Jay Gallimore is president of the Michigan Conference in the North American Division.
One of the last prayers of Jesus before the Cross was that his disciples would be one in Him, even as He and the Father were one (John 17:21).
Yet, the New Testament predicted a great apostasy within Christianity. Revelation shows the great red dragon pursuing the woman, the symbol of the remnant church, who keeps the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. In contrast, the vision reveals another woman called Babylon who is the mother of harlots. This, as we understand, is false Christianity with its many divisions.
So we can reasonably conclude that Jesus and the disciples never believed that the outcome of His ministry would be a united Christianity at large. But He did believe in a united remnant.
This remnant is made up of many different nations and cultures. So it would be natural for broad discussion to take place regarding “unity in diversity” amongst Seventh-day Adventists. But what do we mean by this phrase? How does our definition differ from Babylon’s notion of “unity in diversity”?
Jesus understood oneness on the basis of two things. First, Jesus petitioned the Father to sanctify the disciples through the word of truth. In other words the Spirit of truth would employ Scripture to mold the church into oneness with Christ and one another.
The second was for Christ to be one with His disciples, just as He was one with the Father. He prayed; “I in them [disciples], and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one” (John 17: 23).
We should note how the mother of harlots, who sleeps with the kings of the earth, unites her daughters. Even though they are all related to each other through the mother, they all have different fathers. While she raised them to hold on to certain core practices, the rest of their beliefs are as diverse as their spiritual fathers. In contrast, the faithful woman keeps the commandments of God and has the faith of just One—Jesus.
When “unity in diversity” is applied to the disciples of Jesus, it cannot mean diversity regarding the teachings of the Word of God. Here the church must stand united. Take away the unity of doctrine, and you really have no mission. Diversity cannot become an excuse to negate the commandments of God.
Yet, there may be diversity on how the principle is applied. For example, let us take the New Testament command to dress modestly. The clothing in India, Africa, and North America may be very different. Certainly all cultures will have immodest choices. But the Bible doesn’t demand that all clothing be alike, only that it be modest. So Christians may wear any cultural clothing they like as longs as it is modest. Such diversity does not overthrow the principle of modesty, but supports it.
However, to use the expression “unity in diversity” as a means to embrace cultural positions, which are contrary to Scripture, is to promote a delusion called pluralism. Pluralism, within the church context, assumes that unity can be maintained by giving credibility and support to different competing beliefs and practices.
Babylon has already embraced this, but it is not the oneness for which Jesus prayed.
Today the Seventh-day Adventist Church is faced with this temptation. Will we as a church choose faithfulness to Scripture or concede to cultural norms? The pressure to conform to cultural standards burdens the church in many ways. At the end of the day, should we endorse pluralism for the sake of unity?
The church faced a major issue at its last General Conference (GC) session. After a careful and thoughtful process and with representatives from all over the world, it essentially voted not to allow the ordination of women. The motion asked for a vote based on the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. The vote supported position one of the Theology Ordination Study Committee.[1] That position makes it clear that the issue is not about the value or equality of men and women, but about faithfulness to the divine order given in Scripture. Some, of course, disagreed with the vote. That is to be expected. But for the sake of unity in the church, there comes a time for institutions, entities, and their leadership to surrender their opinions and practices.
Sadly, there are some unions and entities that are defying the vote of the GC Session by refusing to bring their practice into harmony with the vote of the world church on this matter. So now the issue is no longer about ordination, but rather the unity of the church.
Ordination to the office of a minister is no small matter to the world church. It is one of the essentials to its organization. It is the responsibility of the GC to define the qualifications for that office on the basis of Scripture. And it is the responsibility of the unions to see that those qualifications have been met.
If every union or conference acted unilaterally and assumed the same authority of the GC in session, unity would be impossible. If a local church, conference, or union decided to act contrary to the church manual or the voted actions of the GC, then it would threaten the unity of the body.
The Annual Council with nearly 315 delegates, is made up of GC officers, union presidents, administrators from our educational institutions, and laity from around the world. It functions as the executive committee for the world church between sessions. It should come as no surprise that they voted on Tuesday, October 11, 2016 to start the process of addressing the issues of noncompliance. The document is designed to cover any noncompliance issue, not just ordination.
Fundamental to religious liberty is the “right of association.” This simply means that everyone has the right to start and maintain their own church with its unique doctrine and teachings. Religious liberty means the individual can voluntarily choose to belong or not to belong. They also have the right to leave and form their own group. But they do not have the right to force their pluralistic ideas on the body unless the group agrees to it.
