Do you want more joy & faith in 2016? Would you like to make better decisions in your professional, family, and private life in 2016 than you did in 2015? Would you like to know there is ONE thing the devil can never take away from you? All of these are reasons to daily spend time reading the Bible in 2016.
This is the message I shared with my the Spencerville Church family this past Sabbath (Saturday December 26th, 2015). You can listen to that sermon here when it posts in a couple days or watch it here again in a couple days.
At the conclusion of my sermon I challenged our congregation to read through the entire Bible with me in 2016. I admitted to my church family that I need accountability on this journey. That accountability is going to come in the form of this blog. Every day I will be blogging through the reading from scripture I have done for that day. I invited members and now I invite you that are reading this and would like to join myself and the Spencerville Church on this journey, to feel at liberty to harass me if I miss a day.
The reading plan I will be following is not a straight line from Genesis to Revelation. I have done that in the past and wanted a new look at things, so I will be using this plan. What I like about this plan is that I will be in a different genre of scripture every day, with Sabbath being a day spent in the Gospels, which seems very appropriate!
If you’d like to join me I’d encourage you to start with the same plan.
Please pray for me as I go on this journey and let me know if you’re joining us and I’ll pray for you as well.
Look for the first post on Romans 1 & 2 this Friday morning January 1st.
I wish Christians wouldn’t make it so hard to be a Christian witness in this world!
Why do Christians protest abortion clinics?
Why do Christians hold-up signs that read, “Adam & Eve NOT Adam & Steve”?
Why do Christians put up signs that say, “Sunday is the Mark of the Beast”?
And why does Kim Davis insist on keeping her job?
I am pro-life. I am not in favor of gay marriage. I believe ONE day (not today) but one day Sunday will be the mark of the beast. I do agree that Kim Davis should obey her conscience if her conscience so tells her and not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
But you can believe all the latter issues without participating in the former!
By participating in the former in the manner they do, these Christians make it more difficult for the rest of us in the Christian world to have a receptive audience in the world to talk about Jesus!
Instead most people just want to know, “Why are Christians so mean and weird?”
Every time I as a Christian have to waste a breath explaining that I am not the protestor outside the abortion clinic or the hate monger holding up a sign that says, “God kills f_ _ _ dead”; that I am not part of the group that posted the billboard on the freeway proclaiming the Pope as the anti-christ, and that I do believe Kim Davis should simply resign…
I am wasting a breath in which I could be and should be talking about Jesus.
In this latest of issues, Mrs. Davis & all the Christians that have a bent towards unproductive activism, may I share a story from my life that would help the rest of us in the Christian world bring the focus back to Jesus & not to have you be the face of Christianity everyone is talking about.
When I was in college I came under the conviction that I should not serve alcohol to individuals. The conflict I faced as a result of this conviction was that I worked at a restaurant as a server in which one of my responsibilities was to sell and deliver alcohol to the patrons under my care.
I had options: remain working at the restaurant saying nothing and thus going against my conscience. Ask for a religious accommodation and if granted make extra work for my fellow servers. If accommodation was not given and they decided to fire me for my convictions, then I could sue the restaurant and at the very least retain my job, prove my point, and annoy everyone I worked with.
So you know what I did?
Wait for it…
I quit my job.
Why?
Because none of the options would have made Jesus better known or better loved.
Mrs. Davis I have absolutely zero problem with your conviction.
And I know you see this as a stand for Jesus. But as long as you are taking this stand, no one is actually talking to the rest of us Christians about Jesus, they are just talking about the “crazy” Christian in Kentucky that won’t issue a marriage license.
May the Holy Spirit grant us all the discernment to know when and HOW to stand for the God-given convictions we hold so dear.
And may our “stands” always increase the conversation about Jesus!
Over the past two years I have admired the kindness, the sincerity, the graciousness of Pope Francis. I have appreciated his voice in speaking out against the great inequality that exists between the rich and the poor. I support his appeals to take care of God’s creation, planet Earth. I resonate with his emphasis that the real breakdown in our society stems from the breakdown of the family nucleus.
