Those who hijack leadership roles in a given conference or union in areas of education, administration etc in the SDA church just so they can introduce error – can only survive and prosper in that role as long as there are enough people who will “do nothing” to stop it in their local conference.

That is why I am glad the Michigan conference leaders had the leadership initiative and vision to take a stand and let the chips fall where they may.

in Christ,

Bob

Like or Dislike: 3  5

Faith, thanks very much for taking the time to deconstruct Ron’s ramblings on a sentence-by-sentence basis. He is so emotion-based and anti-logical that I wouldn’t have bothered, but I appreciate that you took the time.

For me the significance of people like Ron is that lax discipline and an adoctrinal (or even anti-doctrinal) “Adventism” have prevailed for so long in certain parts of the country that he thinks that for us to now insist that Adventist doctrines be upheld in Adventist institutions is to unfairly change the rules in the middle of the game. And in a sense he is right. But every significant work of reform consists of just such changes, because the old way of doing things was wrong and needed to be changed. The way things were in the time of the Judges is the way things are in some Adventist conferences today: everyone does what is right in his own eyes.

That has to stop. Now.

Hot debate. What do you think? 5  5

Just to clarify a statement I made earlier:

When I spoke of religious liberty and used the example of your boss not firing you for your religious beliefs, just in case that confused you a bit, I want you to know that what I was referring to is that if you want to take off your Sabbaths you have a legal right to do this without risking your job.

It does not, however, ensure that the professors are allowed to teach evolution in their classrooms contrary to their employer’s (the church’s) wishes. That is actually willful disobedience and betrayal–in actual fact, not doing their jobs properly–and no employer is required to put up with that.

Hot debate. What do you think? 8  3

@David R.:
David, I want to thank you for such a cogent and timely analysis. Well done. I could only wish that traditionalists and liberals alike would take this instruction to heart.

Hot debate. What do you think? 6  5

Ron: Faith and Wesley; Actually, you both grossly misinterpret my position.

[I don't know about that--don't you think that the doctrines are not important; that the love of man trumps all else? I think I have interpretted your position quite accurately.]

I believe the church is committing a grievous error, if not an outright sin by their current response to the controversy.
The issue at least for me, is not WHAT the church believes or doesn’t believe. [And that is what I said you said--you don't care about the doctrines.]

The issue is HOW the church responds to diversity of belief.

[You seem to be thinking upside down and backwards, Ron. We aren't supposed to have a diversity of beliefs. We are all supposed to be of one mind--the mind of Jesus. Jesus didn't subscribe to every wind of doctrine that came along and neither should His followers.]

I believe that fear and coercion are tools of the devil. [You are correct in this--but none of us are using fear or coercion. The professors, however, were using fear and coercion in that they required their students to subscribe to what any true SDA knows is false.] I believe the tools of God are reason and loving confrontation. [The professors used confrontation all right; but it was far from loving. They ridiculed students who dared to believe according to the church! That is the heights of arrogance, as far as I am concerned.]

Trying to purify the church by developing a creed and expelling every teacher and preacher who can’t or won’t line up is just wrong.

[Number One: we aren't developing a creed--the doctrines of our church have been there since the inception of the church and were given by God Himself. Expecting all members to subscribe to these doctrines is only just. Expelling those who won't live up to and teach the doctrines is not wrong, but totally right. To NOT do so is to allow the enemy to sow tares in the field.]

By attempting to coerce the conscience, it is using the devil’s methods.

[Again, as pointed out above, we do not coerce the conscience. The professors and ministers are free to believe whatever they want to--but they are not free to teach for truth that which is error while employed in our institutions. That, too, is one of the devil's methods.]

And to be frank, it just isn’t pragmatic. It doesn’t get you where you want to go, i.e. a truly unified church which is unified because people really understand and believe.

[Also, to be frank, I don't see what you think will be accomplished by letting this fiasco drag on and on since it has been happening for DECADES. I should think that the professors, as thick as they may be, should have gotten the picture by now. I think 30 or 40 years is ample time to let this thing fester. Now is the time for action. Unity of the church will never be accomplished by allowing a few to sow division into the whole.]

[We are all offered choices in this life. What we do with that gift of choice shapes our own destinies. If the professors choose to believe things that the church and its institutions don't ascribe to, they can only expect that if they try to promote their own agendas in the classrooms they will be asked to leave. That only makes sense. If we allowed professors to teach anything they wanted to it would create confusion and chaos. Two things that Satan uses a lot in his warfare against the church. It would also (and has) indoctrinate the youth of the church, who have come to an SDA school to receive an SDA education, into anti-SDA theories. That is fraudulent both to the students and their parents, many of whom have sacrificed to send their children to an SDA sdhool and who trust that their children will receive an SDA education, AS ADVERTISED.]

