Those who are in open rebellion against the clearly stated …

Comment on Jan Paulsen: 2004 vs 2009 by Sean Pitman, M.D..

Those who are in open rebellion against the clearly stated ideals of the Church should not remain in the employ of the SDA Church. Tithe monies and offerings are not to be spent to support open rebellion and blatantly subversive behavior. Such “freedom” does not a viable organization make. Even Lucifer was forced to leave Heaven when he openly rebelled against the government and order of Heaven.

Private struggles are one thing. Open blatant rebellion is quite another. Church leaders, including Elder Paulsen, need to act as true leaders to maintain the order, discipline, and government of the SDA Church – as an organization.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman, M.D. Also Commented

Jan Paulsen: 2004 vs 2009

Steve Billiter: You may pay your tithe where you please. Your condemning words are not appreciated.

Sorry Steve, but you are incorrect in this view. According to Mrs. White:

“Some have been dissatisfied and have said: ‘I will not longer pay my tithe, for I have no confidence in the way things are managed at the heart of the work.’

“But will you rob God because you think the management of the work is not right? Make your complaint, plainly and openly, in the right spirit, to the proper ones. Send in your petitions for things to be adjusted and set in order, but do not withdraw from the work of God and prove unfaithful because others are not doing right.”–9T 249.

“That portion that God has reserved for Himself is not to be diverted to any other purpose than that which He has specified. Let none feel at liberty to retain their tithe, to use according to their own judgment. They are not to use it for themselves in an emergency, nor to apply it as they see fit, even in what they may regard as the Lord’s work.”–9T 247.

“A very plain, definite message has been given to me for our people. I am bidden to tell them that they are making a mistake in applying the tithe to various objects which, though good in themselves, are not the object to which the Lord has said that the tithe should be applied. Those who make this use of the tithe are departing from the Lord’s arrangement. God will judge for these things.”–9T 248.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Jan Paulsen: 2004 vs 2009
“The Price You Pay for Freedom” – Elder Paulsen

It seems to me that Paulsen was, back in 2004 at least, advocating a form of church government that is completely impotent when it comes to actively supporting its own stated ideals – even with its own employees. The SDA employee can do or say whatever he/she wants without any real recourse from the SDA Church as an organization? Really?! This isn’t how it was during the formation of the early SDA Church organization.

Although originally opposed to such constraints, it was John Loughborough, together with James White, who first started to realize the need for some sort of internal enforcement of Church order and discipline – i.e., a Church government. J.N. Loughborough in his 1907 work, The Church, Its Organization, Order and Discipline wrote:

“As our numbers increased, it was evident that without some form of organization, there would be great confusion, and the work could not be carried forward successfully. To provide for the support of the ministry, for carrying on the work in new fields, for protecting both the church and ministry from unworthy members, for holding church property, for the publication of the truth through the press, and for other objects, organization was indispensable.”

Of course, those who were not considered to accurately represent the views of the early SDA Church did not receive “cards of commendation”. And what was the attitude of such persons? – according to Loughborough?:

Of course those who claimed “liberty to do as they pleased,” to “preach what they pleased,” and to “go when and where they pleased,” without “consultation with any one,” failed to get cards of commendation. They, with their sympathizers, drew off and commenced a warfare against those whom they claimed were “depriving them of their liberty.” Knowing that it was the Testimonies that had prompted us as a people to act, to establish “order,” these opponents soon turned their warfare against instruction from that source, claiming that “when they got that gift out of the way, the message would go unrestrained to its `loud cry.’ ”

One of the principal claims made by those who warred against organization was that it “abridged their liberty and independence, and that if one stood clear before the Lord that was all the organization needed,” etc… All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery.”

– Loughborough, JN. Testimonies for the Church. p. 650. Vol. 1.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman, M.D.

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.