All that said, brothers and sisters, this very kind and sincere man, still represents and endorses a very faulty and dangerous system.
I read this article today at the CNN website (go ahead you can click on it and read it and come back). I am not addressing the topic of abortion, that is not the purpose of this post. What caught my eye were the following statements:
Now, women who’ve had an abortion and anyone who helped them get one will be forgiven of what the Church still considers a sin, as long as they confess to having had the procedure or assisting someone in getting it.
I’ve bolded the words that are the problem to me, “NOW…will be forgiven.” I am not comfortable with a human system that gets to decide when an individual can or cannot receive forgiveness…by the way, the forgiveness being spoken of here is not that humanity will forgive them…this is speaking of divine forgiveness. This new statement from Pope Francis is basically him stating that he has the authority to NOW open up heaven to those whom it had previously been closed too, well it wasn’t closed…
Before the Pope’s change in policy, women who’d had an abortion were automatically excommunicated by the Catholic Church and needed the permission of a bishop in order to lift that ban.
Notice again the language, “automatically excommunicated” this is not about getting disfellowshipped from the church, excommunication is to be banned from heaven. And according to the Pope prior to his latest statement women were kept out of heaven based on this act, but not because Jesus or God said this was absolutely the case, but because the Papal Church did, if a Bishop gave permission the ban could be lifted and a person could have their name written back into the book of life.
But “NOW” according to the Pope as long as there is confession to a priest heaven will remain open to those involved in abortions.
Oh but wait…
The shift isn’t going to last forever — it only applies for the Holy Year that runs from December 8, 2015 to November 20, 2016.
So ladies that have received an abortion and those that have assisted them you better make your appointment to see a priest now, because this offer only lasts one year, then it is back to automatic excommunication…oh and don’t forget if you go get an abortion between today’s date September 1st and December 7th, you’re still banned from Heaven, but you can get back in December 8th no problem, after all this is what the Pope has decided,
“I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it,”
Brothers and sisters we should not look for every opportunity to scourge the pope. I recently heard an evangelist talk about how Pope Francis was speaking out against global warming and how President Obama affirmed Pope Francis’ sentiments and somehow he tried to tie those that supported environmental practices as supporting the Pope and helping to bring about end time events…I don’t know it was ridiculous and I was shaking my head, it just makes us as Adventists look stupid.
I’m not comfortable with this type of witch hunt…
When Pope Francis or anyone associated with the Papal system does something kind and in accordance with scripture there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that and even affirming that. We should pray for him, as we pray for all people in positions of authority. I believe him to be a very sincere man.
But we must not become blind, and this article reminds us of that.
While Pope Francis by all appearances seems to be a very kind and good human being, he still represents the same system that Martin Luther took a stand against, that John Calvin, and Ulrich Swingli spoke-out against. He still represents a system that places man as the ultimate authority rather than The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
This article reminds me to remain vigilant to not “wonder after” anything except Jesus Christ and Him alone…
Because my Bible still reads,
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” -1 John 1:9
The “He” being spoken of in this passage is Jesus. Not any man or woman, JESUS and Jesus alone!
We can all call sin by it’s right name, including the Pope. But only God can decide if we have or have not been forgiven, no man or woman, no one, man or woman, can decide who is or is not banned from heaven; not even the very kind and very sincere Pope Francis.
Let us not join the world in wondering after any system that places a man or woman on equal footing with Jesus.
Let us be kind and gracious, even as gracious as Pope Francis; but may we always stay vigilant, discerning, and true to our prophetic understanding.
Can we set aside for a moment the great debate on should or should not women be ordained and acknowledge that the practice of ordination within the Seventh-day Adventist Church with or without women as a part of it is a mess?
