I Got my Rights !!
March 1, 2017
The modern rise of “rights” is upon us. It is an old message, accompanied by a new question. The question is "Are Adventists responding to messages originating from seances?"
Shortly after Moses was led by God to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, Korah and the leaders of the people demanded their right to the priesthood. It sounded good, sounded logical–but it was not God’s plan. If you haven’t heard the story of Korah, Numbers 16 and Deuteronomy 11:6 tell the story. Hint: Korah and the leaders did not fare well.
In fact, the 'rights issue’ goes back to the beginning of the Great Controversy in heaven. Lucifer wanted his ‘rights’ recognized. He was able to convince a third of the angelic host to demand rights too. You know the story–the subsequent history–and you know how it ends.
Yet, even before the ‘rights issue’was the rise of self. It was the `self’ that craved ‘rights.’ It is certainly an old, old story but it still plays on, strong and forcefully.
In today’s world everybody now has rights. Even animals have rights. In the ‘marriage rights view’ the limits seem almost endless. You have the right to marry your pet, or an ocean, or a tree… In some places you can even marry a dead person. Where do all these 'rights’ come from? They come from beneath, not from God.
What then is God’s view on ‘rights’? It's rather simple:http://www.fulcrum7.com/blog/2017/3/1/i-got-my-rights-
1. Love God with all your heart and soul and might (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37).
2. Love your neighbor as your ‘self’ (Lev 19:18; Matt 22: 39). That puts ‘self’ in the correct perspective. That has love in the front and 'self’ in the back. Horse and cart are correctly lined. Switch the two positions and you have Satan’s method.
3. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:31).
‘Rights’ are a non-issue if ‘self’ is controlled by love. Give that some thought and prayer.
Women’s Rights
Now let’s look at the modern ‘rights’ movement - specifically women’s rights. According to historical accounts the rise of the women’s right’s movement began in the mid 1800’s and has grown ever since.
It began through communion with satanic forces. This is not conspiracy theory or speculation. This is an established historical fact—look at the cover of the book Radical Spirits by Ann Braude. She is the current director of Women’s Studies in Religion Program and a Senior Lecturer on American Religious History at Harvard Divinity School. Her book cover states:
Spiritualism And Women's Rights In Nineteen-Century America. How séances and trance speaking empowered a generation of American women to claim their own voice.
This is a very pro-spiritualism book and reveals the communion with spirits in the women’s rights movement (It can be purchased new or used on eBay and Amazon from .01 to $35+).
Séances
So what are the definitions of séance and trance speaking? Here is the Miriam-Webster definition of a séance:
A spiritualist meeting to receive spirit communications; a meeting where people try to communicate with the spirits of dead people.
Statement from the First Spiritual Temple (Mediumship) regarding Trance Communication:
When a spirit links with a medium, the spirit communicator exerts various degrees of control, or overshadows the consciousness of the medium to a greater or lesser degree. This varies, depending upon the intent and conditions of communication, as well as the ability of the medium to lend himself or herself to be overshadowed or controlled. Trance is considered the strongest degree of control.
Back to our Church.
Does it appear some of our NAD leaders are repeating the same errors as the leaders of Israel did long ago, and as Lucifer did eons ago? Yes, it does - and the continuing drive in the Seventh Day Adventist NAD leadership to promote women’s ordination has reached alarming proportions – in spite of the July 8, 2015 General Conference world church vote on this issue. Again.
In light of current potential fulfillments of prophetic events, it is alarming that this subject (WO) has almost eclipsed our mission to proclaim the Third Angel’s Message.
The culture of the western world is caught up with the politically correct view of meeting all human rights and beyond. This is not the path given us by God’s Word in the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy.
"Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman’s rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel’s message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women (1T 421).
Could the continuing and growing influences of the ‘rights’ movement at this time in earth’s history be the ‘seed’ for the current women’s ordination drive now sweeping the Seventh Day Adventist and other Protestant churches? It sure could.
We have some very important choices to make. A third of the heavenly host were deceived and demanded their rights, as did Korah and the leaders of Israel. Please pray that God will protect us from wrong spiritual forces that seek to guide our desire for ‘rights.’
It is far better that we seek to be right with God.