[You see, Ron, an SDA school is unique in that it is supposed to teach every subject with an SDA slant. The way things are, they are not living up to their mandate and that means they are cheating their SDA patrons.]

The proper method is to engage in thoughtful and respectful dialogue (i.e. don’t use pejorative terms such as “junk science”). [Sorry, Ron, it IS junk science--that's called a FACT] Don’t just write people off, be honest, and really deal with the issues. [Precisely what the we are tring to do.] Like God, be tolerant and patient while people work through the issues. Sometimes, as we have seen in God’s dealings with Satan, it takes time. [And sometimes, the time is up--30-40 years is enough! and what's more very generous.] Like God, you have to be tolerant enough to let people explore, and be wrong. [Not in our classrooms we don't. What they do on their own time and their own dime is up to them.] At least for a little while until the evidence becomes clear. Yes, I know. For some of you the evidence IS clear. But for some others it isn’t. Religious Liberty means that the majority, for whom the issue is clear, have to tolerate the minority, for whom the issue is NOT clear. [That's the wierdest definition of Religious Liberty I have ever heard.] As an aside regarding Sean’s assertion Religious Liberty is not a civil issue. It is an issue of conscience. [Sorry, Sean is correct. Religious liberty largely pertains to the way people are treated by the various forms of government and other citizens regarding their religious beliefs. I.e. employers cannot fire you because of your religious beliefs; you cannot be jailed because you worship on the Sabbath--at least for now. That is religious liberty.]

Tolerance does not mean that you are passive, or that you are accepting of a position; [yes, it does] what it means is that you engage respectfully, and that you accept some discomfort during the process. I am sorry I am not quoting the Bible or Mrs. White. I find these concepts are so pervasive throughout the Bible and Mrs. White that I would have a hard time knowing even where to start. I mean, the whole point of the Great Controversy is . . . the Controversy, right? Why do you think it has taken so long? It is because God is not willing to short circuit the process by being authoritarian. He refuses to impose on Man’s will; or even the will of Satan and the Angels. He is taking the time to patiently confront the issues one by one as they come up, and the process will not be finished until EVERY issue has come up, and EVERYONE, even Satan himself is convinced. Not convinced by coercion or fear, but honestly, freely, and truly convinced. (Here is an E.G.W quote: Read the Great Controversy).

[Where on earth did you get that? Are you labouring under the misconception that this thing is going to drag on until Satan is converted????? Satan knows exactly what he's doing. He's going down and he wants to take us all with him. He knows he will burn for the sins of the saints, so he figures he will tip the odds in his favour by getting as many of the saints to lose out on salvation as it is possible to do. That way they burn for their own sins.]

That is why God allowed Hitler, so the world could see and freely decide that genocide is wrong. Before Hitler genocide was accepted as an appropriate solution. (Here is a Bible quote: See Judges). After Hitler, it is not accepted.

[Again, where do you get that? God allowed Hitler to do what he did because He has agreed to let sin largely take its course to show the result of Satan's claims against God's Law. Before Hitler AND AFTER Hitler genocide has occurred and it will continue on until God calls a stop to this experiment. I've got to say, Ron, that your view of the Great Controversy is a skewed.]

That is why Christ had to die, to show man that here is a God that you don’t have to be afraid of, that it is OK for you to come to Him. He is “There for you”.

[No, it wasn't--it was to pay the penalty of sin for humanity that we could have a second shot at being obedient to, and in harmony with, God.]

I have no doubt that if Hitler came to God even in the last few moments after he swallowed the poison, [or blew his brains out??] that God would be there for him and accept him. I would not be the least bit surprised to see him in heaven. (OK Faith; I agree that it is highly unlikely, [true] but as a matter of argument and principle, I wouldn’t be surprised.)

[Just so you know, I do know that there will be some surprises in Heaven. People who we thought would never make it will be there and people we were sure would be there will be missing. That is why we wouldn't make very good judges. God knows best. And it is not my intention to judge Hitler--that is up to God. But he's an obvious choice for an example, in that he committed such awful and plentiful crimes.]
(As an aside: Stop and consider for a moment. What was the real problem in the Garden of Eden. Was it the act of stealing the fruit or was it the fear toward God that Adam and Eve had afterward? [Actually, Ron, the real problem was distrust and disobedience by Adam and Eve. They weren't afraid of God at all before they committed their sins. Fear is just a natural result of sin.]

