Why Women’s Ordination?
by Ervin Taylor
It is very rare for liberal and conservative Adventists to agree on anything. However, under the current GC administration of Wilson II (Dr. Ted Wilson), I have been amazed by the common reaction of many Adventist liberal, moderate, and conservative observers in commenting on the behavior of the current General Conference president over the Women’s Ordination issue.
Essentially, they are asking the same question. Why has Wilson, at this particular time, decided to make Women’s Ordination (WO) a test of loyalty to the unity of the institutional Adventist Church and do it in such a visible and public way?
All kinds of answers to that question have been forthcoming. Some are just weird. For example, there are those who think that some deep conspiracy is in the works. A few members of the extreme right wing of the Adventist Church think that the Jesuits at the GC are pulling strings in the background. (May this blogger go on record to say that there are no Jesuits at the GC. Not even Cliff Goldstein.)
Others wonder if several Third World (South America or Africa) Division presidents have forced Wilson into a corner and he fears that they will revolt at the time of the next GC and not support his reelection unless he cracks down on the North American Adventist Church.
A colleague suggested yet another possibility. Could Ted Wilson really believe women today, as created by God, simply arrive from the celestial design shop unequipped for spiritual leadership that includes making decisions that affect others? Most people think of that as having “authority.” If that’s the case, does Dr. Wilson also disbelieve in Ellen White and her authority to speak out on spiritual issues? Or was Ellen White (in his opinion) simply taking verbal dictation from God, so she really did not exert her own authority?
Then there is my personal favorite. Not having his father’s acuity when it comes to sensing the political winds in the North American Adventist church, his son simply miscalculated. It did not help when a small group of very conservative people whom he trusts gave him misleading information. They and he thought that his personal appeal to the Columbia Union Conference and then the Pacific Union Conference session delegates would be enough to vote their resolutions down. The opposite happened. Wilson’s political credibility and authority evaporated.
Wilson and his supporters created a crisis where none previously existed. “Why did they do this?” Whatever the reason, they surely should know by now that if they continue to fight this battle in the open, they will lose. Or will they finally be forced to agree to some reasonable compromise?” An example of such a compromise would be to let each union conference decide on how they want to handle the WO issue.
So the questions of the day for this blog are two. The first is the one already mentioned: “Why has Wilson decided at this time to make Women’s Ordination a test of loyalty to the unity of the institutional Adventist Church and do it in such a visible and public way?” The second is: “What would be a reasonable compromise to avoid a political debacle in the Adventist Church over the WO issue?” (I have resisted the temptation to call this the WOE issue, as in “Woe to those opposing WO”)
All reasonable opinions and suggestions responding to these questions are solicited and welcomed. No Jesuit conspiracies please.
Question #1 – "Why has Wilson decided at this time to make Women’s Ordination a test of loyalty to the unity of the institutional Adventist Church and do it in such a visible and public way?”
I think this is the $64,000 question. Erv, I think you hit the nail on the head in noting regardless of which ‘side’ someone is on re WO, it seems frankly bizarre that ‘Wilson and his supporters created a crisis where none previously existed.’
As to those who say Wilson did not cause the crises, I understand the whole thing was in large part caused because the GC tried to strike down the NAD policy allowing females to become conference Presidents – even though they would presumably remain unordained. Instead, this blunder turned a minor issue into a major firestorm.
It seems that Wilson has been almost creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. He warns that allowing WO will create schism, but then does everything to talk up rather than calm down the situation, thereby only increasing the chances of that schism. Then when he doesn’t get his own way, and almost publicly humiliated when he forced to shut-up at the PUC meeting through a procedural motion from the floor, his own authority evaporates.
As to why, I think it was probably a simple miscalculation. Perhaps he did feel he owed the Developing World of the Church his loyalty, as they put him in office. However, he surely has blundered in how he has handled this whole sorry mess.
I really hope he does his best now to calm the situation done, not inflame it further. Otherwise he might well be helping to bring about his own self-fulfilling prophecy of a schism in the Church.
President Wilson is probably a very nice man and a strong believer in God. However, like many past aristocratic leaders of the Church, such as James the brother of the Lord, we need a Peter figure now. I would be equally damning of all the liberal Pauls as well as the conservative Jameses pulling the Church apart from both directions.
I think you do not understand that the whole GC and Division issue is a way more pressing and potentially troublesome issue than WO. If the GC had not acted, it may have become another step in the divisions becoming independent of the GC. When an organisation is in a centralising cycle, the last thing that can be allowed is competition for its authority. The issue was the GC asserting its complete control over divisions (as per the GC constitution), not WO per se. The last thing anyone wants is another level of church bureaucracy, so I don't believe they were wrong, but they probably greatly regret pointing out (unintentionally, I presume) the role the unions could play in the issue of WO.
Yes, but wasn't the GC's reaction agains the proposed NAD policy part of that general centralising cycle?
Question: has there ever been a non-white, non-US GC president?
Question #2 – “What would be a reasonable compromise to avoid a political debacle in the Adventist Church over the WO issue?”
Three options come to mind:
The GC might also make clear that WO must be looked at on its own merits in accordance with Ex. 23:3. It should reassure people that allowing WO is certainly not going to have any impact on the Church’s views on other topics such as homosexuality (whether people like that or not). From multiple discussions, it appears this ‘Domino Theory’ (to use a Cold War expression) is the real fear behind many conservatives, who are not so opposed to WO as to the idea that it will lead to the ordination of gay clergy, as has occurred in other Churches. If the Church is to have a discussion about homosexuality, it should do so isolated and on its own merits – not wrongly linked to the issue of WO.
This would be a very Christ-like approach in my view, demonstrating through humble action rather than pontificating, and something that Ghandi, King or Mandela might support. Unions and Conferences could also be hardly accused of going against GC policy, as they certainly wouldn’t be ordaining women – they would just be commissioning men instead.
I know people will argue that the Church Manual prevents commissioned ministers from opening new Churches, ordaining elders and deacons or being Conference Presidents. But who cares? Moreover, can’t we change it so there is no distinction. Yes, people then will say, why have two separate titles of commission and ordain for the same job, but that argument applies just as much today!
To be an effective solution, the ordination study would have to be re-defined so it won’t be politically watered down later. This might include having just one study done at Andrews.
Stephen,
I appreciate your analysis of the topic.
With regard to Item #2 and finding a compromise, I think that depends on our top church leaders having the wisdom to not keep fanning the spark into a forest fire.
Some years ago the Burger King fast food chain used the ad theme "Have it your way!" I think the best approach the GC could take is to: 1) terminate all "studies" on the topic; and 2) let each local union decide the matter based on the social traditions in their area and whether or not WO would enhance the spread of the Gospel in their area.
William, I like your suggestion to "have it your way." I know some will suggest that would bring chaos. The question is, Is Elder Wilson big enough to humble himself to the church, as he suggests the Western church humble itself to him? $64,000,000, in today's economy.
Having become an issue of both unity and biblical obedience (the last pushed more by others than the GC) I suspect it is well on the way to becoming a 'winner-take-all' situation. The GC has to either squash the unions or support them. Doing either is likely to cause a genuine crisis in the church. But I don't see how the GC can allow the situation to remain as it is without being seen as having no authority and being willing to compromise on what has been put forward so strongly as a clear biblical issue.
To not stop the union action risks damaging GC authority for a long time and risks destabilising Africa and other areas. To stop the union action risks losing a large section of NAD that has previously supported the GC with both personel, resources and finances. It would also seriously destabilise other areas with female pastors and elders like SPD and western Europe.
One thing I think this crisis may have done is shown that we need to make a 'final' decision on women. They either can do the work and be ordained, or they can't do the work at all. A vote on that would probably result in no women working as pastors or elders, but I am not convinced it is assured if it were put in those terms. There is still a central group that don't want to say no to women working, but also don't want to say yes to women being ordained. I am not sure which way they would go if pushed.
Finding a way to speed up the commission on ordination so it reports in less than 12 months may be the only workable solution.
I agree with your analysis insofar as the GC is now in a catch-22 position. I don't believe Pres Wilson is without fault for this. He clearly did contribute to bringing this problem on, as Erv suggests – whether in Wilson's centralisation cycle generally or more specifically.
Presumably there might me a move to make a 'final decision' at the 2015 World Session. But what if that final decision is 'no ordaination for women' – and entirely likely outcome? I don't see how that solves the problem.
My main concern is finding themselves in this catch-22 issue, what will Pres Wilson do? Will he seek some sort of compromise, however difficult, or will be fan the flames?
There is no low-risk solution any more. A vote of either 'yes' or 'no' to women's ordination is unacceptable to large sections of the SDA world. As is a vote to be consistent and fair and either accept women holding office and being ordained, or refusing to allow women to hold office. I believe it is time to pray for a miracle – at least for those who believe God still works miracles. Anything the GC does will fan the flames somewhere. Until all areas of the world church understands what this issue means in other areas, we will find it hard to solve the problem. Perhaps the miracle we need to pray for most is for SDAs to learn to stop preaching and start listening.
Having become an issue of both unity and biblical obedience (the last pushed more by others than the GC) I suspect it is well on the way to becoming a 'winner-take-all' situation. The GC has to either squash the unions or support them. Doing either is likely to cause a genuine crisis in the church. But I don't see how the GC can allow the situation to remain as it is without being seen as having no authority and being willing to compromise on what has been put forward so strongly as a clear biblical issue.
To not stop the union action risks damaging GC authority for a long time and risks destabilising Africa and other areas. To stop the union action risks losing a large section of NAD that has previously supported the GC with both personel, resources and finances. It would also seriously destabilise other areas with female pastors and elders like SPD and western Europe.
One thing I think this crisis may have done is shown that we need to make a 'final' decision on women. They either can do the work and be ordained, or they can't do the work at all. A vote on that would probably result in no women working as pastors or elders, but I am not convinced it is assured if it were put in those terms. There is still a central group that don't want to say no to women working, but also don't want to say yes to women being ordained. I am not sure which way they would go if pushed.