In the New Testament the only real story of “ordination” I see takes place in Acts chapter 6. Here is what lead to that ordination: a need arose to feed widows so the Apostles could continue to study, teach, and pray, the Twelve Apostles called together the congregation of disciples and told them to choose “seven men of good reputation, full of wisdom, and of the Spirit…” (Acts 6:3) These disciples accepted the appeal chose seven, “And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.”
As I think of this story three thoughts come to my mind:
Ordination doesn’t seem to be so simple these days…
It also seemed quite simple at least as far as the requirements for ordination go in the early history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Read what James White stated just a year before the organization of our movement:
“In no way can a preacher so well prove himself, as in entering new fields…. If he be successful in raising up churches, and establishing them, so that they bear good fruits, he gives to his brethren the best proofs that he is sent of the Lord…If they cannot raise up churches … then certainly the cause of truth has no need of them, and they have the best reasons for concluding that they made a sad mistake when they thought that God called them to teach the third angel’s message.” -James White, Review and Herald. April 15, 1862
Wow! If only it were that uncomplicated now. “If they cannot raise up churches…then certainly the cause of truth has no need of them, and they have the best reasons for concluding that they made a sad mistake when they thought that God called them to teach the third angel’s message.” OUCH! James was a tough hombre!
I make the assumption though I don’t think it is a great leap that what Elder White was saying is that if a person couldn’t “bear fruit” i.e. get converts, “couldn’t raise up a church” i.e. get people to follow, then that person was not worthy to be ordained for the work of ministry. Very clean and simple.
Ordination doesn’t seem to be so simple these days…
At Southern Adventist University in one of the classes I took we had to memorize the following statement:
“Ordination is the public recognition through outward evidences of God’s inward calling on one’s life to the work of ministry.”
That seems rather clean and simple too.
But ordination doesn’t seem to be so simple these days…
In fact it’s not simple at all…it’s a mess!
Because no one seems to know what those outer evidences are, and how to asses them.
I’m now working in my third conference…
In my first conference in order to be ordained you had to do the following…well I won’t list all you had to do, because it was ridiculous…but I’ll share a few with you.
Ordination is a mess!
In my second conference I cannot honestly tell you what the process was, because prior to moving there one of the agreed upon points was that since I had already gone through the process of the previous conference I would not have to go through their process as well. I was grateful…though the day of my orientation into the conference I was given a book and told I needed to read it and submit a five page paper prior to being ordained. I never read the book and I never wrote the paper…I was still ordained.
Ordination is a mess!
In my third and current conference I am now a mentoring pastor assigned to help others prepare for ordination. Can I share with you a secret? I am having a hard time getting motivated to “mentor.” Not because I don’t like helping other pastors and growing with other pastors, mentoring is so often as beneficial if not more for the mentor as it is for the mentee. No I have a hard time getting motivated because they gave me a 124 page manual I am supposed to go through with my mentee’s and there are checklists they need to do in order to prepare for ordination. Things like do a baby dedication, run a board meeting, do a wedding, and then I’m supposed to talk them about these things and how they personally grew from the experience, a fine resource but of little value in assessing ones qualifications for ordination. Since when do weddings and baby dedications have anything to do with converts and raising up a church? The process I was told normally takes five to six years…ugh!
Ordination is a mess!
I have a friend that in the past 11 years has lead more than 1200 people to Jesus in North America, not counting overseas, and the conference he has been a part of won’t ordain him. Why? He doesn’t have a degree…well he has a high-school degree. When I was ordained I’d lead probably 75 or 80 people to Jesus. Shoot I haven’t even lead 1200 people to Jesus yet.
1200 converts/no degree = No ordination
75 converts/degree = ordination
Ordination is a mess!
Could it be we are fighting about ordination so much because we don’t really get it?
We just see this mess we know is important in some way and so we fight over it…
The New Testament: There was a need. There were people ready to do the ministry. They prayed. They ordained.
The early Advent movement: New field “bear fruit” converts. “Raise up a church” followers. Ordained. No converts, no followers, to quote James White,”the cause of truth has no need of them,” which I think it is safe to assume means no ordination.