Mike Little
•
There is an obvious connection between feminism and evil. It is not the spirit that God imparts. For the life of me I can't figure out why all of these male leaders feel so urgent to press for women's rights on their behalf. What's in it for them? I could see a couple thinking they were correcting injustice (wrongly thinking of coarse), but how is it so ubiquitous? Nearly every leader in the NAD buys this. I get the good olé boy network thing. I get the peer pressure and coercion. But you wouldn't think they could even find that many guys who bought in and we're willing to champion women's rights. Something is definitely abnormal!
I agree. Leadership at LLUC dismisses me, a woman, when I ask for representation from the World Church's view to speak. Answer from male leaders on several attempts is a solid "no." It appears to me that the men are in a bigger frinzy to enforce what these men view as women's rights more than most of the women. I think there is another agenda under this frinzy -- women being used as a tool for these men to achieve power and control over SDA that the men want changed in many ways? Women are being used as the wedge to crack, fragment, pulverize the church, maybe into congregationalism or other PC movements that ride on the tails of women's lib -- such as gay agenda -- or evangelical-type SDA? And some women are falling for this Eve-power revisited movement, and allowing themselves to be used as the wedge for other agendas?
My view: Will rebellious SDAs be successful in kicking against the goads?
"movements that ride on the tails of women's lib -- such as gay agenda -- or evangelical-type SDA?"
Evangelical in type of once saved always saved, free from the law, and worship style thinking only. Evangelicals are still strong on biblical basics which goes to prove that they are so elementary to Christianity that even the less enlightened can understand them. For Adventists; Women's lib, yes, unborn children's lib, no.
Correct -- Evangelicals are much stronger than SDA on biblical basics outside once saved, always saved; free from law; and worship style. To me, it appears that SDA want Evangelical but not Evangeical bible basics. I stand corrected.
"I stand corrected"
Not corrected, addendumed.
"Leadership at LLUC dismisses me, a woman, when I ask for representation from the World Church's view to speak."
Obviously you have a case of case of gender confusion, misogyny, Holy Spirit obstruction, or Social Justice myopia. And you don't have a PhD in systematic theology. So what did you expect?
Maybe theoretical and systematic theology? Within their system and theory?
Matthew 22:
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
I would contend that you and SoCal have proven this has nothing to do with women, ordination or HIM within such a simple build and actually draws focus in the True intent of systematic exclusion of rights of others from HIM. Is that theology or deatheology?
Mod John Howells IV •
It's a Leftist ideological thing. The church leaders in the NAD seem to have lost interest in religion, and need something else to unite around. For the time being, that seems to be enthusiasm for Leftist political causes. Look at Dan Jackson and "Black Lives matter" or Dan Jackson and the Muslim refugees, both of which I've written about. Dan Jackson even put out a statement supporting Treyvon Martin over Zimmerman in that case in Sanford, Florida. Insofar as it relates to religion, his only real passion seems to be imposing female headship in the SDA Church.
On second thought, it is too harsh to say that they've lost interest in religion. But I do wish that Jackson, in particular, could stifle his impulse to publicly jump in on the Leftist/progressive side of every hot button political issue.
Described well here in a new study...
"New research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as "moral outrage"—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one's own status as a Very Good Person. Outrage expressed "on behalf of the victim of [a perceived] moral violation" is often thought of as "a prosocial emotion" rooted in "a desire to restore justice by fighting on behalf of the victimized..."
http://reason.com/blog/2017...
Dan Jackson is the worst thing to hit the NAD in my lifetime. But there are plenty more that believe exactly like him.
Was Al McClure really that much better? It was on his watch that the NAD tried to get WO voted in at Utrecht. But I guess he wasn't as militant as Jackson is.
If you recall, Birder, Al said he would follow whatever the GC decided and almost immediately after the decision initiated a campaign for women in ministry or some such thing.
You expect an old geezer like me to remember any particulars from that long ago? ;-)
But now that you mention it, I have a vague recollection of something along that line.
Mod CervvantesEsq •
This is accurate. McClure was a disappointment in the testosterone department.
Does that mean he couldn't "grow a pair?" Didn't McClure and
Bob Folkenberg try to take over 3ABN during the 90's?
I'm not as familiar with McClure's "resume" but I'll still stand with what I said. If you can "prove me wrong" I'll admit it! (:>)
I defer to your superior knowledge of the situation, Doc. :-) I have no reason to doubt you.
See: https://henry-juarez.square...