Finding a way to speed up the commission on ordination so it reports in less than 12 months may be the only workable solution.
Elder Wilson for reasons of his own has apparently chosen to use this issue to solidify his credentials with the conservative majority in the church. His journey from his home base, to Cincinnati ASI, to the West Coast was more of a transcontinental political campaign than a missionary journey. This is by no means necessarily a disaster for the church; it simply indicates that whatever the First World accomplishes in the way of progressive, new-light ministry, will have to be done in an atmosphere ruled by a very conservative president who so far appears to believe in strong, central authority and resists union-by-union autonomy on even procedural issues (which ultimately the ordination issue is, though fraught with powerful symbolism for those involved).
Edwin I agree with both you and Kevin insofar as you seem to be suggesting this is bigger than WO – it is about centralisation of control by the GC. It is also the story of the rising Christianisation of the Developing World, together with the secularisation of the Western World, and how that impacts world Christianity. This isn't just an Adventist story – it is the story of evey major denomination around the world.
Is it true that women tend to get away with incompetence more than men because they always hide behind their gender? curious. Some believe that we can co exist even though the majority is against WO. I think it will create far more problems than solutions. Firstly these Ordained women won't be able to serve to the majority of adventism and I know it that proponents of WO will victimise opponents of WO into submission on the WO issue pun intended. They will obviously start in the west where they will no doubt force faithful conferences like the michigan conference into their will and work their way outwards from there. Don't even get me started on where LGBT agenda fits in this whole scenario
My wife has worked in the church all her life. While there may be women who 'get away with incompetenc emore than me' they are very rare. Usually women have to work twice as hard to be considered as competent as men.
The majority of men will not serve outside their division. And women's ordination cannot be imposed on conferences/missions because moves are at the request of the conference/mission, not the individual or the union. Women – just like men – can only serve where they are asked to serve. The only way that a decision can be imposed is by the GC. We have had women as elders for the last 35 years. Their ordinationis valid anywhere, but they can only serve as an elder inthise churches that elect themas elder. No woman elder has been imposed on any church because it required a 66% vote for a church to be allowed to elect women elders. Women will work in Michigan as pastors only when the conference session votes to allow women to be called. When that happens, it will have been chosen, not imposed. The same applies in Africa, Asia and anywhee else.
Tapiwa,
You asked: "Is it true that women tend to get away with incompetence more than men…?"
I once had an entire supervisory training class focused on such issues. It sometimes happens, though not often. When it does the women are more likely to get away with it because they are more skilled at manipulating men than vice versa. So the perception behind your question may be exceeding reality.
The women I've known who were in ministry leadership positions were generally very competent and incompetence was quickly revealed.
My experience has been that people who accuse others on that basis more often have personal issues of mistrust and disrespect that they need to resolve.
Tapiwa,
Your comments betray a deep-seated fear of women; women who could potentially be in authority over you and all men. Were you not under your mother's authority as a child? Was she harsh, demanding, and incompetent? The judgements you are making seems to condemn all women. Do you feel you are superior in every way to your wife, your sister, your mother? Or, is it only those women you do not know but are very suspicious of?
This is a totally unrealistic fear: that you and your local church will be "forced" to accept a female pastor. Has that happened in your congregation? Do you fear it may happen soon? Why should it worry you that NAD females are presently serving as senior pastors in churches today? Should you try to unseat these pastors simply because you don't want any in your local church? How have they affected you?
This the same controlling spirit of the Jews who were trying to compel the former pagans to adopt circumcision because it was their law. Do you disagree with the agreement which was reached then? Could it not be applied today when there are two divisions within the church that cannot seem to come to agreement? Isn't the Bible's example a most profitable one to consider?
In response to Tapiwa I answer to the Assoc Dean of Biomedical Sciences, a woman. I have never worked under a more collaborative and competent adminstrator. My male colleagues respect her greatly and she is by far a better administrator than the incompetent power hungry male that we had in the past.
Talking of 'Christ of Culture' doesn't think frank exchange that the Bible isn't the real issue. The real issue is whether the Church should be in line with or counter the mainstream culture of the world, the culture that has dominated since the Fall, being a Patriachal one. The Bible is just being used to justify that cultural position.
My guess is that many rather incompetent men executives rely on extremely competent women assistants, who essentially cover up the deficiencies of their bosses.
Erv,
After being rejected multiple times, will he regroup to push it at the 2015 GC session in an attempt to override the unions? Will he lick his wounds and pick another issue on which to take an unpopular stand? Will he realize that it is time for a more capable leader to take over and step aside? Or, will those on the next GC nominating committee recognize the need for a change at the top?
Hang on a minute! Any action will be by the GC executive at the Anual Council. Ted Wilson may be the President, but he isn't the whole committee. There will be men and women there who are committed to WO for biblical reasons. I doubt they will all keep quiet out of deference to the President. The Annual Council is where all the executive committee members can speak more freely than at any public meeting like a session. The Division Presidents not only represent the GC in their divisions, they also represent their divisions at the GC, and at least 4 of those 13 divisions have unions that either have voted to ordain women as pastors or have large numbers of members who will do so as soon as the GC allows it (if not sooner). And all those Union Presidents will also be there and have the right to speak up. The only foregone conclusion is that the issue will be discussed – probably at great length.
I actually beleive Ted Wilson was called to be GC President at this time. Not to stop WO, and certainly not to take the SDA church further into fundamentalism than it is, nor to consolidate more power at the GC. The main burden he had going into the job was to focus the church more on city evangelism. While we may disagree on the details of where and how, that is something the SDA church needs to do and should have done decades (actually, over a century) ago. Achieving that would be the greatest legacy Ted Wilson could leave the church. It would be a victory for the devil – one of his greatest – if he can distract us with other things until another President comes in with a different focus.
It is in the metropolitan areas of the world that women function far more openly as leaders than back on the little, family farms. In rural areas of the United States (note that the Columbia and Pacific unions represent two highly urbanized sectors of North America) women still find themselves cast in fairly traditional roles, where Dad and the boys work in the fields and Mom and the girls keep the home economy and the younger children in order. The agricultural and especially ranching/herding communities tend to be more sympathetic to a patriarchal order (I know, this is our family's background). But life in the city today is a whole different matter, where women are often the prime entrepreneurs, prime breadwinners, and at-least coequal (if not sole) voices on matters of faith. If our church hopes to profoundly influence the cities of North America and the world, Elder Wilson may need to recognize that these cities are no longer the cities his father and grandfather knew. These cities are brutally progressive; small-town American ways have long gone out the window, and those who lead ministries in these cities must lay aside visions of the ideal, agrarian Adventist lifestyle and reach out to these people with the help of many strongly charismatic women, who can dialogue effectively and minister directly to highly "matriarchalized" cities.
I would use an analogy of reaching the Muslim world, something near and dear to the Wilsons through the years. Traditional ministry to Muslims using the stock-and-trade evangelistic and visitation modalities have produced comparatively little impact; it appears that those missionaries who are succeeding in reaching the hearts of Muslims are those who mingle and relate to the people as Muslims and build rapport with them based on their already-established values. Traditionally Adventists have smacked down the old religious ways (a bit like Elijah on Mt. Carmel) and called for revolutionary and total commitments to a whole new religious experience. This approach continues to work well in select areas, especially where Catholicism, Hinduism, and Animism are deservedly losing their grip, and people are simply fed up with the old. The Muslims (for various reasons) are not yet at that tipping point, and certainly the people in the cities of the world by and large are equally disinclined to turn back the clock and return en masse to small towns and the small-town churches Adventism offers in abundance.
To "reach the cities" we will have to relate with the people of the cities in terms of integrating Adventist values into the prevailing city ways—much as Paul did in trying to build Christian values into the Gentile cultures of Asia. Presuming that Elder Wilson is 110 percent sincere in his calling to lead us into the Red Sea of the cities to cut a swath of ministry through the deep and troubled waters of those population centers, he may upon reflection find that the recent behavior of the two North American unions in the longer scheme of God's leading may be exactly what the Master ordered. To reach the cities will require an army of dedicated women ministers to do well. Elder Wilson is a man of prayer; and as the saying goes, "Beware of that for which you pray; for the answers may surprise you."
Perhaps we should reflect on the fact that Christianity was originally, and in many places remains, primarily a city religion. Even in Australia, most Christians are in the cities. The SDA church is somewhat 'odd' in having a comparatively large country presence compared to other churches.
It is also interesting that one of the shifts in the sociology of religion – particularly in America – is the recognition that fundamentalism is primarily a city phenomenon. For a long time the conservative Christians in the south were classed as 'fundamentlists', but they aren't. The heart of fundamentalism is not in the south, but among the descendents of southerners in southern California (mostly in the cities) and in the NE. Fundamentalism is a modern response to urbanisation and secularisation and the loss of old certainties that go with it. Conservative Christianity in the south continues the old certainities, it isn't reacting to their loss. If you check on most Muslim terrorists you find they are almost all the children of middle class city dwellers.
It is in the cities that the battle for the mind and soul of most nations is fought. As the world becomes increasingly urban, the rural areas become increasingly irrelevant to power and to culture. Australia has been over 80% urban for decades, and like in England, the countryside was lost to religion long ago. I suspect the US is headed the same way and Canada may be ahead of Australia. So if an impact is to be made in NAD, SPD, TED, EAD and probably most of Central and South America, it has to be in the cities. And they aren't the same places they were even in the 1980s.
I tend to see the more conservative, doctrinaire strains of Christianity in the countryside; yes, here in Portland, Ore., we do have some "missionary churches" of strong Southern Baptist complexion in the suburbs, but these appear to be temporary homes for those who have moved into the city from more conservative locales, including the Southeast. These churches by and large are not growing or expanding. Portland is generally a very humanist (liberal) city for which traditional religion is somewhat inconsequential. To reach humanist Portland with the gospel will require an inspired touch and mobilization of resources we may not even know we have. And I cannot for a moment imagine that this ministry will be accomplished without the leadership of significant numbers of highly educated, talented, dedicated pastoral women.
