@Phillip Brantley: Could you please clarify? Are you saying that …

Comment on NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community by Bob Pickle.

@Phillip Brantley: Could you please clarify?

Are you saying that you think it is right for non-scientist judges to force public schools to only teach one view of religious-based origin theory, namely evolution? If so, on what logical basis are you taking that position?

Bob Pickle Also Commented

NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community
Philip,

A pastor at camp meeting with a background in science just told us that in 1987 the Supreme Court endorsed atheism as the only religious view of origins permitted in the classroom because of the separation of church and state.

The pastor also stated that there was a dissenting opinion by Scalia who complained that the court was not addressing the merits of the science itself.

That the court did not address the merits of the science itself is most unfortunate. It would seem that we are back in the Middle Ages in a way when non-scientists tell scientists what they can and cannot teach, despite what the truth may be.

Regardless of what any earthly, fallible judge says, evolutionary theory has repeatedly been falsified by competent scientists. It is truly science fiction.


Recent Comments by Bob Pickle

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean, you above state: “… a lack of a specific statement in the GC’s Working Policy that explicitly forbids the ordination of women as pastors. As far as I’m aware, such a statement simply doesn’t exist.”

Try BA 60 10 which states: “The world Church supports nondiscrimination in employment practices and policies and upholds the principle that both men and women, without regard to race and color, shall be given full and equal opportunity within the Church to develop the knowledge and skills needed for the building up of the Church. Positions of service and responsibility (except those requiring ordination to the gospel ministry*) on all levels of church activity shall be open to all on the basis of the individual’s qualifications.”

The footnote makes clear that the exception regarding ordination to the gospel ministry is one of gender, not race or color.

Also, B 10 22: “All organizations and institutions throughout the world will recognize the authority of the General Conference Session as the highest authority of the Seventh-day Adventist Church under God.” Here we have part of the Working Policy saying that there is no higher authority under God in the Adventist Church than the sessions that voted down WO in 1990, 1995, and 2015.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean, in your update you write:

Sean Pitman:
“On the other hand, it also seem clear that on the issue of ordination, in particular, that the “final authority” has been given to the Union level of governance within the church (not to the level of the General Conference) to act as a buffer against too much centralized power within the church. …

“In any case, since honest confusion remains between many honest and sincere members as well as leaders of the church, ….

There certainly is honest confusion regarding this, but I can’t see how everyone is honestly confused.

1. Local churches decide who will be members and who will not, but local churches do not have the authority to make tests of fellowship. Thus the criteria for membership is decided by the world church, while that criteria is applied to individual cases by the local church.

Similarly, though unions decide who will be ordained, they don’t unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination.

2. If unions could unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination, there would have been no reason to bring the matter to the GC Sessions of 1990 and 1995. Particularly in 1995, it seems clear that church leaders understood that without GC division authorization, unions could not approve women for ordination, and that without GC Session authorization, GC divisions could not so authorize.

3. The first I remember hearing that unions could act on their own was after Dan Jackson’s open letter of, I think, Jan. 2012. Maybe we can find this idea being promulgated prior to that date in left-wing journals, but maybe not. Since there certainly has been discussion in some circles about getting rid of unions, it seems difficult to have simultaneous promotion of the idea that we need unions so that women can be ordained.

How it comes across to me is that some want their way no matter what, and are grasping at anything they can to justify their position. For those some, I don’t think the label “honest confusion” fits. Now if they can come up with some sort of historical documentation that local churches can unilaterally determine the criteria for church membership, or that unions can unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination, OK. But I have yet to see any such documentation.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference

Nic Samojluk: Some unions have slightly departed from the traditional manner in carrying the Gospel forward, and the church has reacted by producing a plethora of documents and wasted millions of dollars in order to forbid what is nowhere forbidden in Scripture. We would be wise, I believe, in stopping this nonsense.

Hi Nic.

Seems to me that disregarding a GC Session vote is essentially forbidden in Scripture. The issue Sean is highlighting here is not WO, but rather disregarding a GC Session vote.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
@Cindy Tutsch:

Cindy Tutsch:
I find the following citation thought provoking in light of current controversies:
“It has been a necessity to organize union conferences, that the General Conference shall not exercise dictation over all the separate conferences.” EGW in 4 MR 292

Hi Cindy.

Would not this statement be talking about the GC rather than a GC Session?

In some discussions I’ve seen, it seems like some are applying counsel regarding the GC to a GC Session, which is understandable given that the names for each are almost identical. But the GC and a GC Session are quite different.

If the above quote were to be applied to a GC Session, that would be like saying that the decision of the council of Acts 15 was optional, and local churches, James, Paul, and the Judaizers could take it or leave it. That just doesn’t sound like what Acts 15 is all about.


Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
We have repeatedly been taught not to send tithe to offshoots, for good reason. If an entity decides to go against a GC Session vote, at what point does that entity cross a line and become an offshoot?

And if, wherever that line is, that line is crossed, why would an officer of a local church within that conference have to resign, if that local church also believes the local conference should adhere to that GC Session vote?

The situation would be different if there was a plain and clear Thus saith the Lord as justification for disregarding the GC Session vote, since the Bible is a higher authority than a GC Session.