The action recently voted means that the church leadership, empowered by the Annual Council, has an open door to start addressing the issue of noncompliance. It will be a patient, redemptive, and longsuffering process. One can only hope and pray that those supporting this opposition will have a change of heart. If not corrected, there are consequences of insubordination to the worldwide body.
The world church is faced with two choices: (1) allow noncompliance to go on, and thereby dismantle the unity and practice of the church; or (2) stand firm on the vote of the GC Session and preserve the integrity and oneness of the church. Redemptive discipline can be painful and filled with tears! Yet, any organization that cannot or refuses to discipline itself is doomed to failure.
No one wants dissension or animosity. While people’s different convictions in the church may be patiently endured, they cannot be allowed to undermine or disrupt the faith, practice, and teachings of the church. The utilization of shrewdness or political maneuvering to undermine the collective decision of the church body is unchristian and cannot be accepted. Church discipline, rightly done, is not persecution; but rather, it embodies the pursuit of principled love, not sentimentalism.
Pluralism is the death knell to the theology and mission of the church. During the temptations in the wilderness, Jesus was offered the kingdoms of this world without the pain and suffering of the cross. He refused.
Those proposing a pluralistic path to oneness, instead of disciplinary action, are advancing a delusion. This will not result in the accomplishment of the church’s mission, nor preserve its integrity as the remnant church, or deliver us to our ultimate hope of the Second Coming.
Only the oneness of Jesus can overthrow the seductive temptation of pluralism. Unlike Babylon the path of the faithful remnant church will be painful and bloodstained.
But the good news is that the path of Christ’s oneness and unity ends in glory!
[1] http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/theology-of-ordination-position-no.-1. This was the position supported by the vote of the world church.
Note: This item was oriignally published here:
http://www.misda.org/article/245/member-services/administration/president/unity-diversity-oneness
29 replies on “Unity, Diversity and Oneness”
I have been saying something to this effect all along: “Fundamental to religious liberty is the “right of association.” This simply means that everyone has the right to start and maintain their own church with its unique doctrine and teachings. Religious liberty means the individual can voluntarily choose to belong or not to belong. They also have the right to leave and form their own group. But they do not have the right to force their pluralistic ideas on the body unless the group agrees to it.”
Very few and I mean VERY FEW of our members have no idea what the Pacific Union Conference and the North American Division are doing in Our Name.
It is almost like it’s an open secret among the leadership of the movement,and “heaven forbid” the “brethren get awakened” to the shenanigans of These People.
Thanks Pastor Jay for this spot on article.
“So now the issue is no longer about ordination, but rather the unity of the church.” This statement gets to the heart of the matter.
The rebelling units of the church claim they are just embracing unity in diversity and contrast the opposition as insisting on “uniformity” rather than unity. This is a false characterization and a false choice.
A choir or a quartet singing their various parts is a perfect example of unity in diversity. A choir or a quartet all singing the same part is uniformity. Sometimes in such groups there at times when they are singing in uniformity, other times, particularly with barber shop quartets, the group sings in very intricate and close harmony. But, in all cases they are singing in harmony.
What the opposition wants is for each member of the choir or quartet to choose what song it wants to sing; and then they call that unity in diversity! That is disharmony. Unity in diversity in the church happens when the Holy Spirit chooses the song.
Now that the 2016 Annual Council is over.
At some point and time it is my prayer that the real men of this “World Church” will reaffirm their position and Commission, and move forward as “MEN” as “GOD” created us, when the Word, came down from heaven and became Flesh, and Personally chose “MEN” to preach “HIS” Gospel! John 17:6
Reaffirming, the Government of “GOD” that is written: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is “CHRIST”; and the head of the woman is the Man; and the head of CHRIST is “GOD”. 1 Corinthians 11:3
Daniel,Jackson, “GOD” Did Not Create The Woman For The Purpose, of What You Brethren of the NAD Are Trying to Use Her For.
What you’re doing is what happens when one deliberately overlooks the sentence that was handed down in Genesis 3:16?
I guess according to the President of North American Division, must have concluded that somehow “GOD” must have changed “HIS” Mind? Overlooking what is written in Isaiah 55:11 and Malachi 3:6
At some point and time the NAD, and all those that side with President Daniel Jackson is going to have to come to the realization that, We Cannot Serve “GOD” anyway we want to and survive the Second Coming of “JESUS CHRIST”.