Now there are dozens of conferences with dozens of different ways to determine who does and who doesn’t get to be ordained all the while we continue to ordain many ministers here in North America that have zero or next to zero baptisms year after year, no converts. Who lead churches that haven’t added a single person year after year, no followers. But hey they are ordained.
What a mess!
I pray that after we accept in San Antonio that God calls whom He calls regardless of gender, that we will then take the time to figure out how to determine whom He is actually calling.
If we don’t we’re just gonna have more people (men and women) jumping through the hoops of the ordination mess we’ve made.
I’ve jotted down some thoughts based on a response to a friend this week on the women’s ordination issue and then I just went a little crazy Seth Godin style (not that I am the genius of Seth Godin just his free flowing style):
Something to remember in regards to the women’s ordination decision at San Antonio this summer is that a “yes” vote isn’t forcing anyone to go along with the ordination of women. No church, no conference, no Union, no division will HAVE TO ordain female pastors with a “yes” vote.
A “no” vote actually does force people to go against their beliefs.
I can see how folk can be convicted that women should not be ordained. How can I see this? I see it because I see in the Bible that there is no absolute “yes” nor is there an absolute “no” to the ordination of women.
In the writings of Mrs. White there is no “Thus sayeth the Lord” either for or against the ordination of women (which by the way should say something to us when she has commentary on every issue under the sun…and above the sun too :)).
For these reasons I can understand why some would come to the conclusion against women’s ordination because in the absence of these absolutes from the Bible or Mrs. White people must come to a conclusion from a multitude of variables. And it would be arrogant to assume the variables that have lead me to my position should be the same for everyone else.
Can I ask my brothers and sisters that oppose women’s ordination, with the absence of a definitive “yes” or “no” in these two authoritative places, are you able to likewise see how I could get to my conviction?
Do you my friends and colleagues that see this position different than I do believe that I can be, that I am a Biblically faithful Seventh-day Adventist even if I believe women should be ordained? If your answer is “no” then we have of course no place to work from, because you’ve chosen to place ordination at a level I have not, at a salvific level. However, if your answer is “yes, I can see how you could come to a different conclusion on WO’s than I do.”
Not that you agree but you can see how I could reach the conclusion I’ve reached, absent of definitiveness in the Bible or the writings of Mrs. White.
If you can see this, and if you do believe I can be a Biblically faithful Adventist while still believing that women should be ordained; why wouldn’t it make sense to support a decision that would allow me and people like me to serve in conjunction with my convictions and would in no way force you or people like you or your church to operate outside of your convictions?
A “yes” vote on women’s ordination is the only vote that does not force anyone to practice ordination outside of their convictions. No individual. No local church. No conference. No union. No division. A “no” vote forces individuals. Local churches. Local conferences. Unions. Divisions to function outside of their convictions.
I don’t believe a “yes” vote should be cloaked in the framework of “a vote for unity.” It makes it sound like if we don’t vote “yes” then those of us that support women’s ordination will rebel.
I believe a “yes” vote should be cloaked for those in opposition to women’s ordination in the framework of “a vote for acceptance.” Not acceptance of women’s ordination personally, but acceptance of other Biblically faithful Adventist’s having a different conviction.
I believe more individuals in support of women’s ordination should also state their opposition to the ordination or acceptance of practicing LGBT clergy within our denomination. Not because I want to oppose something that isn’t even on the table, but because this is the accusation and scare tactic being used Stephen Bohr and others to undermine the cause of women’s ordination.
Do I deny that there are some that do have this agenda? Absolutely not! But the world should know the great majority of us in favor of women’s ordination in North America do NOT have this position that Elder Bohr and others are insinuating.