"It's a Leftist ideological thing." that goes all the way down to the most liberal local churches that are striving to do social work for the poor & the stranger, free from the gospel. I visited a pro-gay church in the liberal city of Portland OR. After church they go about town picking up litter. Earth Day is a high holy day for them. I heard the lesbian pastor say during the sermon that it is OK for members not to believe Christ was God. This United Church of Christ should be more honestly named, the United Club of Social Justice.
Mod Elizabeth Iskander, M.D. •
Take a close look. That is destination station for progressive Christianity, Adventism included.
As I share my differing view, It is not meant as a personal attack. Instead, to present a personal view from a person also with an SDA background. Repeated attacks on NAD President and SDA Pastor Dan Jackson and other brothers and sisters considered not "Alt Right" enough by some on Fulcrum7, causes me to remind readers of Christs words: "By this shall all men know if ye are my disciples, if ye love one another". Wanting to be a "follower of Christ" instead of a follower of modern day SDA Pharisees or an EGW cult, I will no longer follow Fulcrum7 or contribute to Fulcrum7 discussions.
Are you certain you are interpreting the matter correctly? Please review John 8 and add it into your understanding of what being a follower of Christ entails.
"Wanting to be a "follower of Christ" instead of a follower of modern day SDA Pharisees or an EGW cult, I will no longer follow Fulcrum7"
That didn't sound very loving.
I noticed around town that the Time-Warner Cable trucks and vans have disappeared, replaced by the name Spectrum on the sides of the utility vehicles. Evidently the website composed of loving, EGW doubting followers of Christ, have acquired TWC. They must have some very deep pockets.
"Evidently the website composed of loving, EGW doubting followers of Christ, have acquired TWC."
Yes, I noticed that too. It makes me nervous every time I see one of their trucks around town. But even worse, since my local area doesn't offer any other high speed internet I am now forced to become a supporter of their "loyal opposition". I'm guessing they are no longer directing their tithes and offerings to the NAD in support of WO but have now found a more prophetable cause to invest in? They may be Jesuits in disguise. It's up to us to sound the warning here at F7!!
apparently you don't want rebellion called out. WHY?
You may be correct about the personal attacks being unjust and unwarranted at times, but what do you consider as an EGW cult? Is it only Fulcrum and the readers of these articles who are the cult?
Good question. Thank you for asking, I should have instead said that I personally will try to refocus my spiritual growth time on studying the Life and Teachings of Christ through a Harmony of the Four Gospels instead of getting caught up in further time spent on line discussions. I should have just left it at that.
John Howells IV--"For the life of me I can't figure out why all of these male leaders feel so urgent to press for women's rights on their behalf."
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that similar astonishment was expressed before the civil war that so many white men felt the urgency to press for freeing of the black race. They could have even incredulously asked "What's in it for them?"
Not an accurate association. Ending slavery is morally positive and should be accepted...adopting spiritualism under the cover of fake rights movements is morally negative and should be rejected.
collins--"adopting spiritualism under the cover of fake rights movements is morally negative."
This is what's not an accurate association. Spiritualism espoused a number of moral causes. You should not use anti-spiritualism as your guide any more than spiritualism.
I support moral causes because they are directed by God's Word...not because of anything spiritualism may say.
I am thoroughly anti-spiritualism because God's Word is. His Word is the guide.
I agree, and I support WO also, because it is right, and not because of spiritualism.
Right for whom? Is it the hate in practice that you preach and the women you place at risk, that makes it right? Is it your forced opinion upon others, that makes it right? Is it foolish interpretations and inability to accept the plain reading of the BIBLE, that makes it right? Is it the discard of the BIBLE and Prophesy, that makes it right?
What makes it right and not self-spiritualism? Please teach the many of us ignorant and incapable; those of us that look at this as nothing more than rebellious children who cannot take "no" for an answer and stomp their feet up and down the isles of the Church. Prove worth in the concepts above simple worldly addiction, within Prophesy or explicit statements of "For it is written". Let it be HIS Spirit Speaking through us all in order, instead of the disorder of us all speaking; because IT is right.
"I support WO also, because it is right, and not because of spiritualism."
But if your right is actually wrong then you ARE supporting WO because of spiritualism. "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft...."
Doug--"But if your right is actually wrong then..."
That is true of both of us.
Mike,
I appreciate your point of view. I see where you are coming from! WO does seem like the right thing in light of our cultural changes and needs. However, can you provide me an example of any movement or plan initiated by satan that resulted in a positive and 'right' outcome? You know we are so close to the return of Christ, would God now bring to us at the close of time, a change in the'rights' of the priesthood?