As sure as it is written: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8,9
The Gospel of “JESUS CHRIST” Is Not A Democracy!
Neither were the Ten Commandments made up, from a Constitution put together by heavenly angels. That had a Council meeting with “GOD” to decide on a ingenious, way, on how the “Flesh” would respond to the Ten Commandments, that were personally hand written by “GOD” on tablets of stone, and given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Condemning SIN in the Flesh, brought on by the Woman that was created for the “MAN” that “GOD” created in “HIS” Image-for “HIS” Glory”!
Wherefore Dan Jackson, it is my sincere hope and prayers that you and all of your fellow Brethren in your Division, will stop this ranting and raving about females in a capacity that they were never called to perform as an “Overseer” equal to the “MAN” and honor and cooperate with the UNITY IN MISSION: FOR CHURCH RECONCILIATION. ….and submit to the General Conference and it’s Authority, and the Commission given to it, by our Lord and Savior “JESUS CHRIST”, Especially after the vote of a General Conference Session, that must be maintained.
It is my understanding that our church’s current disagreement (view of diversity) lies within policy…..NOT doctrine or mission. When did policy become doctrine?
Please note this very important point: Working policies are not
equivalent to Scripture or to the counsel given in the Spirit of
Prophecy. Working policies are agreements made by church
leaders and lay members from around the world as to how we will
operate as a world church in carrying out our God-given mission.
The foundational principles of policies are and should be based
on the instruction of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy.
The Working Policy isnʼt written by just one person, or a small
group of individuals. Items in the Working Policy have gone
through a careful process including input from a variety of
sources, review by committees and groups (including the Policy
Review and Development Committee, Administrative Committee,
Presidentʼs Council, Secretariat Council, Treasury Council, GC
and Division Officers) and finally presented to and voted on by
representatives of the entire world church during an Annual
Council of the Executive Committee.
This is why the votes that came out of the 60th General Conference session, in 2015, where 2,500 Delegates came together from around the world, to “Vote”, and they did vote!
….and out of that session the vote that were counted were
1,381 No. to 977 yes on “Women Ordination”.
Wherefore, the Issues that are affecting this church, and must be adhered to and maintained, recognizing the General Conference, as the final authority, and trusted to maintain the decisions that came out of that Official session.
This also demands the cooperation of all the entities and conferences throughout the World, including the Entire North American Division,and it s President!
So wherefore the “BREACH”, and the Apostasy, coming out of the North American Division?
Oh, goodnes!
Please stop repeating this lie about voting on WO last GC session!
The GC NEVER EVER voted this issue.
And elder J.Gallimor should know it better than anyone else.
Regarding the issue of unity. Firstly, this is a problem of institutional church. For a movement (as the SDA intended to be from the very beginning) which appeals to the world with some message that shouldn’t be a problem at all. Faithfulness to the message cannot be controlled by some group’s rules and policies and the unity achieves not through the subordination, but through the faithfulness.
Blessings!
Brian, if you read the wording of the motion that was voted on in San Antonio, the decision rendered was based on the Bible and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. Twenty years earlier, when a similar request for Division autonomy relative to ordination was adjudicated by the General Conference in session, the vote was preceded by two Bible-based presentations—one by the late Raoul Dederen in favor of women’s ordination, the other by Dr. Gerard Damsteegt against it.
The vote that followed was 69 percent against allowing individual Divisions to ordain women. And the vote was taken after two presentations which were clearly based on Biblical material, not policy.
Even if gender roles are not a part of our Fundamental Beliefs, this doesn’t make the ordination issue non-doctrinal. Our classic Adventist belief that the Roman papacy is the Antichrist of history and prophecy isn’t in our Fundamental Beliefs either. Nor is our classic expectation of a National Sunday Law at the end of time. But if someone were to teach contrary to either of these beliefs, it would be a doctrinal concern, and appropriate corrective measures would be needed, based on the fact that the above doctrinal positions are grounded in the consensus of Inspiration.
Remember what the Church Manual says about church discipline. Its first criterion for discipline reads as follows:
“Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the fundamental beliefs of the Church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same” (Church Manual, 2015 edition, p. 62).