Ed,
This is an important fact to remember as the New York City campaign is being planned: a religion that has denied equality in its clergy is unacceptable in such a cosmopolitan city. It will be difficult enough to convince and convert that population without being recognized as largely a "male-ordered" religion.
Since New York holds the largest Jewish population other than Israel we could "mail-order" some "male-ordered" brochures and it might work out just fine…….
But, excepting the very orthodox hasidim, most Jews are very secular in NYC.
Following the Holocaust, it is hard to find an observant Jews, the majority are atheists, which shouldn't be surprising given their long history of persecution in spite of all appeals to their God.
Praise the Lord….what a revival it will be!!
The holocaust is a classic demonstration of God's impotence or purposeful decision not to get involved in human affairs even in the face of mass slaughter. We have other examples of holocausts such as the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. God allows mass slaughter and only humans who are willing can intervene. Any wonder why atheism is a growing movement?
He may solider on, but must also lick his wounds; uncertain whether he will receive more in the future…Hopefully, he will be less brash and not not use his "brass" in the future.
Christorculture site 7,828 and growing…. OneinChrist 1,968… about 4 to 1. I don't think Elder Wilson has to do much wound licking. You just may have woken up a lot of grass root christians that are not in the voting elite.
Is Christorculture a new denomination? It's numbers are growing, compared to what? Actually, such a small group is very elite, not mixed with the riff raff.
There is a lot of talk here about progressives vs. conservatives. The implication is that there are two major camps. No doubt reality is a bit more complicated, but it would not surprise me if you generally folks who still identify themselves as Adventist generally fall into one of two groups. Both groups have those who are passionate about the future of Adventism and they both feel strongly about the legacy of Adventism. One group feels that we have drifted away from our legacy and need reforms to return to true Adventism. The other group feels that legacy Adventism has clung to the past and perpetuated it errors and problems and we need meaningful reforms.
If this description of the two general groups to which Adventists gravitate has any validity it should be obvious that the differences are fundamental. It is not surprising that if either feels the other is dominating the church then they will respond with passion because both groups see the other as destorying the spiritual potential of the church. I don't think I have to try to convince anyone of which of these groups Ted Wilson would fall into.
I think we can expect Ted to continue to act as if the other group, those with a conflicting vision for the church's future, as if they are destroying the spiritual potential of the church. He does not appear to have the pragmatism that would attempt to create a big tent in which both groups can soldier on. He might believe that this is not an achievable or desirable goal. Who knows, he could be right that it the long run it is not achievable.
Compare these two groups to the two political parties in the U.S. Both have passionate members, while some are more ho-hum, and aren't too concerned about what is going on in these discussions.
Members who are fiercely loyal to their party will vote their wishes. If they lose, they accept the numbers were not in their favor.
It's reminiscent of the school yard: there are losers who accept that the other sie won "fair and square" and those who are sullen and plotting future steps or take themselves out of the game, disgruntled that the numbers were not on their side.
That is why the whole 'Homosexual Domino Theory', which appears to be the real reason why many oppose WO, is so absurd. I did a bit of an informal poll at my SS at my local Church in Australia. 95% (all but 1) were in support of WO. 95% (all but 1) thought homosexuality was a sin and wouldn't feel comfortable with a homosexual in any leadership position, let alone as a pastor; however, the majority did feel there was a double-standard given divorce and other forms of adultery were given a blind eye.
I am not advocating any of those positions as biblically correct. I am just saying that there are not just two camps – liberal and conservative. In my own Church, the same people who are pro-WO and very anti-homosexual.
In general, people accept cultural changes much more easily than the same changes in their church; i.e., the majority of Christians accept that women should be able to have access to the same education, work, and employment privileges, and have accepted that homosexuals should not be discriminated against in these same places.
But in the church, these are less equally accepted. They may accept women in all professions and that in many areas they may hold a position superior to men.
They may have no problem working in the same office or side-by-side with a homosexual, but neither of these situations are readily accepted by some churches.
Is it our religious beliefs that result in the inability to accept in the church what we easily accept in our secular lives? Are we more gracious and accepting in our normal daily lives than we are in a few hours in church?
I suspect those figures would not be any lower in almost any church in the world. Which is why the whole ordination of homosexuals issue is a distraction. We are at least 50 years behind the Anglicans – who had churches arguing for accepting homosexuality as a legitimate sexual expression in the 1960s – and we usually move more slowly than they do. Other churches closer to us in theology and outlook – like Wesleyan and Holiness churches – have been ordaining women for over a century and still haven't even begun a discussion on ordaining homosexuals. Most still won't accept homosexuals into membership. Unless there is new information (not new guesss as to interpretation, but genuine data) on the Bible verses that we usually use, we aren't going to see the church shift on this issue.
Tapiwa Mushinanga asks, "Is it true that women tend to get away with incompetence more than men because they always hide behind their gender?"
No, Tapiwa, but that is what men in patriarchal societies (which is to say virtually every human society) tend to think of them. Women who live in misogynistic cultures who are routinely denied the basic human rights of self dignity, health, family, safety and self-determination are forced to rely on tactics of deference, deflection and manipulation in order to survive. Women–and Men–suffer greatly when women are denigrated and forced into subservience. My 20 plus years of practice in the field of psychology have taught me that when women have unfettered access to individual choice, opportunity and education that society as a whole benefits greatly.
One last thought: when the words "Always" and "Never" are used in argumentation they betray a reliance on stereotype that is not based in logic and respect.
Patti Grant
You are accusing me of being illogical! you may disagree with but I am consistent within my argument. You are coming off as some radical militant paranoid feminist! All societies are patriarchial??!! Does this include America, Europe, Australia etc. This is now where it gets interesting where you actually contradict yourself. You allude to the premise that all societies are patriarchial right? Okay lets work with that for now. So how did Jesus and Paul act in a patriarchial society with regards to women? Hmmm. I Think we do likewise. Christ is our Example of how to act in a patriarchial society! See how your assertion is self contradictory. I believe Christ did as he was instructed by the father through the holy spirit not because of the cultural whims around him.
Ms. Grant is absolutely correct that until very recently the vast majority of human socieities were patriarchal. There were exceptions, but they were a relatively small minority. The changes in modern Western society that modified that situation came largely as the result of the ability of women to achieve economic independence. As usual, many (not all) of the Western religious institutions stood in the way of the economic liberation of women.
Ms. Grant is also spot on in her observation about the fact that we can usually discount the validity of statements that contain the words "always" and "never."
Tapiwa,
There is truth to the saying: for women to succeed they have to be twice as smart and work ten times harder to be recognized.
You know that in many more primitive societies it is the women who care for the garden, haul the water, cook the food, bear and care for the children. Now, tell me in that society, what do men do when there is no hunting?
Patti is absolutely right: in all cultures where women have been granted equality in education and business, the entire culture prospers, even the GDP goes up; more children are educated, and new female businesses are formed.
Check the success of the Grameen bank in lending women to start home businesses compared to men. They do not loan to men because the know that men will not use it as efficiently as women. Women begin small home businesses and some have grown to very large corporations. Unshackle women and everyone is unshackled.
Didn't the same once have to be for non-white ethnic minorities? Take the Tuscaneer Airman, the most elite fighter squadron in WW2 composed entirely of African Americans.
To quote the main black lead from the movie Gi-Jane, "Women are just the new N*"
And further yes, my understanding is that in many Devloping Countries, micro-lending backs only lend to women – not men. In my own country, amongst indigenous disadvantage, it is the women, especially the senior matriachs, who are keep those socities together.
That is true. Even in the most traditional Australian society, while the men had the authority, when the old women were 'on the warpath', it meant the men had failed and it was time for everyone to fall into line or else. 'You don't mess with grandma when she's mad' is a saying most cultures can relate to 🙂
In New Guinea, most (not all) societies give public authority to the men, particularly older men. But it is interesting to see those men sqirm if they are put into a position where they are asked to make a decision without being able to check with the rest of the group, including the women. The saying "men are the head, but women are the neck" is one I heard quite often from men (when no women were around) and women when this topic of authority came up. It was often accompnied by holding up the arm and demonstrating how the wrist (neck) moved the hand (head). In all but the most repressive situations it is unusal for those in power to exercise it in a way that is guaranteed to meet with opposition from those not in power. The consequences are usually not good.
If there was a degree of miscalculation at the CUC meeting, that miscalculation increased manifold by the time a similar approach was taken at the PUC meeting. The answer to your question however is probably not one of pick and choose, so whilst miscalculation to me was self-evident, other motivations must also be factored in. Namely, reaction to the decision from non-western members and the potential knock-on effects personally, and also governance issues.
Fundamentally 16million Adventists cannot all believe the same. The question then comes down to how you adminstrate this reality and what official latitude as leaders you are prepared to live with.
Which again brings us back to the question of why WO as the flash-point? It doesn't have to be, but it has been made so.
"Who's the boss?" is a serious concern with nearly all humans regardless of culture. There are "control freaks" of all genders. Some are anxious to protect their dominance at all costs–even fighting to the death of themselves, their foes, or their institutions. The most pernicious form of this compulsion is exhibited by those who are most threatened, most insecure, and, perhaps, least endowed with natural leadership talent and skills.
I don't really have an answer to the first question. It's hard for me to believe that Wilson could have so badly miscalculated the tide and momentum. Why would he want to jeopardize his larger political objective – isolating progressives and intellectuals – by coming out strongly on a non-theological, non-doctrinal issue that joins conservatives and moderates in common cause with progressives and intellectuals?
As to the second issue, I would advise Wilson to immediately begin work on building a Maginot line to strengthen G.C. authority and control during the next three years. The first step would be to engineer an outcome where the "study" committee will recommend that the GC accept WO as a fait accompli. The NAD Unions will be sanctimoniously scolded for not trusting the process, and express gratitude for the forbearance and tolerance of the world organization. In return, Unions will be asked to cede greater structural authority to the G.C. to prevent Unions or local conferences going rogue on other shaky pillars of Adventism. Wilson will hold up the specter of creeping congregationalism, and the need to hold the line against further erosion of Church unity and authority.