"There is a way that seems right to a man....Prov 14:12. You know the rest.
Be very careful how you accept the current "rights" movement. It began a very long time ago and it is not going to end well for that magnificent intelligent being that was the first to claim his rights.
Mike--"we are so close to the return of Christ, would God now bring to us at the close of time, a change in the'rights' of the priesthood?"
Our church does not have a priesthood or clergy.
I stand corrected. I was thinking of Korah and leaders claiming the right to the priesthood. I should have said "ministry".
Please, Mike, don't lose the focus of my comment or the article.
Don't worry. I didn't note the error frivolously. It is one of the serious mistakes of the anti-WO camp--thinking the ministry is the new priesthood. It has caused all kinds of confusion.
"That is true of both of us."
Which means that the issue is much more important than a mere policy disagreement and should require some very serious consideration before assuming that it doesn't really matter if a division rebels against the world church ordinaton policy or not.
This issue has been studied to death. Its time to move.
I disagree with your agreement. You may support WO but you cannot bring the Bible along with you in that position. In fact, the Bible unequivocally contradicts your position. Therefore, where are your ideas supporting WO coming from...?
Genesis 1 clearly establishes both male and female in co-leadership position.
The male was made first. That indicates a position of responsibility and leadership the female does not have.
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority, over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve." (1 Timothy 2:12, 13)
A king and a queen may both rule a country, but, the king has the last say. It is his responsibility and authority.
A father and a mother both rule their family, but, the father has the last say. It is his responsibility and authority.
Of course, the males in these examples must be Godly men. If they are ungodly and wicked they are dysfunctional, irresponsible, and will not have the authority God originally designed they should have.
So here is what we have when it comes to authority with respect to gender. First we have a command in Genesis 1:28 from the Godhead to both male and female. "Then God...said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'"
Please notice that was spoken to both of them, so it had to have come after the offset start that all of you focus so much attention on. That is done, and they are both standing there and God says, I am putting both of you in charge of everything.
Now that seems to be the way God establishes a chain of command. He puts it out there in unequivocal terms. If God had wanted to nail down chain of authority of Adam over Eve at that point, wouldn't He have done it right here?
Instead, what we have is innuendos and inferences for you and Paul, based on what you two read in Genesis 2. Of course Paul's inference takes precedence so let's look at it.
One of the first things I see about 1 Timothy 2:12-13 is that it starts with the phrase "I suffer not a woman to teach..." Next I notice about his supporting reason "Adam was first formed, then Eve," that it is not quoted from anywhere. It is merely Paul's, albeit inspired, inference.
I had an interesting little debate with Reality yesterday regarding an editorial written by James White. It is becoming famous among your camp because he starts out with a devastating harangue of Victoria Woodhull, a disgustingly perverse feminist at the time.
But in that editorial James White makes the explicit assertion that women can teach in church. This was in 1878, and I know James White was familiar with 1 Timothy 2:12-13 when he wrote that editorial. I does not seem to me that James White considered this text to rise to the level of command of God for all time.
Your position is resting on a very thin branch, my friend.
You are not understanding what Paul was referring to. Look at the verse again:
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve." (1 Timothy 2:12, 13)
What is Paul's point? Women usurping male authority and responsibility. Usurpation is the issue he is addressing. That usurpation can be demonstrated in how women speak and teach, and in what context, etc., those things are done. However, there is a way for women to speak and teach without usurping male authority and responsibility, as the Bible also plainly makes clear.
Phillip the Evangelist had four daughters who prophesied, after all. (Acts 21:8, 9) Obviously, these girls were speaking and teaching in a manner that did not usurp or trespass into an area not given to them.
James White likely understood this matter in the correct light, which you are misinterpreting in a manner to justify a higher-critical approach to the text in order to attempt to support WO.
I do not believe Paul's thoughts, under Divine Inspiration, represent a thin branch at all.
How's your branch?
My branch is getting stronger as yours weakens through close analysis. Paul was speaking about violent usurpation of authority. When a woman is duly ordained, she is not usurping authority any more than a man is.
You should read James White's whole editorial before making up your mind about what you think he thought. I mistakenly said it was in 1878. It appeared in May 29, 1878. Scroll down to p. 172.
http://docs.adventistarchiv...
Especially notice what he says about Miriam and Deborah.