Any attempt to teach any doctrine contrary to the inspired consensus would therefore fall under the above prohibition, in addition to any direct denial of one of our Fundamental Beliefs. And when the world body votes a particular action based on inspired counsel, as in the case of the San Antonio motion on ordination, it cannot fairly be said that such a decision is “non-doctrinal.”
Amen Kevin Paulson, “GOD” bless you, Sir! There’s is no other way to look at. It’s getting rough! The Resistance to the 60th General Conference Session, and the challenge of Authority of the General Conference to maintain that session, and the leadership of President Ted N.C. Wilson, is totally unfounded.
Well, as for me, it’s time to let be known to whomever this may concern, My support is with the General Conference and it’s
President Ted N.C Wilson.
…..and I am not backing down! Help us Lord!
Amen to what Kevin Paulson has said.
A question that needs to be answered, but with the decision that has been reinforced by saying no to WO, should that then not also mean that women should not be ordained as elders in the local churches, because if they are still allowed – on what Biblical basis?
Women elders were allowed by a vote of the Annual Council in 1984, but under very strict circumstances, a number of which have been badly ignored in many places where the practice has occurred.
For example, one condition that was stipulated for the approval of women serving as local elders was that the action not be divisive in a local congregation. Many church members can attest to the fact that in a great many situations where women have been ordained and elected as local elders, the practice has in fact been divisive, at times extremely so.
I would recommend that anyone interested in reading an in-depth analysis of the decision to allow for women elders at the 1984 Annual Council consult Pastor Stephen Bohr’s assessment of this decision in his pamphlet, “Reflections on San Antonio,” which can be found on the Secrets Unsealed website.
Biblical support for the practice is lacking, to be sure, but when one considers the exact content of the 1984 Annual Council ruling, the letter as well as the spirit of the law has not been followed.
This Annual Council vote of 1984 is also inconsistent with the last vote of 2015 GC on ordaining women to the ministry. Is there any way the ’84 decision can be reversed?
Dear Cathy,
the last vote of GC states that there is not a division allowed to make decisions regarding ordaining women to the ministry within it’s jurisdiction . The vote was about the right to make decision only and nothing else.
The GC neither forbid nor allows women to be ordained to the ministry. This issue just never was brought to a vote.
Can you see the difference between granting the right to make a decision on a subject and voting the subject itself? The difference is huge.
That’s why this voting in no way could contradict to the 1984 AC policy.
Those who spread different opinion just mislead the people.
I’m sorry to disappoint you with that.
With kindness and with certainly no desire to be contentious let me share this observation on the “division” issue. Sometimes the way the church works can seem a little complicated. But bear with me. The GC had, going back in time had already set the qualifications for a person to be ordained to the gospel ministry. One of those qualifications was that the person had to be male. That is a fact accomplished. What the GC has voted on the last two times on this issue is not to allow the divisions of the GC to change those qualifications. Had the vote gone the other way in San Antonio everyone would have been saying that the GC voted to allow women to be ordained and they would have been right. The fact that they refused to change the qualifications or allow their divisions to do so, means that they did not allow women to be ordained. And that is what the vote in San Antonio was all about. In summary the GC in session has refused to surrender the power to change its qualifications for ordination to its divisions. Therefore its policy of ordaining men only stays in place. It may seem to some a little roundabout but the San Antonio vote was surely about staying with the male only policy for ordination.
Dear elder J.Gallimore,
with all due respect I still cannot put together what you just say and this one –
http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story3032-another-wn-story
“It is vital to understand that the NAD will continue to follow the directions found in the General Conference Working Policy allowing conferences and unions to license women as commissioned ministers in pastoral ministry. We will also continue to encourage utilizing the services of women as ordained local elders and deaconesses.”
Blessings!
Thank you for your kind response. There are two separate issues that get confused because of the way they are being applied in the Adventist Church. First, note the last part of the quote you shared – NAD is “encouraging” what the GC policy “allows”. That is accurate. They married two policies to promote women as ministers even though the church does do ordain women. The first policy came from an Annual Council (I think back in the 80s) that allowed local churches to decide if they wanted women as local elders because it was a local church issue. The second policy was one that came about because of the IRS. The church had workers, both men and women, such as treasures and departmental leaders that were unordained. Being unordained they could not get the tax advantage of the parsonage allowance. So this policy created the commission minister’s license. That unintentionally opened the door for those conferences who wanted to put women as ministers over churches. They now used these two policies together to accomplish their purpose. Ordaining her as a local elder and giving her a commission ministers license allowed her to do in the local church almost anything an ordained minister could do. Therein lies the reason for this confusion. On one hand we have the GC Session saying no to women’s ordination but on the other hand we have local conferences, who wish, appointing women as pastors with almost the same ecclesiastical abilities as an ordained minister. Obviously, divisions that were pro WO highlight these practices as “policy” after every set back at a GC Session. “Nothing has changed” they say. The confusion did not come from a GC Session because it never got a chance to vote on this local elder issue. Somewhere someday, but maybe not in this context, this interesting union of policies will need to be addressed in light of the confusion. This is a very short overview of how we got here.
