say they are not good men who care deeply about others–or at least some others.

    The biggest test for any leader is a willingness to listen. I stopped long ago putting my trust in religious verbage coming from leaders or any one else. It is more what one does than says.

  20. Fred Eastman
    01 August 2015 @ 7:25 pm

    Dear friends
    It is with a belief that the “Great Physician” will return soon with “healing in His wings” that I offer a few random thoughts as a lifetime SDA, physician, and one who cares about God’s character “representation” in these last days by my church.
    1) actions speak much louder than words
    2) one of my favorite EGW quotes is applicable here. “Pretentious piety is nauseating to the Lord”
    3) God’s love is the answer, now what was the question?
    4) “self importance” (selfishness) and the “misrepresentation of God’s character”, lay at the root of the “Great Controversy” in heaven long ago. How have we as a church by our actions at the SA GC 2015 advanced “our mission” of sharing God’s love with our ailing world? I would say it would be important to look back at our lessons from the 1888 GC for some answers to the questions that face our church today!!
    5) Why we keep Sabbath has little to do with “obedience to law” and much more to do with “the God of the Sabbath” who is worthy of our love and who we need to share “that God” with the world today. When “this Gospel” is shared with the world the end will come. ( in 2015 as in 1888, have we missed another opportunity to share that “Gospel” ??)

    Something we ALL need to ponder!!
    All the best to you all !!

  21. Jack Hoehn
    02 August 2015 @ 7:50 am

    Brother Fred, you got my attention! So I looked up the context.
    ” The Laodicean message must be given with earnestness and power, as a message from heaven. If it be ignored, the Lord will certainly cast away from Him those whose spiritual condition is so objectionable. Christ declares that pretentious piety is nauseating to Him. To the ones so full of self-sufficiency He says, “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot.” Their works are opposed to the holy principles of God’s word. {SpTB02 20.1}

    My brethren and sisters, will you take heed to the word of the Lord? Will you listen to His rebuke? If, after men in positions of responsibility have been warned and reproved by the Lord, they continue to follow their own way, affliction will come upon them. God chastens them, giving them opportunity after opportunity to repent. If they utterly refuse to repent, and are determined to listen to the sophistries of the enemy, they are left to their own course of action, and will surely perish in their sins; for God will not be trifled with…”

    Pretty strong words for MEN IN POSITIONS OF RESPONSIBILTY from a Woman in a position of responsibility.

    No wonder Brother Wilson is opposed to WO!