"Violent usurpation of authority"
Where do you find that? That constitutes reading into the text something that is not there. Usurpation is not necessarily violent. That is a higher-critical hermeneutic, and represents exactly how the church is being afflicted with apostasy.
Thanks for the article reference. I have just read it...I may have before, I don't remember. If I did, it was some time ago.
1. I conditionally disagree with Pastor White's assertion that Aaron and Miriam were of equal authority with Moses---if, by "position", we understand "authority". While all three were equally called TO THEIR DIFFERENT POSITIONS, they were not all given the same authority or responsibility. When Miriam and Aaron complained on this very point, God indicated His displeasure with them and rebuked them pointedly...and Miriam, as the most obnoxious complainer, received a term of leprosy. See, Numbers 12.
Pastor White appears to overstate the matter on that point.
2. A woman called by God to fulfill the position of a "judge", or, a "prophetess" is not being called to contradict male authority and responsibility---if she performs her function appropriately. She is not an ordained clergyman, elder, or bishop, nor is it a requirement that she be so. It is a comparison of apples and oranges.
It is very likely Deborah was called to her office because males were shirking their responsibility toward God and the nation, and she was willing to obey. Witness Barak's display of reluctance and fear, for an example.
Males were called to the prophetic work before the call went to Ellen White. Another example of male-shirking of what God wants them to do in leading and directing others according to His Word.
collins--"Where do you find that?"
Look at a lexicon. The Greek word authentein is not used elsewhere in the Bible. Contemporary uses include court documents where the word described armed criminal acts. That is why Bible translators often use the word usurp with it.
collins--"Usurpation is not necessarily violent."
I suppose that can be true somehow. But it most certainly involves force and is against normal operating procedures.
collins--"I conditionally disagree with Pastor White's assertion..."
That puts you our even farther on the branch.
Armed criminal acts are only one possible application---as the Greek plainly shows:
1 - one who with his own hands kills another or himself
2 - one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3 - an absolute master
4 - to govern, exercise dominion over one
My question to you remains: "Where do you find that?" Do you really believe that when Paul rebukes Christian ladies for usurping authority over Christian men he is chastising them for murdering men? Or, maybe for committing suicide in church? A great example of how context is absolutely necessary...even when consulting lexicons!
Not really. Pastor White was only human. He is not an idol, he was not a prophet. He was a dedicated, self-sacrificing, noble man of God---but a man, nonetheless.
This branch is secure.
As you can see from the enumerated definitions, this kind of authority is not the normal kind of loving church authority. Authentein is not the word Paul turns to when he is talking about the authority a pastor exercises over a congregation. This is an unusual situation.
collins--"Do you really believe that when Paul rebukes Christian ladies for usurping authority over Christian men he is chastising them for murdering men?"
Bringing up murder is ridiculous. But if Paul is using this unusual term the women could be pushing the men out of the way at least. The point seems to be that the women in this case were doing this on their own authority (see definition #2).
Of course, I agree. Weren't these the positions I was describing earlier?
"Something is definitely abnormal!" -John Howells IV
Indeed. When we enter into spiritualism's realm we become subject to enchantments and spells. These might seem to be quaint fairy-tale terms...but they have counterparts in reality which are all too real, and no fantasy.
collins, you're British, right. You probably think the Declaration of Independence is full of enchantments and spells, don't you?
No, I don't. Should I?
If you want to be consistent.
How can consistent lack of knowledge or Wisdom ever be good? We all thought that was definition of spiritualism to begin with, which is bad.
I'm gonna need more explanation...What are the spells and enchantments of spiritualism in the Declaration of Independence?
All those rights, rights and more rights. It's all me, me, me. And it led to terrible unrest.
That's a blatant misinterpretation. The Ten Commandments can also be described as 'all about me'. Does that mean they are selfish? Do they lead to terrible unrest?
For something to be selfish there must be more to it than simply statements of fact and truth.
Collins, I think you find the differences in 'rights' are between those given by God - and those invented by humans. In the case of women's rights they clearly have originated by satanic communications.
Yes, that is a huge difference. And I agree that most of what is termed 'women's rights', today, is satanic in origin.
From the perspective of England the revolt in the American colonies could have been seen in this light. Why can't the colonist just understand that that is there sphere in the grand scheme? Why do they have to be so uppity and demand the same rights as a monarchy? Don't they realize this is motivated by the spirit of Satan? And look at the criminal acts that their revolt is engendering.