Ok, I reluctant to begin to dig in all of the documents, so I just trust you on this.
But speaking about unity – did you have a chance to present your view to elder Wilson and elder Jackson?
And what was their response to this?
Because they were in front line opposition to changing the Church practice of WO in San-Antonio. Their view on voting apparently was different from yours now.
At least we can read in Ad.Rew. what they were saying about it.
Blessings!
The above article was recently published in Michigan Memo and posted on our website FB as my summary of the Annual Council’s Action and its meaning to the Michigan Conference. Ordination Truth borrowed it with permission and published it here. I was an eyewitness and participant.
There is not an expectation for any conference president to run our articles etc. by Dan Jackson. And knowing him, he would not wish us to. We are free to give our own views. Adventist Review Online published a fairly good report of the day – “Annual Council Approves Measure to Encourage Adherence to Church Policies” by Andrew McChesney and Mark A. Kellner. You would be interested in Mike Ryan’s reported comments. I think the actual voted document is also available online. It is always good to look at the original source being commented about.
You have been a gentleman to dialogue with. I wish you heaven’s peace.
Cathy Law the 1984 decision can reversed
Ezra did it.He found the church in a state when he returned to Jerusalem from Babylonian captivity..The Levites had married foreign wives and Ezra was greatly troubled .He said “We have been unfaithful to our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land; yet now there is hope for Israel in spite of this”.When the error was pointed out to the Priests they repented and said “give us time to ” to rectify this : ezra 10 19 “And they gave their promise that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they presented a ram of the flock as their trespass offering.”The matter on who needs to be ordained is not solved by a vote.(.You cannot vote on which day is the sabbath either,you cannot vote on defintion of marriage ).Paul wrote two letters, one to Timothy and one to Titus who were involved in church organisation including appointing members into ordained positions and CLEARLY SPECIFIED who needs to be ordained including the gender qualifications.The 1984 decision was an ERROR in itself.There is need of the spirit which was in Ezra to allow those divisions who have married “foreign wives”(wrong practises on ordination) to be given time to correct this.Jesus has made provision for full forgiveness just as was said in Ezra s day “and being guilty, they presented a ram of the flock as their trespass offering”.Jesus is our trespass offering….Cathy Law,with realisation that 1984 was an error there is no SHAME in throwing the 1984 decision out,as it was the first detour from the right practises and i am so sorry our church made a mistake in 1984
The point remains that the ordination of female elders, the commissioning of female “pastors”, the whole question is not women in ministry but “women IN AUTHORITY”. The question is do we have a Divine precedent for women “IN MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY”. This has nothing to do with women in “witnessing for Jesus” as there has never been an issue of that. What we have to decide as a Church is does the global women empowerment and “equality” agenda in the world create an agenda for us. In the world it is clearly a political issue. Why do we not become honest about it and accept that the world is using “Adventist” ministers to introduce and oversee the incorporation of Adventism into what is clearly a global movement for the “equality” of women with men in all spheres which is clearly seeking a domination of MEN by WOMEN. This is the world with an Adventist face. What I do not understand is why it is hard for North America to replace its contentious leaders who cllearly have no intention of letting this matter alone until they have their way? Why cannot the GC ensure they resolve this matter once and for all by rescinding the ordination of women to any position of sacred authority as evinced by scriptural precedent? Are we ever going to resolve this matter without a meticulous adherance to scripture? Did God ever annoint or lay hands on ANY woman through any prophet or the Lord Jesus Himself? If not, where is our difficulty? Help me out.
What an inspiring article that really shows the condition in the NAD & SFD. The BIG elephant in the room is not only WO but also the One Project promotion by many of our institutions!
May God have mercy on us all.