Can he successfully achieve that? I hope not. But that would be my advice to him. If he can't, his legacy will be that he weakened centralized, hierarchical authority within the SDA Church by wasting his resources on the wrong battle in the wrong places at the wrong time.
Or, a wildly idealistic idea, we could actually operate as a church (as per our constitutions at all levels) and leave petty power squabbles to local church boards where they belong.
Wilson, just as some politicians today, are so out of touch with their constituents that they need to be deprogrammed and brought up to speed. This is often the curse of leaders in high office: they are surrounded by sycophants who report the good news and protect them from the unpleasant.
This is evidence that he does not have the pulse of the members. This should be a teaching and educational situation that has the opportunity for him to listen more than he talks; and listen to the members who are not employed by the denomination. Now, he has the task of pulling his own chestnuts out of the fire and avoid getting more burns.
Patti Grant, you asked if there has been non-white, non US GC President. The answer is, there was one American based Norwegian national, Olson, who took the helm to calm things down after the 1888 controversial Minneapolis GC session. A second Norwegian, Dr Jan Paulsen, became GC president in replacement of the Robert Folkenberg when the latter resigned rather than be made to do so at the 2000 Spring Council. There has never been a non-White GC president in the entire history of Adventism. We have had two black Secretaries, and only White Treasurers. We may very well need to take Dr Paulsen out of retirement or get another cool Norwegian to pour oil over troubled waters at GC's next annual council to get us on track again! They seem to be very good at crisis management.
Brother Edwin, you seem to be saying that we are successful in doing Moslem evangelism. I worked for a decade in the Middle East about a decade and a half ago, and we never baptised one Moslem in the entire region. I am glad to hear that things have changed since then.
“Why has Wilson decided at this time to make Women’s Ordination a test of loyalty to the unity of the institutional Adventist Church and do it in such a visible and public way?” The second is: “What would be a reasonable compromise to avoid a political debacle in the Adventist Church over the WO issue?” (I have resisted the temptation to call this the WOE issue, as in “Woe to those opposing WO”)
All three GC Presidents, Neal Wilson, Robert Folkenberg and Jan Paulsen rallied around the same "Unity" theme. If I understand anything about how the church is organised and functions they are upholding policy and practise. Even those who are pro WO went along with the Unity theme until it was no longer sustainable. They had to re-define unity in order to accommodate their position. I doubt that Ted Wilson picked this moment to make it a test of loyalty in such a public way. CUC and PUC were going public live stream for the whole world wide Adventist church to behold. Ted took the bull by the horns and did what he did.
We must never forget that we are still a world wide church family and that the policies and proceedures that govern the way we do church is clearly spelt out in written form. It is not given to any organisational level of the church to tell the GC how to interpret or practise its own policies. They are the custodian and final arbiter of this trust.
The president and his associates have spoken. I do not quite understand which part of "Wait until the results of the ordination studies are in" we don't understand. True to its mandated authority the Annual council will address the CUC and PUC issue and take a decisive action which will be implemented.
Nobody knows and/or can tell which way it's going to go. I doubt Union presidents around the world are avidly reading our blogs in order to decide how to vote! Every committee has a mind of its own and no committee member, not even its chair (or TED Wilson) knows what the final outcome will be. Meanwhile much prayer and fasting will not harm the cause, pro WO or anti WO.
It is guaranteed that union presidents wherever they are, are most interested in the German, Columbia, and Pacific unions votes. Wilson is, no doubt, fulminating on what his next move will be, and wondering which union will follow suit of the others. If he has options are plans to combat these independent unions, he is holding his cards close to his vest.
It could prove to be the "summer of his discontent."
Part of the problem is that the unions are not 'independent', nor is the GC. Each union and the GC is just a part of the SDA church to which we – the community of members -have delegated certain limited powers. The GC cannot tell a union session what to do, nor can union sessions unilaterally go their own way. If they were children, we would bang their heads together and send them all to their rooms until they were willing to apologise to each other and 'play nice' together. The GC is finally doing what it should have done in time for the 1985 (if not 1881) session. It has to bear the full responsibility for waiting this long. The unions have decided now is the time to act. They also have to bear responsibility for that. Perhaps if leaders at both levels had thought more of the church and less of power and votes we would have resolved this long ago. But I think we can pretty much assume that a definite answer will be given this time around, even if it is just to do what should have been done in 1975/1985/1995 and give the right to decide to each conference/mission.
My comment is based on the assumption that women working as deacons/elders/pastors – which has been accepted at least tacitly in making decisions by a number of GC sessions – will not be up for debate.
Erv,
You asked the following question
“Why has Wilson, at this particular time, decided to make Women’s Ordination (WO) a test of loyalty to the unity of the institutional Adventist Church and do it in such a visible and public way?”
My answer is: Because the Adventist leadership, starting with Neal Wilson, Ted’s father, has been focusing on minor issues and ignoring major ones. We have been fighting for unity on peripherals while practicing diversity on essentials. We have been majoring in minors and minoring on majors. A good example of this myopic view is our recurring concern for the sexual abuse of children, but an almost total neglect of the ultimate form of abuse: the killing of innocent unborn children in our own medical institutions which began in 1970 with the blessing of our church.
The church’s insistence on depriving women–who are allowed to study for the ministry, and who after graduation are permitted to teach, preach, baptize, and to officiate at wedding ceremonies–of the privilege of prayer, laying of hands, and a piece of paper which recognizes their spiritual calling for the ministry; represents to me a good example of our stress on unity on peripherals or majoring in minors.
Contrast this with the church position on abortion, which represents in my view a violation of one of God’s Commandments enshrined in the Decalogue, which the Lord wrote with his own finger on two tablets of stone. On this life and death issue, which has deprived millions of innocent human beings of what is the most sacred asset God bestowed on humanity, we as a church have so far allowed for diversity in spite of the fact that our Adventist pioneers considered the practice of abortion as plain murder.
When our Castle Memorial Hospital was faced with a demand for abortion back in 1970 by their non-Adventist physician staff, the church did not say: “We must have unity and uniformity over this controversial issue.” Neal Wilson, the then president of the North American Division, did not say: “Let’s wait for the entire worldwide community to be united on this issue before we allow our North American hospitals to offer elective abortions in our medical institutions.” Profit from abortion prevailed over unity and uniformity, moral duty took a back seat, and concern over God’s Law went out the window!
Eventually the church approved the policy contained in the document known as “Guidelines on Abortion,” a non prescriptive set of suggestions which pretended to speak on behalf of the unborn, but which provided a long list of exceptions that opened the door wide for abortions on demand, and which eventually led 12 of our Adventist hospitals to offer abortion services to their patients with impunity. The result is that recently one of these Adventist institutions was described by a General Conference representative as an “abortion mill.”
So much for unity and uniformity on a major life and death issue! Said Guidelines on Abortion document was never submitted to the worldwide Adventist Community in a general session of the General Conference where delegates from the entire world are present. Thus, diversity on a crucial doctrinal issue affecting one of God’s Commandments prevailed without an insistence on unity and uniformity.
Consequently, my question to my fellow believers is: Do we have a moral and logical right to insist on unity and uniformity on women’s ordination if we have neglected to require such unity and uniformity on a life and death issue like abortion?
Nic, a serious question for you that I asked Timo – how many unwanted children hidden away in an orphanage have you adopted?
I am not disagreeing with anything you said about abortion not needed in a world that gives young women truly another choice – but most of us are hypocrites on that issues aren't we? For example, I remembering watching a documentary on the US re abortion, and the States that had the harshest anti-abortion laws, such as Mississippi (or was it Alabama?) also spent the very least on welfare and other support for single mothers.
Many of us who know Nic are always amazed how he is able to "adapt" any thread to talk about his favorate topic–abortion–no matter what the actual topic or subject of a thread or discussion happens to be. The topic might be about the Trinity or Free Will or Creationism or even foot washing. It would not matter to Nic. He will find a way of bringing up his favorate subject. I guess we all do that a little with our own favorate topics, but Nic has raised that process to an art form.
I disagree with Nic about most of his ideas around the subject of abortion (being males I wonder if we even have a right to offer our opinions, but that's another topic for another time) but I must say he does have a point about consistency. But I guess to expect any modern religious institution to exhibit consistency when there is a major economic issue involved I suppose is a little on the silly side.
Todd Akin has given the Republicans "Akin Pains," and a wonderful gift to the Democracts. The list of congressmen who have proposed a bill to declare personhood at the instant of conception has been exposed. It is another bloc of votes by women for the Democrats.
My my. Nic's expose is unsettling. Perhaps many were aware of this wholesale slaughter in Adventist
medical facilities. i wasn't. If any of these clinics are owned by the SDA Corp.i recommend they be sold. That they be staffed only by personnel honoring human life from conception.
To the thread: Earlier it was stated that Ted Wilson was elected President by the power of the African
membership. By 2015, the African membership will be even stronger. Therefore his future as GC President will be in the hands of the African SDA'S. His decisions must agree with the Africans views.
If the African SDA'S are cultured traditionally, they are patriarcal & the path forward would seem to
pressure Wilson to oppose WO if he wishes to remain GC president. Unless he decides not to seek reelection. The Study Committee, is also perhaps galvanized in inaction because of the resulting fall
out. They certainly know at this time where their hearts are.
The church culture obviously is divided. There can be no unity on this issue. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. The decision perhaps tho not perfect, is to permit each Union to have authority
to make this decision as their constitutancy votes. The third world SDA'S, w/Latinos will control the
Church leadership shortly. The suggestion that females are inferior to men & incompetent, therefore
ineligible for the top SDAleadership positions is pure macho hogwash.
Timo, how many unwanted children hidden away in an orphanage have you adopted? I am not disagreeing with anything you said about abortion not needed in a world that gives young women truly another choice – but most of us are hypocrites on that issues aren't we? For example, I remembering watching a documentary on the US re abortion, and the States that had the harshest anti-abortion laws, such as Mississippi (or was it Alabama?) also spent the very least on welfare and other support for single mothers.