The perspective any party takes can be tested to the principles found in the Bible and assessed accordingly. Opinions and 'vested interests' based on other criteria will always abound.
As Christians, our perspective is/should be the Biblical and truthful one.
There is a "Daniel's Band" of ministers currently employed and retired who do not subscribe to this PC ideology. Have you ever checked out ordinationtruth.org?
Hi Cathy, Thanks for the link. I've seen a couple of items from there. But I have not thoroughly looked. I'll look more closely.
I've found the administrators to voice accurate, biblical, and newsworthy information as it is available which is not published in our Union papers or the Review or special handouts mailed to churches by the NAD. In the latest article on that website "TED Calls for Unisex Pastoral Credential " at the end of the article is a happy bit of information for me. "The Executive Committee of the Upper Columbia Conference in the North American Division decided on January 31, 2017 to abandon seeking a similar policy, and, on paper at least, to remain in harmony with the world church." I am a member of a church in the Upper Columbia Conference. Let us take heart and PRAY! God can turn hearts; He can influence decisions.
Last time I looked their site was mostly outdated. The wind seemed to be out of their sails.
Well, if you compare it to the posting pace of Fulcrum 7, it is not as brisk. But it is a valuable resource to me for trustworthy, biblical perspectives when they are posted. My intention of mentioning it was to reassure laymembers that not all knees have bowed to Baal among the pastoral leadership in God's remnant church. Courage!
I have also been impressed by their website positions.
There is more than one avenue of communication that is valuable because there are a variety of personalities and gifts of the Spirit in God's church. (I hope this rings a familiar bell--like our SS lesson topic? :) I have found it to be a mistake to dismiss a method that is merely not my area of comfort. That is not to say there is no reason to dismiss an immoral methodology, however.
•
Whenever "human rights" are championed, the Ten Commandments of God are ignored. Just more evidence of Satan's replacement theology.
It seems that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be enough, but man is greedy.
•
This issue has done the spiritual dividing in the minds in the NAD, the God allowed event in the
world soon to happen will make it a physical separation.
It's a terrible ordeal but it must transpire to have a people give the 3AM powerfully-EGW
Nice article. A lot there in few words. :-)
•
Our Example, Jesus Christ, never contended for His rights.
Now, have women always been treated fairly, even in the church? No, and those faults needed to be (and have been) addressed. But there is a big difference between being treated fairly (e.g., equal pay for equal work), and going outside Biblical guidelines.
Birder-
If you carefully observe whom NAD is placing in critical positions many are women. $300,000 of our money is being devoted to women in ministry by Dan Jackson. OTOH how much is he devoting to the preservation of the SDA home where ideally the mother is queen and devotes her efforts to raising children, etc? I do understand that some wives have to work for survival.
We can tell you from experience that it requires some sacrifice.
" I do understand that some wives have to work for survival."
That is true, depending on a number of sometimes unavoidable factors.
It was a revelation to me when I found out that my former boss, when she was single and just starting out as a school teacher in the SDA educational sytem (this was back in the 50's), was paid the same salary as a married woman (which was much less than a man). She was barely able to scrape by. I'm glad that kind of inequity has been removed.
Yes, Merikay had a lot to do with the change. Last I knew she left the church.
EGW says that Pastors' wives who spend much time dedicated to church work should be paid. I wonder why so many Pastors' wives now work outside the home? Are the salary and benefits in USA not sufficient?
I don't know what it's like in the larger conferences, but in small conferences like ours, it's sometimes a struggle to pay the pastors and teachers, so that could be a factor. There may not be much left over for pastors' wives who do church work. It would be interesting to hear from someone who has been on a conference finance committee or executive committee. They may have some insight on the issue.
"They" say that tithe goes to pay the pastors but when I look at the chart of where tithe is spent only 38% was going to pay pastors in my state.
Jean•
I think that 38% is a typical number. Tithe is allowed to be paid to many other places besides paying the full-time pastors--to schools, administrators, Deans, camps, college Presidents, etc.
I understand that this is what is done but what gets me is when the appeal for tithe paying goes out it is always said this is what pays pastors. None of the "many other places besides" is mentioned.
Jean•
I agree with you totally. And, the Church also tells us that ONLY THEY are "God's storehouse" meaning if you don't pay your tithe to the local conference, you're "stealing" from God. Meanwhile, as you've stated, the Church doesn't even use all of the tithe for its intended purpose, to pay full time pastors, evangelists, Bible workers, etc.