I wish that those in favor of WO would stop saying that if we don’t vote “yes” on this we are going to lose our young people. For one, we’ve already lost a majority of our young people and it has nothing to do with WO. For two, a large percentage of young people I’ve talked to and asked, “would you leave the church over this issue?” have said, “no. I wouldn’t be happy, but no I wouldn’t leave the church.” The other large percentage has said, “What are you talking about? 🙂 ”
I think the millennial mind is a unique thing none-of-us should speak definitively on! It is as bad of argument as all the baby boomers that have said to me, “If we want to get the young people we need this type of music.” Here is what the millennials say to that:
Blogger Amy Peterson put it this way “I want a service that is not sensational, flashy, or particularly ‘relevant.’ I can be entertained anywhere. At church, I do not want to be entertained. I do not want to be the target of anyone’s marketing. I want to be asked to participate in the life of an ancient-future community.”
Millennial blogger Ben Irwin wrote: “When a church tells me how I should feel (‘Clap if you’re excited about Jesus!’), it smacks of inauthenticity. Sometimes I don’t feel like clapping. Sometimes I need to worship in the midst of my brokenness and confusion — not in spite of it and certainly not in denial of it.”
The scare tactic of “we will lose our young people if we don’t ordain women” is just as bad as “this will open the door for LGBT clergy.” Both are not helpful to the discussion.
I believe everyone on both sides of the discussion should watch this sermon by my friend Kessia Reyne Bennett. She lays out well her position, a good position, “that it is not a woman’s right or anyone’s right to be ordained.” ORDINATION is NOT a RIGHT
A “yes” vote is the only vote that has the potential to make the statement: “we agree to disagree now lets move forward with mission.”
I’m afraid a “no” vote at this juncture will keep this issue alive another 5 or 10 years and thus continue to be a distraction to the mission of the church, at which point the next generation will vote “yes” but we will have already lost those 5 or 10 distracted years.
I say this not because I plan to go against the church if it votes “no” but I believe there is too much momentum in support of women’s ordination at this time and many will keep it alive ’till the General Conference in 2020 or 2025.
That said if the vote is “no” I pray for God to give those of us in favor of women’s ordination holy amnesia and silent lips, ’till it is time to set the agenda for General Conference 2020 and then kindly request again the World Church’s support of our conviction.
May God shock and humble us all in San Antonio!
Okay I’m done.
I have heard the phrase used, “based on a plain reading of the text” many times by those that are standing in opposition to women’s ordination over the last few years. This phrase was was used by Clinton Wahlen in his TOSC position paper, it has been used in articles on the Ordination Truth website, on ADvindicate, and many other places. We’ll ignore for now the danger of the phrase without proper explanation or understanding, we as Adventists after all wouldn’t want anyone to live by a plain reading of Romans 14:1-9, but that is another discussion for another time.
Since this is a favorite phrase by those in opposition of women’s ordination my sincere inquiry is this, how do you apply the position “based upon the plain reading of the text” to Titus 1:5, 6?
“ For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.”
I would like to know are we to apply the plain reading to all of verse 6? Or just the phrase regarding gender? If it is the latter wouldn’t that show that ones interpretation of these texts is really based on bias and not truly a “plain reading of the text”?
But if it is the former are those in opposition to women’s ordination truly ready to call for all ministers with children who are unbelievers, children who are accused of dissipation or rebellion to turn over their ordination credentials and cease serving as Pastors/Elders?
Such a move would not only effect those in favor of women’s ordination whom you may want to see removed from the ministry, it would also effect many of those opposed to WO. Some of the strongest voices against women’s ordination would after having won this debate “based on a plain reading of the text” have to resign their posts and take-up selling insurance or real estate.
So I ask in all sincerity are those in opposition to women’s ordination based on the “plain reading of the text” ready to ask some of their most vocal supporters, their favorite pastors to resign because they have children which have sadly abandoned Jesus and His Remnant Church?
Or
Are they willing to acknowledge that the position “based upon a plain reading of the text” truly only applies when we want it to apply?
Please help me understand how I am supposed to understand your application of “a plain reading of the text.”
Thank you.