Outlawing abortion is placing women in involuntary servitude to other people. This is the description of slavery, and most Christians abhor slavery, except they don't consider forcing women to bear unwanted children. These who demand this of women today are no different than the slave masters of a hundred or more years ago: they impregnated their female slaves, and thus added to their work force!
All women, and women alone, know the demands of pregnancy and motherhood and no one should take from her and deprive her of using the free choice that God gave her. Many of the most serious life choices are not between those that are clearly good or evil, but very individual. Who dares to believe he can choose better for someone else? Who dares to be the judge and jury in the most personal decisions?
If this nation ever gave the government the authority over women's reproduction it would be following China. How many fathers of daughters would demand their daughters carry a baby conceived through rape carry this hated reminder for nine months and then either give it up for adoption or keep it?
Nic, you are way out of your league wanting to dominate women's choices. This prerogative was never given to you, only one you have choosen to pursue. It violates all Christian principles of free will and the human gift of choice. Even God did not prevent Eve from making a choice. Are you wiser than God?
Elaine, et al, in reply to the above and recent exchanges we've had in other threads:
Please know that I don't think I've disagreed with a single thing you've written (Elaine, specifically) on either this topic or the topic of WO. I sort of figured you'd pick up on my devil's advocacy, since I was using purported "Biblical truth" as the premise for my argument — something that I'd never, ever do, given that I don't ascribe any more universal truth to the Bible than I do, say, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the latter having the benefit of being vastly more entertaining than the former, I might add).
Of course there's no legitimate reason to keep women from being ordained, and of course I hold women in no lesser regard than men along any dimension. And on the topic at hand, I fully support a woman's right to choose — it's so self-evident to me that I generally don't bother to debate it. Just as I use the belief in YEC as a litmus test in order to determine whether somebody is worth engaging in conversation, I generally do the same with the belief that a microscopic collection of cells constitutes "human life." The majority — not "some" or "oh gosh, quite a few" or "an appreciable percentage of" — but THE majority of embryos die within the first few weeks of conception. Should we also criminalize spontaneous abortion as "involuntary manslaughter?" Maybe misdemeanor blastocyst assault and battery?
And I won't even get started on cases of rape or incest, except to say that anybody who doesn't think a woman should have a right to abort in those cases is sick, and to at once turn around and denigrate atheists as being "amoral" would be perhaps the most spectacular show of hypocrisy I can imagine — and I'm a pretty creative guy.
Anyhow, the reason I've taken a Biblical approach to WO is to try and demonstrate the true causality with respect to what most believe around here. People imagine that their feelings and opinions on any given topic follow from Biblical teachings — in a nod to the unreliable nature of human perception, the opposite is generally true. People feel one way or another on a given topic by way of the feelings and opinions they've been socialized to hold, and then they retroactively turn the Bible inside-out in order to justify those feelings (and this is plainly seen by the fact that both sides of the house routinely use the same source — the Bible — and in some cases the very same passages to justify their diametrically opposed positions). The same people who consider homosexuality to be a sin are speaking out in favor of WO and the equality of women, when in fact the Bible can very clearly be interpreted to shoot down both suppositions, although the Bible says a great deal more about the inequality of women with respect to men than it does about homosexuality, to be precise.
To watch people doing these wild cognitive dances — beautiful, high-energy choreography in order to justify personal positions — is very, very entertaining to me. When those efforts result in something more tenuous than desired, people turn to the writings of EGW, reach back and shamelessly reinterpret societal context, argue over prevailing definitions in ancient societies, selectively assume either literalist or more generalized interpretations of any given passage at their convenience, et al.
There are more disparate beliefs in this world than can be faithfully tracked, and yet most here are so certain of not only the Truth of their sources of information, but also of the Truth of their personal interpretation of those sources, that they would freely impose their Truth on the whole of society. Ironically, about the only position missing is that rather than relying on our interpretations of nebulous 2,000 year old scrolls to define "truth," perhaps we should try rational discussion based on observable evidence and current societal realities. This is fascinating and awesome to watch, and I'd be disingenuous at this point if I didn't admit that I'm here in at least part for my own amusement.
And if we don't base our beliefs on a 2,000 year-old scroll, or any other scroll for that matter, what do we base it on?
Heh! 🙂 Love the sarcasm. At least… I truly hope it's sarcasm and not a legitimate question, or we're in some serious trouble.
'Ironically, about the only position missing is that rather than relying on our interpretations of nebulous 2,000 year old scrolls to define "truth," perhaps we should try rational discussion based on observable evidence and current societal realities.'
The Ancient Spartan mothers gave their newborn babies to the City Elders, who determined whether it was fit to live. If it had any sort of ‘imperfection’ (however, they defined it, but would include say a slightly lame leg), then that newborn baby was often thrown off a cliff to its death.
Now it appears Spartans seem to collectively agree with that policy of racial physical purity and physical perfection as being necessary for the greater good (and with some irony they won the war against Athens but bred themselves out of existence). Do you think that action of throwing ‘imperfect’ babies off that cliff moral or immoral – right or wrong? Or do you think that if the Spartans collectively thought it was ok, where ‘good’ was strength and ‘evil’ was weakness, then we can only judge them by their own relativistic morality?
Similarly, and it isn’t such a far stretch as an ethical comparison, if in Afghani society they collectively see women (or I should say young girls) as less than nothing, to the extent that a young girl raped should be executed whilst her offenders stand by and watch, who are we in the West to judge their morals from our own prejudices? On what basis is what the Afghans do as ‘wrong’ is morality is just a relativistic human construct made by members of society?
These are extreme examples, but confronting and difficult ethical questions face us every day. Some might argue that abortion is an extreme but common difficult ethical question.
I suppose I'm a little confused here. Are you being sarcastic or are these legitimate questions? Are you truly asking me whether I'd be OK with, quote, "throwing imperfect babies off a cliff" at the slightest imperfection?
This is why I try not to actually engage you guys and prefer to hang back and be amused. I mean, because I no longer believe in the Bible, I'm actually being asked whether I'd be OK with murdering babies. What a fascinating and bizarre bunch of people you are.
But thats the point Tim. You are yet to prove the existence of an objective ,transcendant atheistic morality. Your disdain for the belief system of others eg Hitler is illogical. and retarded
Hello Tapiwa and Tim
Regarding secular versions of objective ethical standards, I suggest you read Plato and Kant on ethics. Ethics don't have to logically just emanate from a God. The whole history of law and the embracement of the Rule of Law and universal rights of Man came about as a result of democracy, sometimes in spite of, rather than because of authoritarian religion. However elements of Judeo/Christian morality are reflected in Western precepts of justice, and that is a good thing. Especially for those babies at the edge of the moral precipice!
There is no just argument against WO in the SDA. To cherry pick snippets from an apostle (Paul) as oppossed to looking at the Golden Rule virtue of Christ, is to ignore the inherent notion of human equality.
However I heard from a source in the Church, who'll I'll not compromise for journalistic integrity, on the topic. The source said that the real reason the Ted Wilson was oppossed to WO was to appease members of African and Asian churches, some of whom still wanted to practice polygamy and be Adventists. The tradeoff was to get them to adhere to a one wife principle but not allow those women to be ordained.
So, by Wilson denouncing unilateral WO in the western conferences he shows his support for the compromise in the the fertile lands of new converts ( and tithes!) At least that is how the theory goes. It would be interesting if anyone else that has an inside scoop could weigh in on the matter to see id there is any merit to this line of thought. It is interesting though, that Mr. Wilson brought the unity pot to a boil, if it was just conservative, testosterone fuelling the fire. Methinks there are more pragmatic, political, prosaic – rather than biblical- reasons, behind Mr. Wilson's recalcitrance.
To cherry pick snippets from an apostle (Paul) as oppossed to looking at the Golden Rule virtue of Christ, is to ignore the inherent notion of human equality.
Heh. Except when it comes to homosexuals, right? 🙂
Black and white, good and evil thinking tries to make the world fit into one of those categories; no gray areas, simply right or wrong. Sure beats wrestling with
the correct ethics for many situations.
Could it be the reason there are so many disagreements and misunderstandings between humans, even good Christians, who cannot so easily divide between right or wrong? The empathic way allows someone to step into another's shoes and try to understand from the other side; but then that takes great maturity and laying aside the preconceived ideas of the certainty of knowing right from wrong.
Hi Tapiwa,
I'm sorry that you're upset because I haven't "proven" the existence of an "objective, transcendant [sic] atheistic morality" and yet still somehow bizarrely believe that throwing live babies off cliffs is wrong. If you're not sure how such a thing can be possible on my part, unfortunately you would need a great deal more help than I'm able to provide. Perhaps you can raise the question with your friends or family offline?
Hang in there buddy!
Kind regards,
Tim
Tim, I am not being sarcastic per se – I am using two extreme examples to make a point about the hollowness of a post-modern relativistic, atheist ethics that denies the existence of an Ultimate Good. I am not saying you have to believe in being called God, because many in the East also believe in an Ultimate Good in the form of karma – a non-deist personal force. But the point is, to those who say altruism is just a genetic trick or social construct via memetic enculturation, how do we assess whether something is right or wrong – we can’t!
You said we should make decisions based on “observable evidence and current societal realities.” If ethics is just based on cultural relativism, who are we in the West in say Spartans killing babies by throwing them off a cliff is wrong, when they viewed the notion of ‘right’ with strength and ‘evil’ as physical or racial perfection? If ethics is just based on cultural relativism, who are we in the West to say that Afghanis are ‘wrong’ in killing a young women who is raped.
When the British took control of colonial India, they outlawed the custom of Seti – being widows committing suicide by throwing themselves on the burning piers at their husband’s funerals. Were the British good or culturally insensitive in outlawing this widespread Indian practice? If you look at how modern Indians view it, outlawing Seti was one of the few things the British colonisers did right.
I find the acts of Spartans and Afghanis very ‘wrong’ and I don’t except cultural excuses. However, I do believe in an Ultimate Good. If someone doesn’t believe in an Ultimate Good, on what basis can they condemn the actions of the Spartans or Afghanis – they can’t!