The "Seventh-day Adventists Believe" book states, using I Cor. 9:14, "...they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." But the Church does not even follow this principle itself.
I've been criticized and attacked for paying tithe to other places than the NCC, even though those who received it were engaged in full time pastoral/evangelism work--Amazing Facts, pastors and Bible workers in Vietnam, etc. I was once told I would go to hell for doing this. Believe it or not, someone working at Amazing Facts attacked me for this stance!
•
Who is Mike Little?
Very good article in view of contemporary events. I, too, am puzzled about the male frenzy to legitimize the feminist agenda in the SDA church. A short book by an SDA theologian, C, Raymond Holmes, called The Tip of an Iceberg is very appropriate. On Amazon.com for $3.49 and up. I highly recommend this book. It boggles my mind how insightful an SDA theologian is who was once a Lutheran Pastor. Altogether too many SDA Pastors do not the clarity of perspective that Holmes has. IOW they don't get it.
I was curious about C. Raymond Holmes book you mention. Here is summary:
What happens to a church when it decides to follow the pressures of society and the voice of culture on the issue of women’s ordination rather than the authority of the Scriptures? From the perspective of one who has ‘been there and done that’, Dr. Raymond Holmes answers this all important question. Holmes was once a clergyman in the Lutheran Church and made the difficult choice of leaving the Lutheran Church to become a Seventh-day Adventist pastor. From the perspective of one who knows, Holmes tells the story of how his former church faced the issue of women’s ordination and the lessons that Seventh-day Adventists can learn from its experience. Published one year before the landmark decision not to ordain women pastors at the General Conference Session in Utrecht, the book provides a persuasive rationale for following the mandate of Scripture to ordain only men who are ‘husbands of one wife.’ You will be richly blessed by this classic book! Powerful and an easy read. 196 pages, soft cover.
When a WO symposium at LLU was opened by James Walters with a prayer to "mother god" Holmes was the only one who rebuked him openly. He was a wise and courageous man.
The Lutheran church was faced with many of the same issues now engulfing Adventism, 40-50 years ago. The only way they could end the conflict was to form a new denomination. The two main denominations are the ELCA and the LCMS. LCMS is the more "conservative" eschewing women pastors, higher criticism, homosexuality. They insist on a literal understanding of the Creation account. Women are not allowed to take a pastoral track of education in their seminary, nor are there women teaching men in the classroom.
A conservative narrative of events is found in the book "Seminary in Crisis" by Zimmerman. It includes transcripts of interviews with seminary professors illustrating the theological positions they held.
''The Lutheran church was faced with many of the same issues now engulfing Adventism, 40-50 years ago."
Good reminder, Hansen. As Adventists we tend to hibernate in the safety of our protected institutions content to take pot shots at other churches for their departures from Scriptural integrity (except when our departure mirrors theirs). The WO movement in Adventism is careful to obscure the results of other churches who have already wrestled with the many moral and social changes that have years ago befallen them. I have often alluded to the claims of the Holy Spirit's leading by so many pro-WO activists. If the Holy Spirit is inspiring some of us to ordain women then we too can be assured of the same resulting split in the SDA church. We've already failed our abortion and religious liberty tests. Now, it remains to be experienced where this next divisive crisis will end up. Maybe we'll join up with the ELCA a few generations down the line?
With the massive drop in membership of the ELCA, Presbyterian Church USA and others failing liberal splits, there may be nothing left to join to. We would have to join back to the growing LCMS, Presbyterian Church of America or other Denominations that share our current conservative views of HIM and as commanded by HIM.
I don't think that serving and doing as commanded by HIM is really all that bad to start with. I would contend it better than trying the bounds of authority like a child and experiencing the discipline HE promises to impart in putting us back into line. But that might be good for the many that think they are special, privileged and without lines. While the rest of us know what happens when we cross the lines, because we are HIS. Growing pains.
"Who is Mike Little?"
The very small son of Mr. and Mrs. Little?
•
"New research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as "moral outrage"—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one's own status as a Very Good Person. Outrage expressed "on behalf of the victim of [a perceived] moral violation" is often thought of as "a prosocial emotion" rooted in "a desire to restore justice by fighting on behalf of the victimized..."
http://reason.com/blog/2017...