What if they had moved toward God instead of running away? God managed to forgive the sins of the Angels in heaven who returned to Him without killing and death, but how could God cure man’s fear? The difference between Man and the Angels was the fear. [Again, where on earth do you get that?] It was the fear which broke the relationship with God and it required the death of God in Christ to show Man that God would rather die than harm or coerce.)[No, it wasn't--it was the disobedience and distrust that broke the relationship with God.]
…how did we go from talking about teachers trying to teach science to the best of their understanding to talking about Hitler? This is just completely insane. Where is the church’s sense of perspective? May God help us

[You were the one who brought up inclusiveness and coercion. I was just addressing your concerns. If that is insane, then...]

Hot debate. What do you think? 6  7

Wouldn’t this be the next “logical” step in eucumenical engagement?

How would the “success” be measured? Whichever day had the most attendees? How it helped the Church to grow?

Like or Dislike: 2  6

Ken: Might I humbly suggest that today of all days is not a day for internecine dispute but rather for peace and love.

Merry Christmas

indeed – today is the day that we celebrate the birth of the Messiah (the Christ). “God with Us”.

The incarnation of God Himself — who chose to step off of the throne of the universe and become an infant born to Mary – sent to save the world. A world that welcomed him by trying to kill all the baby boys two years old and under in the vicinity of his birth in an effort to kill him.

God – our Creator decided that “salvation at any cost” – no matter the price – was worth it to save mankind. And Christ said in Matt 10 that those who freely choose that path of salvation must “take up their cross and follow Me”.

This is a world where Satan has obtained the cooperation of man in many respects.

The Angels of heaven said on that day “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace good will toward men”. Luke 2

And yet another angel from heaven say in Rev 12:12 regarding the fact that Christ was winning the war against Satan — “Woe to those who dwell on the earth for the devil has come down to you knowing that he has but a short time”.

Even Christ Himself said in Matt 10 “do not think that I have come to bring peace – I have not come to bring peace but a sword” Matt 10.

Christ was referring to the fact that Satan – as the “god of this world” 1Cor 4:4 is at war against our Creator and leads as many of mankind as will – to follow his directions – whether wittingly or unwittingly.

in Christ,

Bob

Like or Dislike: 3  5

Quotes: “..active about speaking up on this forum… Tolerance does not mean that you are passive.” Amen, friend! “fear and coercion are tools of the devil…tools of God are reason and loving confrontation … thoughtful and respectful dialogue…This is just completely insane.” Oh Amen! “The issue is HOW the church responds to diversity of belief… May God help us.”

Amen, friend and brother; a chorus of amens and an army of thumbs up up and away. Beautifully put. Exquisitely put. Oh how blessed it is when we can devoutly and strongly hold to exactly the same things, like those we have just recited together in harmony and unanimity, and on this Xmas day. And wasn’t our church choir and orchestra’s Messiah, there in our ever bigger, acoustically perfected 6 million-dollar tent, magnificent, yesterday? Applause applause.

Next stanza: “The issue, at least for me, is not WHAT the church believes or doesn’t believe.”

OO-oh! A moment of silence. For me it is, the very issue is verily that. Well, (lump in the throat) I guess this is where we part ways. For if our tent is now vast and limitless enough to swallow up a vast diversity of styles and couplings, pastors and producers, banks of klieg lights and boom cameras, it is also large enough for divergent paths to go off into the somehow darkening distance.

Let us repeat the Mizpah together, if for the last time: “The Lord watch between me and thee when we are absent one from another. (Genesis 31:49, to quote Genesis, one last time).

Hot debate. What do you think? 5  5

Might I humbly suggest that today of all days is not a day for internecine dispute but rather for peace and love.

Merry Christmas

Your agnostic friend
Ken

Like or Dislike: 6  2

BobRyan: I am wondering if some over at the spec of truth board – are suggesting that being employed by the SDA church and consuming SDA tithe, offering and gift dollars is a “basic right” of hindus, atheists and evolutionists – such that any denial of their demands in that regard is a “civil penalty” being applied?

Time will tell if they are trying to make that case.

Frankly I doubt that we will see a rush for employment applications by members of those groups operating outside the SDA church today

Ron said : Sean, This statement is completely dis-ingenuous. The intent of the movement to “clarify” the 6th fundamental belief is exactly that – to impose a civil penalty on those who anything other than the most limited of interpretations.

BobRyan:
What civil penalty would that be?

Ron: Perhaps “civil” penalty isn’t the right word, but I am referring to the penalty of having your job threatened and your character maligned.

Ok but that brings us back to my prior statement – listed first in the text above.

in Christ,

Bob

Like or Dislike: 2  5