As for Plato and other ancient Greek philosophers, my understanding is Plato was no atheist in the modern sense of the Richard Dawkin’s mould of morality being a genetic or memetic trick. Rather, Plato viewed God as ‘the Good’, Aristotle as ‘the Unmoved Mover’ and Plotinus as ‘the One’. This view is actually quite similar to the Judeo-Christian notion of Yahweh being the ‘I Am’.
The question is not whether atheists are moral people – of course they are. The question is what is their source of morality? I believe it comes from the Ultimate Good (which I call God), as we are made in the image of God, and thus as a matter of natural law we are bestowed with a limited knowledge of God in our conscience as Paul (and Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin) emphasise in Rom 2.
However, if you believe in post-modern relativistic, atheist ethics that denies the existence of an Ultimate Good, and that morality is just a genetic or memetic trick, again, what is the foundation for notions of right or wrong? There is no basis! Thus, with such a view, the truly ‘liberated’ people would be the psychopaths and the hedonists who realise altruism is just a trick, which they simply ignore.
Thus, if we accept a post-modern relativistic, atheist ethics, Christ was an utter fool for wasting His limited life (with no hope of the hereafter) dying for others, and His teachings re turning the other cheek or the Golden Rule would be utter stupidity.
Tapiwa and I have the 'God Delusion', which is our excuse. But if you believe morality and altruism is just a genetic or memetic trick, what is your excuse for obeying that trick? On what basis would it ever make sense to trade your limited life here for anyone else – it would be utter madness! Why don't you 'liberate' yourself as the psychopaths and hedonists do, in recognising altruism is just a trick in-built into our programming?
As I said, Tapiwa and I have an excuse and logic for our view of the world. The psycopaths and hedonists have an excuse and logic for their view of the world. What you seem to be suggesting has no logic to it whatsoever.
I will confess that for a moment I thought you were playing Devil's Advocate, but with such a variety of opinions expressed here and the problem of written messages that fail to convey the meaning behind the words, I didn't quite "get it."
I think if politicians really wanted to end abortion, they would have the most secure safety-net for single mothers, so choosing to keep the baby is a more viable option – sadly, the opposite is usually true.
Simply banning abortion won't stop abortion – abortion has always existed. It will just mean women will find other and more dangerous methods of abortion – including the bad-old days of backyard abortions by pseudo-Doctors come butchers.
It is the same with many of societies' so-called vices, including alcohol, drugs and prostitution. Simply banning it does nothing. If you look at both the OT and NT in the life of Jesus, God seemed to adopt a more harm-minimalisation approach to many of these issues.
Paul could have told the slaves to revolt, but instead he told them to obey their masters. But importantly, Paul also told Christian masters to treat their slaves well, remembering God is their master, and asking (but not telling) Philemon to free his slave. Paul wasn't positively advocating slavery, but he was recognising the reality of life around him, and trying to minimise harm. If only some of our ultra-righteous politicians could have the same attitude.
Ok no worries – sorry didn't mean to put you on the spot. I guess the point I was making is that many of the people (especially politicians) who are the most anti-abortion are the same people who want to cut welfare to single-mothers, which makes choosing not to have an abortion all the more difficult choice. I am just wondering if a carrot approach would work far better than a stick in tackling the issue?
If young, single women felt they had real support, and if adoption was a more viable option that it currently appears to be (it has almost become a social stigma), then maybe abortion rates would go down. By contrast, simply banning abortion does nothing, because then we go back to the bad old days when women found other means, including very dangerous backyard abortions.
I take my inspiration on this issue from the movie classic Dirty Dancing.
Stephen Ferguson asked:
“Nic, a serious question for you that I asked Timo – how many unwanted children hidden away in an orphanage have you adopted?”
Personally, I have not adopted a single child, but a close relative of mine did adopt three children at great expense. He had to travel to the other side of the world with his wife to secure said children, and one of them was a boy with special needs.
At my advanced age—80—I believe that it would be highly irresponsible to adopt a child. Nevertheless, I believe that I have done my share for the sake of the unborn. For nearly two decades, I have sacrificed 50 percent of my working hours for this rarely appreciated by Adventists ministry.
Actually, I have placed my business and family needs in jeopardy for the sake of those who cannot speak in their own defense. And do not think that I am rich! My real estate business has recently failed leaving me with no financial resources for liquidating my debts. Do you really think that I should do more?
Ervin,
You stated: “I disagree with Nic about most of his ideas around the subject of abortion (being males I wonder if we even have a right to offer our opinions, but that's another topic for another time) but I must say he does have a point about consistency.”
Do you realize that you have just declared the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision null and void? The justices who decided that case were all men. If males do not have a right to express their opinions on this topic, then their ruling should be extirpated from the U.S. Law books!
If a group composed of all males made such an unfair decision, then should not males try to undo the wrong they have done?
Folks, you heard it here! Of all the foolish arguments: to question if the SCOTUS should rule on propositions before them. If an all-male court could make such a ruling as Roe v Wade, maybe there should be consideration of how rulings might go with three women sitting on the court. No other males' opinions have weight unless you rule from the bench.
alphameg,
You said: “Nic's expose is unsettling. Perhaps many were aware of this wholesale slaughter in Adventist medical facilities. i wasn't.”
Most Adventists assume that our church is pro-life. I shared the same misconception until I discovered that this was not the case. Actually we Adventists led the way for the legalization of abortion. Our Castle Memorial Hospital in Hawaii started offering abortions on demand back in 1970 with the blessing of the church—three years before abortion was legalized in the U.S. mainland. I know this to be a fact because this was the topic of my doctoral dissertation.
You also wrote: “If any of these clinics are owned by the SDA Corp. i recommend they be sold. That they be staffed only by personnel honoring human life from conception.”
Twelve Adventist hospitals did participate in the abortion business, and five of them did admit that they were offering elective abortions to their patients. Do you think that the church will divest itself from these medical institutions? One of the main culprits in this has been our Washington Adventist Hospital, which is located near the General Conference headquarters.
You ended with: “The suggestion that females are inferior to men & incompetent, therefore ineligible for the top SDA leadership positions is pure macho hogwash.”
I agree! If those opposed to the ordination of women for the ministry are right, then the Lord must have made a big mistake when he chose a woman, Ellen White, to the role of supreme teacher of the entire Adventist community of 17 million members.
Timo Onjukka,
You wrote: “I have similarly inquire and answered at length to Nic in prior thread.”
You have referenced your comment to Nic. Unfortunately I am not allowed to respond because your comments are way of topic, as you can see:
“As a psych and ER triage nurse I have encountered many women with unwanted pregnancies, often as result of rape, incest, and other tragic means. I have had to tell a mother who's daughter took her own life as result of her fundamentalist preacher fathers hateful stand to her abortion (itself a doubly tragic story), and given her the heart wrenching note the daughter wrote. When I was married (22 years, to a woman who too easily could have might have been terminated-for "grounds", even-but who instead was adopted, "before birth" by her birth mothers sister) we initiated applications to foster/adopt special medical needs children, but divorce precluded the process. There is much more to my story here, including directly with ex spouse and our direct family, but this is not about my story here. Perhaps at a later date i shall share in another article.
I do provide direct material care to a lovely couple in their 80's who have adopted and fostered just under 200 children, as well volunteered under several organizations to provide respite care to behaviorally challenged adoptees caregivers. I have been touched, and healed in unspoken ways in my heart through the privilege of so doing.”
I wish I had the privilege to respond to your comments, but if I do, I was told that my answer would be deleted.
Stephen Ferguson,
You wrote: “The Ancient Spartan mothers gave their newborn babies to the City Elders, who determined whether it was fit to live. If it had any sort of ‘imperfection’ (however, they defined it, but would include say a slightly lame leg), then that newborn baby was often thrown off a cliff to its death.
Now it appears Spartans seem to collectively agree with that policy of racial physical purity and physical perfection as being necessary for the greater good (and with some irony they won the war against Athens but bred themselves out of existence). Do you think that action of throwing ‘imperfect’ babies off that cliff moral or immoral – right or wrong? Or do you think that if the Spartans collectively thought it was ok, where ‘good’ was strength and ‘evil’ was weakness, then we can only judge them by their own relativistic morality?
Similarly, and it isn’t such a far stretch as an ethical comparison, if in Afghani society they collectively see women (or I should say young girls) as less than nothing, to the extent that a young girl raped should be executed whilst her offenders stand by and watch, who are we in the West to judge their morals from our own prejudices? On what basis is what the Afghans do as ‘wrong’ is morality is just a relativistic human construct made by members of society?
These are extreme examples, but confronting and difficult ethical questions face us every day. Some might argue that abortion is an extreme but common difficult ethical question.”
I wish I could address some of your comments, but if I did, by response would be deleted because the topic is not abortion or infanticide but rather women’s ordination.
Nic – LOL 🙂 I get your point but unfortuntately I am not the Moderator and I am sure the Moderator has his or her reasons. I personally think continually denying the existence of God, Jesus and the Bible is trolling (in the technical internet sense of the word), both being 'off topic' and implictly suggesting people leave the SDA Church (both being against the rules), but again I am not the Moderator.
So Stephen once again you are calling people who question your faith and their previous held faith notions "trolls"? Why not honest debate? Denying the bible? I don't deny it as a work of ancient humans but it just does not have the same authortarian impact on me. I have no quarrel with Jesus admonishing me to be kind, share my food and be nice to my neighbor. But, many of the fantastical claims in the bible are suspect. What is wrong with questioning and yes at times leaving some of the bible's claims where they belong, in antiquity and having no relevant place today.
Doctorf I use the term 'trolling' not as an insult but in the internet colloquialism sense of the word:
‘Troll (Internet), an internet term for a person who, through willful action, attempts to disrupt a community or garner attention and controversy through provocative messages… In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted."’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
In short, your comments and the comments of fellow ex-Adventists are, in my respectful opinion, trolling, because they are ‘inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic’ for a Christian-SDA website. Moreover, they usually result in a response that usually disrupts the normal on-topic discussion raised by the author of the relevant article. Thus, we never end up discussing what the author of the article proposes, but the same-old debate re God, Jesus and the Bible.