I've wondered about that, and it helps explain the missionary zeal exhibited by some of the "social justice" warriors.
•
I think that Dan Jackson and all those who follow him are trying to victimize women, not set them free. He is making the victimization of women the new religion of North America by fighting for their "rights" and that means that women are victims and he will set them free. But the truth is that if one accepts Christ as their "victim", they walk "free". A child of God, male or female, slave of whatever victimizes them, is "free indeed". That is Biblical truth but Satan does not want women or men to believe it but go around as though there was no cross and no freedom. As the saying goes, one can be just as free in prison as outside it's walls. For a Christian it is a matter of belief. It dishonors Christ to have a victim ideology or theology. especially the latter because it is a rejection of our freedom in Him which He won at great cost at the cross. WO is just Satan's tool for this new religion.
•
This is a very good article, well explained. The new age promoted by Ann Braude is counterfeit spiritualism of satan. WO and spiritualism are counterfeit of God's sacrificial system itself. There was no women ordained by God to kill the lamb for the sacrificial ceremony or lay hands and pray over the sacrificial lamb from the very beginning.
"When a Jewish father blessed his children, he laid his hands reverently upon their heads. When an animal was devoted to sacrifice, the hand of the one invested with priestly authority was laid upon the head of the victim. And when the ministers of the church of believers in Antioch laid their hands upon Paul and Barnabas, they, by that action, asked God to bestow His blessing upon the chosen apostles in their devotion to the specific work to which they had been appointed" (The Acts of the Apostles, Page 161, 162).
This comment was deleted.
Sacrificial ceremony performance limited to male priest was appointed by God. According to SANCTUARY truth women did not kill lambs for offering. True, All human race sinned including men, and women. We are all responsible for the death of Christ on the cross for salvation.
"The sins of the people were transferred in figure to the officiating priest, who was a mediator for the people. The priest could not himself become an offering for sin, and make an atonement with his life, for he was also a sinner. Therefore, instead of suffering death himself, he killed a lamb without blemish; the penalty of sin was transferred to the innocent beast, which thus became his immediate substitute, and typified the perfect offering of Jesus Christ. Through the blood of this victim, man looked forward by faith to the blood of Christ which would atone for the sins of the world" (Selected Messages Book 1, Page 230).
•
On the money again......feminism is destroying our churches effectiveness........we have become a hair salon and not an army as we should be...........race issues will be a major player in the end according to EGW which is a "rights" issue as well.
•
While I have reservations about publicizing the following egregious message I think dedicated SDAS should be aware of the wolf in sheep's clothing. Sad to think Daneen's grandfather, George Akers, was a dedicated SDA. He once told me while he loved his granddaughter he did not agree with such things. He passed away recently.
http://tinyurl.com/gvkaf5m
Every SDA should know who Daneen Akers is and what her deceptive practices are. Akers was one of the panelists at the recent LLU "discussion" on LGBTQI issues. She is able to speak on a panel, while people like Doug Batchelor are virtually banned from the "Inland Empire."
•
Great article. I think that the problem lies in fallen human nature. We are striving for the earthly crown when we should be striving for the heavenly.
None of us-- male or female-- should be seeking for the "highest" place. It is opposite to the spirit of the gospel and the character of Christ.
God calls people to the ministry, and it is dangerous for anyone to push themselves into a position that God has not called them to do. All of the disciples were called except for Judas, whose motives were for self-aggrandizement. And we all know the rest of that story. God knows us better than we know ourselves, and He knows who He has called to various positions and why.
"Human nature is ever struggling for expression, ready for contest; but he who learns of Christ is emptied of self, of pride, of love of supremacy, and there is silence in the soul. Self is yielded to the disposal of the Holy Spirit. Then we are not anxious to have the highest place. We have no ambition to crowd and elbow ourselves into notice; but we feel that our highest place is at the feet of our Saviour. We look to Jesus, waiting for His hand to lead, listening for His voice to guide." Thoughts From the Mount of Blessings p. 15
•
Amen. We really need to understand what, exactly, constitutes the realities of spiritualism. Tarot cards, Ouija boards, etc., are "toys" to lure children. They are not the full picture. Satan is not approaching the "elect", generally speaking, with such unsophisticated apparatus. This article is getting us to look in the right directions.
•
I appreciate the observation of who the real rebellious are. It has been voiced in other venues as just the opposite. Good article, Mike.
•