If I wasn’t clear,i would think I am watching the world’s politics
http://advindicate.com/articles/2014/5/8/scc-distances-itself-from-eric-walsh
Too much politics within the church at this moment. So as a millennial I say goodbye to you all! Thanks for the memories and spiritual guidance, but I think it is my time to leave religion as a whole. Don’t worry GOD will be at the center of my life, but I just don’t feel like religion is as important.
May God guide you. But a loving warning: while basing decisions with eternal consequence on your present feelings (“I just don’t feel like religion is as important”) is the pattern of this age, eternal verities will outlast those feelings. The influence of godly men and women in your local church is a strange thing to throw away right when you are feeling disillusioned. We hope you will reconsider and attend the church where you hold membership and let yourself be ministered to. The Church is organized for service. This is why Satan is working so hard right now to destroy it.
All right, brother Bryan, no people, no church! 🙂
You aren’t only one who feel obnoxious about all the leaders’ games.
But the church is not about them, it’s about people around you. Relations within your brothers and friends circle in the church shouldn’t change in spite of all what’s going on out there.
If it not that, than you actually have never been in the real church.
Blessings!
I love intelligent people who are effective communicators. Elder Gallimore spoke so plainly.
No-one tries to change the color of Marines uniforms. No-one says, I want to wear my hair long, but still be a Marine. Long hair and red skirts are not what Marines wear. You CAN wear long hair and red skirts, you just can’t have the title if a Marine! That’s clear! This organization has voted not to ordain women. The world church has been patient for years of entertaining the same question! Spoiled children persist in asking a parent the same question over and over. Now the question is, will you then change the guidelines? No! The answer has been given by we the people.
At this point, the NAD has only two choices – abide or depart. And when you depart, or defect, you may not take the name or any “stuff” with you. The NAD does NOT speak for everyone who just happens to live in the USA! The defectors are a small fragmented group of disgruntled individuals who demonstrate immaturity in recognizing the fairness of a process. It was a risky enough mistake to have even put this decision to a vote. Biblical truths should not be voted on by a majority.
Someone new, who recognizes and is willing to uphold the principles of the world church should be called upon to lead the North American Division. If the current leader after termination still seeks to persist in a rebellious course, then he should set up an entirely new organization with funds generated from like minded defectors, not the tithe dollars of those who are true to the mission of the world church.
It’s not difficult. We are a church, but we are also a business. Sometimes, people need to be let go. How do I know? Because God had to let Lucifer go, when it became his mission to stir up rebellion in heaven. It’s sad. But the world church owes it to the stranded members of the NAD to rescue us from this dismal fate, under the current leadership.
Elder Gallimore’s clarifications are lucid and clean. My only request is that we address all our matters with such candidness and clarity not the condescending circumvention of the truth that is so characteristic of how we got here in the first place. We have to rescind the commissioning of females and the ordination of female elders. These practices are indiffensible in terms of scripture. We cannot prolong the confusion; we obviously have to “meet it!”. What Elder Gallimore can helpp with is this? What is the most expeditious way to dispatch these inconsistances and silence these opportunistic infractions? Is it not possible to establish and articulate a simple and sound doctrinal exegesis here and silence what is clearly a confusing and mischievous matter? If we already have such a position, why cannot the GC and NAD take a position on the real ISSUE of women in authoritative ministerial positions or ORDINATION once and for all? 1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
The day will never be when everyone who has attached themselves to the Seventh Day Adventist Church will fully agree on every issue that arises because we essentially have varying degrees of exposure to truth, to scriptute, the spirit of prophecy and the history of issues. What will help us greatly though is a clear and decisive leadership with the courage to be categorical. Issues of this nature should not be chronic. They sap the strength of this critical movement and fragment the focus. Can we have an annual council that takes a clear position expeditiously just like they to onw to get us into this morass?
I meant to say,”just like they did to get us into this morass?”.
It is refreshing though to see that the church leaders are doing something about divisive deviance and duplicitous tenacity. It is easy for any of us to be deceived and therefore, as one has kindly stated, we have to ask God for Christian grace as we handle delicate souls for whom He paid the ultimate price. No one glibly decides to lose their souls over politics but it can happen to the best of us. What becomes clear is that we are back to the power struggles of eternity and Eden. We are having done to us what was done to the angels: clever argument, misrepresentation of issues, unfair projections of injustice etc. May the Lord help all who are exercised by these issues and may we support one another with our prayers. We certainly have a cat among the pigeons here.