Incidentally, Wikipedia seems to suggest trolling is more common when people don’t reveal their identities. For example you will notice that I reveal my entire name – can the same be said for you and others?
My main concern, which I have noted repeatedly is this might not be an official SDA website, but it is an SDA-affiliated website. AToday’s own stated mission includes:
“Adventist Today reports on contemporary issues of importance to Adventist church members.” (emphasis added)
My concern is that Adventists don’t ever get to issues of importance to Adventist church members because we are repeatedly distracted by issues relating to whether God exists, whether we should believe in Jesus, or whether the Bible has any authority. Whilst there is huge theological and cultural variations as to beliefs in God, Jesus and scripture, there must be a certain degree of mutual acceptance on these three points in order to have a meaningful discussion on most topics here on AToday.
For example, I doubt I am the first to find it difficult having a discussion on Women’s Ordination, evolution, homosexuality or any other important topic with someone who repeatedly says there is not God and the Bible is just a bunch of fairytales. Moreover, I find the constant criticism against the SDA Church tiresome, and the constant evangelizing and grandstanding of professed enlightenment against we mere ‘shruken head Adventists’ (to borrow from a recent ex-Adventist post) rather patronizing.
If you have something to contribute – great. But I don’t think it unreasonable to try and keep to the topic suggested by the author of the AToday article. If the AToday author raises questions about a belief in God, or whether the Bible is inspired, or whether Jesus was a historical figure – great. Otherwise, perhaps try and refrain from your continual attacks on these issues, which are rarely relevant to the topic at hand!
Stephen, I think most of us are aware of the sense in which you have been using the terms "troll" or "trolling," but I think it is useful that you have provided this clarification. It is your impression that some of us have been deliberately attempting to disrupt AToday by posting provocative and off-topic messages. While you are certainly at liberty to reach that conclusion, it does not seem to me to be valid.
I can speak only for myself, but my intention in visiting this site, and commenting (perhaps way too often), has really just been to communicate and interact with people with whom I share educational and cultural history. To the extent that the community includes diversity of age, geneder, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religious conviction, and educational & life experiences, we all can benefit, it seems to me. It does not seem to me that this is, or should be, a closed site.
I find it interesting to see how people express themselves and describe their experiences and beliefs and their reasons for holding the opinions they have. I think it helps me better understand people and their cognitive styles and the role religion plays in forming and holding religious perspectives. All this seems to me to be within the scope of interests of current members of the SDA church. I am not here to convert anyone, or to distract them from their beliefs. I pledge not to be a "troll" in any sense of that term, and I will minimize my comments here in the future. I wish all of you well.
The views presented here are all found within the SDA community. There are SDAs in 'good and regular standing' who would agree with Elain 100%. There are others with the same standing who would disagreee 120%, and want her banned – or even stoned to death. This site has not, as far as I know, restricted membership to only SDAs, nor has it put forward any view of the Bible or Ellen White that one must subscribe to. How then can anyone be in breach of those rules? To say 'the Bible is only human anyway, so we don't need to obey it' is not SDA doctrine, but I am sure you would find people who subscribe to something like that in many larger urban SDA churches in some parts of the world. It also isn't the SDA position that the Bible is the inerrant, infallibe, verbally inspired Word of God, or that Ellen White is an inerrant, infallible prophet whose every word is straight from the mouth of God, but people holding those or similar views have and no dount will post here. They represent part of the spectrum of the SDA church, and when they present their views it is inevitable that their view s will be challenged and we will get into discussions of how the Bible or Ellen White should be used. If it challenges anyone beyond what they can bear, ignore it and move to the next post. If you see it as trolling, then take the well-known advice and 'don't feed the trolls'.
What I find not at all helpful is the frequent digressions to argue whether certain views should be allowed. In many forums it is policy that all questions regarding moderatorial policy are held with the moderators off-list, and the moderators' decision is final and not to be questioned in the forum. I woul dsuggest such a policy here would work well, as long as the method of contacting the moderators is posted somewhere prominent on the home page, along with the rules. If it isn't in the rules and you think it should be, take it up with the moderators off-line.
Kevin, sorry, you cutting and pasting function is going a little crazy.
From reading the 'garble' it has something to do with Fox Lingo, so have disabled that and will see how we go.
The views presented here are all found within the SDA community. There are SDAs in 'good and regular standing' who would agree with Elain 100%. There are others with the same standing who would disagreee 120%, and want her banned – or even stoned to death. This site has not, as far as I know, restricted membership to only SDAs, nor has it put forward any view of the Bible or Ellen White that one must subscribe to. How then can anyone be in breach of those rules? To say 'the Bible is only human anyway, so we don't need to obey it' is not SDA doctrine, but I am sure you would find people who subscribe to something like that in many larger urban SDA churches in some parts of the world. It also isn't the SDA position that the Bible is the inerrant, infallibe, verbally inspired Word of God, or that Ellen White is an inerrant, infallible prophet whose every word is straight from the mouth of God, but people holding those or similar views have and no dount will post here. They represent part of the spectrum of the SDA church, and when they present their views it is inevitable that their view s will be challenged and we will get into discussions of how the Bible or Ellen White should be used. If it challenges anyone beyond what they can bear, ignore it and move to the next post. If you see it as trolling, then take the well-known advice and 'don't feed the trolls'.
What I find not at all helpful is the frequent digressions to argue whether certain views should be allowed. In many forums it is policy that all questions regarding moderatorial policy are held with the moderators off-list, and the moderators' decision is final and not to be questioned in the forum. I woul dsuggest such a policy here would work well, as long as the method of contacting the moderators is posted somewhere prominent on the home page, along with the rules. If it isn't in the rules and you think it should be, take it up with the moderators off-line.
I totally agree with Stephen. Although allowing a broad latitude is fine should there not be a limit? My point is why is it every time we are debating an issue ( most issues are christian ) we have to always degenerate into the existence of God, Inspiration of the bible etc. It becomes difficult to have meaningful discussions if there are other s who are diametrically opposed to the most fundamental premise i.e. the existence of God. I may disagree with Stephen on a lot of issues but being told that I am a sheep or I have a shrunken head simply because I am adventist is counterproductive. I don't see americans inviting Al qaeda or the taliban's opinion on american issues!
I don't believe anyone on this forum has been guilty of calling you a sheep or having a shrunken head because you are Adventist.
This is a forum for conversation, and if everyone agrees, there is no need to converse: simply some makes a statement, everyone nods in agreement, and goes home. If that is what is wanted, this is not the place.
Surely, anyone who has been an Adventist long, realizes that there are many divergent opinions, but few, if any could be called "apostasy." If the moderator were to post the 28 FBS and ask for all those who are in agreement to answer with a simple "yes" or "no" I doubt anyone here could do so without want to make a lengthy statement of clarification.
So, either enjoy the conversation, or find an official SDA website; but you will never get anything the the news the leaders want you to know.
Elaine you are the one who said the 'shruken heads' comment and called Adventists sheep – but let's not get into name calling.
No one expects everyone to agree on all 28 FBs – that would be absurd.
No one even expects everyone to be a SDA per se either.
But trying to have a meaningful discussion when people don't even believe in God, Jesus or the Bible as a basis for dialogue is very different, because we aren't even speaking the same language so to speak.
If I kept bringing up the Koran, and quoted verses from it, it would no doubt get mighty annoying. There are certainly Koranic texts that one could quote re issues of women's ordination, homosexuality, evolution and a whole host of other issues. But those comments wouldn't be very relevant to a Christian-SDA-affiliated website would they?
Tapiwa wrote:
"I may disagree with Stephen on a lot of issues but being told that I am a sheep or I have a shrunken head simply because I am adventist is counterproductive."
His is the only commenter I saw who has used "shrunken heads." Since you claim that I was the one who made it, I have searched every comment under my name here, and cannot find it.
You owe me the exact date and where I made such a comment; otherwise, you owe me an apology, as I have never used such terminology.
Elaine
I cannot find the exact place but you did call pepole sheep and used shrunken heads. I also accussed you of bieng elitist and borderline racist and was aksed to show where I felt you were exhibiting such attributes you said to me on another thread
"Your comments betray a deep-seated fear of women; women who could potentially be in authority over you and all men. Were you not under your mother's authority as a child? Was she harsh, demanding, and incompetent? The judgements you are making seems to condemn all women. Do you feel you are superior in every way to your wife, your sister, your mother? Or, is it only those women you do not know but are very suspicious of?
This statement was not made to western adventists who are against WO but only to me and I feel it is premised on the fact that I am a black African and on the assumption that my culture is more primitive than yours. Thats why I feel it is a subtle nuanced form of looking down on others.
You posted the following comment a few days ago:
“Nic – LOL 🙂 I get your point but unfortuntately I am not the Moderator and I am sure the Moderator has his or her reasons. I personally think continually denying the existence of God, Jesus and the Bible is trolling (in the technical internet sense of the word), both being 'off topic' and implictly suggesting people leave the SDA Church (both being against the rules), but again I am not the Moderator.”
Your posting generated a number of responses and I suspect that some of the responders might have assumed that you had me in mind when you made a reference to those who are denying the existence of God and who do not believe in the Bible. For this reason, I want to clarify that I am a second generation Adventist, that I believe in God and that the Bible is God’s revelation to humanity.
Stephen,
You have made an accusation that commenters here are "implicitly suggesting people leave the SDA church."
You may have been on this forum longer than I have, but I have yet to read a single commenter who has made such a suggestion. You are inferring that doubts are equal to suggesting apostasy. Where and who has made such suggestions?
Elaine we have been on this rollercoaster before. What is the point in being on a SDA-affiliated (I didn't say official) website if not to share ideas with each other and engage in meaningful dialogue. The ultimate aim of communication is to tell others something, usually with the hope of getting them to understand something new and to change their mind on something; otherwise, we would obviously be just talking to ourselves. We are all hear for that reason no doubt.
My main concerns are whether discussion is 'meaningful' if there isn't some very basic fundamental understanding of discourse. If I kept bringing up the Koran, and quoted verses from it, it would no doubt get mighty annoying. There are certainly Koranic texts that one could quote re issues of women's ordination, homosexuality, evolution and a whole host of other issues. But those comments wouldn't be very relevant to a Christian-SDA-affiliated website would they?
As to leaving the SDA Church, if someone seriously took on board your comments, or seriously starting reading all the various links Chris sends, what would be the outcome? The outcome would of course for people to lose their SDA faith. Sure, I might try to challenge Tapiwa about his beliefs within the Christian-SDA Ulema, but that is very different from advocating a position of disbelief in God, Jesus and the Bible, would IMO would in effect destroy a Christian-SDA belief at its core.
No doubt you are not saying you are 'advocating' a disbelief in God, Jesus or the Bible – just sharing your opinion. I get that, and IMO I disagree – I think you are deliberately trying to be provocative on those issues with the intent of swelling the ranks of ex-Adventists.
And as for Kevin's suggestion that we just ignore comments from ex-Adventists when they go off-topic onto tangents advocating a disbelief in God, Jesus and the Bible:
1. Ignoring the ex-Adventists and their off-topic hand grenades might be possible if there was just one of them. However, there is half a dozen or more of them, and they near dominate discussions anyway. Thus, IMO it is impossible to simply ignore them.
2. In any event, why should we just ignore those sorts of comments? This is after all, a Christian-Adventist subject-matter forum? Why should we tip-toe around ex-Adventists, especially when people such as Nic (not making a judgment on him) are certainly moderated? Elaine notes she is passionate about her views, and so am I, and my views include a belief in God, Jesus and the Bible.
And yes, I have raised this with the moderator.
I recall no mention in the mission of AToday that this is the intent of this forum:
"The ultimate aim of communication is to tell others something, usually with the hope of getting them to understand something new and to change their mind on something; otherwise, we would obviously be just talking to ourselves."
I couldn't disagree more. I would hope you do not communicate in this way with your wife or co-workers, it is clearly condescending. Listening is the most important form of communication. If you own a business, it can be deadly not to listen to your employees and customers. The church is not effective at listening; in fact, there is doubt that they listen, if only rarely.
A good conversationalist will first listen before opening his mouth: find out something about the other person before jumping in with telling him what you are eager to tell him. How do you know that he has the least bit of interest in what you might say?
The most influential book I ever read, and as a teen, was How to Win Friends and Influence People and this was the magic method: "Listen and ask about the other person's interest and what is important in his life." That is the opening for developing an honest relationship.
My name is Elaine and I approve this message.
Elaine I hear what you are saying but I think you miss my point. Yes of course there should be listening, and listening is the most important form of communication. But why do people make posts hear on AToday other than to communicate a certain idea or position, which ultimately they hope to convince others? Yes, there are times when people have posted questions asking for further information, or have evolved to change their views, but there is plenty of criticism to go around of people just wanting to hear the sound of their own voice (so to speak).
Moreover, I don't see a whole lot of listening by ex-Adventists when they continually bring up points suggesting a disbelief in God, Jesus or the Bible. In fact, most of these off-topic tangents demonstrate that there is clearly a lack of listening, because the actual topic as presented by the author of the article is forgotten. That is my concern – the lack of listening to the point presented by the author of the article.
Stephen Furguson,
I have had little to say on this thread because, apart from an occasional comment re the topic of WO, I really have little to add. Views I am probablly too well known for here on AT make the question itself less relevant.
But…I did notice my name came up in the context of trolling and those who seem to be causing irritation.
I have never forgotten a comment or two you made not long after I first came across your postings.
It was in Irvin Taylor's thread about FB6 part 1.
"All I am saying is the big scary evolution boogie-man is not the kryptonite to our fundamental beliefs many, including much of the SDA establishment, claim it to be."
and…
"I would have that a very wise stance would be for SDA theologians to be exploring that IF evolution was later 100% proven by science, then HOW can the SDA church adapt its beliefs and practices to this revelation in such a way that it will not undermine our mission. I don’t know if I believe in evolution or not (because I am not a scientist), but I personally don’t believe any of our 28 Fundamental Beliefs would be fatally wounded if evolution were uncontrovertibly proven.
To that, I do acknowledge some of the very good and courageous work on exactly this topic, including by people such as Erv. They may get attacked today, but mark my words, one day when science makes it untenable to believe in YEC any longer, these men and women will save the Church from total annihilation. When Adventists want to chuck it all in, it will be these SDA theologians who will be able to say, ‘You can believe in evolution and be an Adventist’."
I was very impressed with your attitude and openness. What went wrong?
Well, for me, I'll tell you what went wrong. I came on AT to share ideas, encourage thinking and exploration of the "what ifs". I came seeking a place to bounce ideas around and find answers to exactly the point you raise. "If evolution is true…then what?".
I did come having already discovered stuff about the age of the earth that compelled me to an evolutionary view. How to fit SDA/Christian stuff into that was unclear. Sadly, instead of finding help in good dialogue, most of my time has degenerated into defending the positions that evoke the biggest challenges to our theology. It seems easier to believe the problems do not exist than to seek answers to them.
So, now, I have been lumped with the trolls. (I happen to think there are none here).
What went wrong for you? I sense a move away from openness, not toward it.
You know, Sam Harris makes a confronting point: "…disbelief in the God of Abraham does not require that one search the entire cosmos and find Him absent; it only requires that one consider the evidence put forward by believers to be insufficient."
I think that Christianity, including SDAism, must distill itself down to simply the expression of a personal spirituality or faith. If that faith has made us more loving, kind, community minded and in tune with nature it will have fulfilled its purpose. That faith should not lead us to believe things that are empirically and a posteriori demonstrably wrong. Otherwise we will lose all crediblity, and all the more as some of our faith postions become blatantly untenable. Let's give people better reasons for faith. Let's find ways to express spirituality without having to live in denial. let's admit that to date, the evidence put forwards by believers is insufficient.
No. second thoughts: Don't worry about that. let's just keep arguing about how to keep women out of power. Much easier!
Chris, nothing has changed in my attitude. I am not suggesting there be Thought-Police and that AToday become a place only for card-carrying Adventists who uphold all 28 FBs. I do think the strength of AToday is a site where issues can be discussed that are important to contemporary Adventists (and I include the wider Adventist diaspora in that).
All I am asking is what are the limits to 'relevance' to a site dedicated to Christian-Adventist subject-matter? Shall it be a place where we discuss football, weather or behind the virtues of factional disputes with different Buddhist movements?
As I said, I could be a very, very liberal Muslim, but I would still question the relevance of continually quoting the Koran in relation to issues concerning the SDA Church and homosexuality, WO or evolution – would you? Some continually bring up abortion every chance they get, and the Moderators have intervened on the basis of relevance. I am wondering if the continually degressions onto tangent topics re a disbelief in God, Jesus or the Bible are similiarly irrelevant most of the time?
Elaine said it best some time ago:
"Logic shows that for two people to engage in discussion, there must be a mutual agreement on the premises. This is not the case in the subject under discussion."
So what is the 'premise' of AToday that we should have 'mutual agreement' on?
Timo there is quite a lot of deep thought in there.
I agree about the danger of biblitary. However, what are the limits of 'relevance' for a Christian-Adventist subject-matter website. Christianity and Adventism is a massive theological spectrum. But when do comments go so far off topic that they are no longer talking the 'same language' necessary for meaningful discussion. IMO, the very, very basic 'common language' for meaningful discussion is belief in God, Jesus and the Bible – although of course there can be massive differences about the nuasances of what those terms mean. But to promote a view of atheism, belief in Krishna and the book of Mormon probably are not the 'same language' necessary for meaningful discussion on a Christian-Adventist subject-matter website.
Rather the attitude of those in the Church, I think the Bible draws a clear distinction between how to engage with ex-believers vs unbelievers. But I do agree there are a lot of pots calling kettles blacks, and stones being thrown by those in glass houses.
I am not sure if I agree with you re the trend of moderators. IMO the moderators are much harsher on conservatives compared with ex-Adventists. As a 'liberal' who probably stands 'in the middle' between both groups, I have no reason to support conservatives. However, conservatives do routinely get pulled-up for going off-topic, such as Nic and abortion, but I am yet to see that happen re ex-Adventist jibes or tangents promoting disbelief in God, Jesus or the Bible.
Moreover, when conservatives are pulled-up, I think they do usually apologise and show a repenting attitude. I have also apologised several times for comments said. However, without wishing to generalised, I would disagree with you re trends, and say the ex-Adventist ultra-liberal wing is the least apologetic for statements said, including personal attacks. I have personally been told 'if it is too hot get out of the kitchen'.
Reading recent comments, it appears that the topic of this blog certainly has stirred-up things that sometimes have and sometimes do not have direct relevance to the original topic. However, speaking from the perspective of just one person, this is not a problem unless someone attacks the motives of others or makes judgments about an individual’s moral standing.
It seems to me that one either believes in free speech for everyone or one does not believe in free speech. On the other hand, we all know the point about yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. I can’t think of an analogous situation on the AT blogs or web site. Perhaps someone might wish to suggest one.
Let me just note that I very much appreciate the efforts of the moderator to keep the dialogue on the high road and try to be even handled about enforcing the publically-stated guidelines. That is not an easy task. In fact, it is often a thankless task. I sometimes personally disagree with the calls that are made. However, my own personal opinions on this are totally irrelevant. The administration of AT has given the moderators and editors the responsibility and no one in AT administration is about to second guess these decisions.
As I have communicated off line to several individuals, there is no reversing the calls of an umpire in baseball and the same principal generally applies at AT. On the other hand, if there are concerns raised by reasonable individuals of whatever ideological orientation which appear to have merit, I am sure that they will be taken up by AT administration, deliberately considered, and appropriate actions taken. In my view, all of those currently serving as editors and moderators are exercising their responsibility without fear or favor.