The Investigator Of 3abn Options

[justme]

Thank you for the clarification. Do you.... or anyone else ... have any indication that this has been extended to other parts of the world field in the last ten years?

YOU HAVE GREAT INSIGHTS!

This post has been edited by justme: Oct 10 2006, 12:48 PM

[Green Cochoa]

As to other parts of the world, I simply do not know.

I have lived in other parts of the world. But, I do not have inside knowledge as to their pay practices.

Living in other parts of the world, I can say that to attempt equal pay across the gender divide might, in some cultures, be to the detriment of marital harmony within the home, and would go strongly against local custom and culture. In some Asian countries, for example, the status system is very strong. A woman always has lower status than her husband, and her identity is tied to his. This can work two ways, either the husband's status can serve to elevate that of his wife, or the wife's status can influence that of her husband--but taken together, the his and her positions are clear. In one place I have lived, for example, status is determined by the following criteria: wealth, income, age, education, position, friends in high places (influence), and gender. It is not unusual for questions regarding one's age or birthday and one's income to be asked upon first acquaintance, to help establish one's identity in relationship to the new acquaintance! (BTW, women can have higher status than men, just not higher than their husbands.)

But if you want to get into a really heated topic on this, check out what the Bible says in passages like Leviticus 27.

I guess the question for me is, should our church regard the particular culture, and try to work in cooperation with it? Or should the church just follow "principle" as determined by vote or by the leadership, regardless? On the other hand, if we were to follow the Bible, is equal pay for men and for women indicated? For that matter, is equal pay for men indicated? (see Matthew 20)

For my part, the issue is far short of cut and dried, and I don't have a clear opinion one way or another on this. These are not easy questions. It's sometimes easy for those who are accustomed to one culture or thinking to presume that something would be fair and equitable in every part of the world. That is not always the case, however.

[Panama_Pete]

WB,

This is an example of what I have found as disingenuous in these threads. If you don't think you should name names, then don't make that comment because it "titillates instead of illuminates."

- fhb

Dear Fallible,

Speaking of naming names, Samuele Bacchiocchi did provide his name. He wrote a letter which is posted here at BSDA. Correct me if I am wrong, but to date you have merely called his letter "interesting" and asked for the date of his letter.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you claim to have had Professor Bacchiocchi as a professor? That's rather Spartan treatment for your former professor, isn't it? Your former professor being merely interesting? Nothing more? You must have found his letter much more than that.

Obviously, you have studied theology at the college level. Since the kind professor has, indeed, provided you with his name, why not analyze his letter for us, Fallible, and let us know if you agree with Bacchiocchi or not, and why.

Do you think Professor Sam is right when he says the only honorable thing for Danny to do is resign? Why or why not? What's your specific point of view? You must have had essay questions in college. You are clearly a bright person, so go for it. I would be interested in knowing what you think, not so much your analysis of the editorial capacities of the other posters.

This post has been edited by Panama_Pete: Oct 10 2006, 02:05 PM

[Lee]

Wow Pete, you threw a lot of "stones" at fallible. Between you and watchbird, we have a sizable pile.

[Freedom]

I agree with Richard.

I suspect that 3-ABN may be able to get away with it, if they do that. But, I do not believe that any official part of the SDA Church pays women less than men, for the same job.

Yes, 3ABN gets away with it and pays women less for doing the same job!

[Panama_Pete]

Wow Pete, you threw a lot of "stones" at fallible. Between you and watchbird, we have a sizable pile.

Not even one stone was thrown. I said:

"You are clearly a bright person, so go for it. I would be interested in knowing what you think, not so much your analysis of the editorial capacities of the other posters."

How is referring to someone as "clearly a bright person" throwing a stone?

Explain where you see stones in that?

[västergötland]

If it is viewed as ironic...

[Panama_Pete]

If it is viewed as ironic...

According to Wikipedia:

'Verbal irony is traditionally defined as the use of words to convey something other than, and especially the opposite of the literal meaning of the words."

So, someone would be seeing the opposite of what is actually stated. Got it.

[watchbird]

Wow Pete, you threw a lot of "stones" at fallible. Between you and watchbird, we have a sizable pile.

Welllll....... if making the decision to stop evading stones and merely stepping aside and letting them pile up... and catching one, adding it to the pile and saying "Stop! No more. That is more than 'enough-already'." qualifies as "throwing" "stones"..... then so-be-it.... .... I bow before your personna.....

However.... I still say..... that is enough. My intents are mine, and not to be judged by others .... whether by four letter words or by four syllable ones. If someone really wonders about what my intents are, feel free to ask..... but then accept my clarification.... and let's move on to more profitable topics.

[justme]

Welllllll, wellllll ...

ouch! everybody.
I thought we came here to discuss issues about 3ABN.

How did we get from DISCUSSING issues to BECOMING the issues?
-----------------------------------------------
Just a point I have observed with regard to Independent Ministries and payroll issues.

When an independent ministry has ministers who come from a conference and are on the conference payroll, their function in the independent ministry draws a salary for them. They are still keeping their payroll and benefits package with and from the conference, because it has health plans and other perks not available through the independent ministry (IM).

Because the conference is not going to pay for a non-productive conference employee there is this arrangement. That minister will usually say,"I have never drawn a salary from this ministry." True, but not accurate. The minister still gets all his salary, benefits and perks from the conference, BUT the IM in turn writes a check each month to the conference to REIMBURSE the conference for that minister's pay.

The remainder of the IM employees usually settle for meager pay because, says the ministry, "we are all missionaries here, and missionaries don't get paid much; Your pay is in the future, in heaven." Often even the employees don't have Social Security taxes witheld each month because it must be matched by the IM as employer. So the employee has no benefits from Social Security ever to draw upon. Disability, retirement, survivor benefits. It is a little-known tragedy swept under the proverbial rug.

[Clay]

Welllllll, wellllll ...

ouch! everybody.
I thought we came here to discuss issues about 3ABN.

How did we get from DISCUSSING issues to BECOMING the issues?

3abn is being discussed because some are the issue.... or to look at it another way, we have made the issue about us in the sense of how 3ABN does or does not fit into our idea of how things should be done....

At the moment that some have voiced that they should have a say in how a man should run the "private" business that he owns, at that point, it became about us....

[Green Cochoa]

3abn is being discussed because some are the issue.... or to look at it another way, we have made the issue about us in the sense of how 3ABN does or does not fit into our idea of how things should be done....

At the moment that some have voiced that they should have a say in how a man should run the "private" business that he owns, at that point, it became about us....

Is there such a thing as a "private" "public" business? Haha...I think you were looking for a reaction on that one! And the Bible is clear that when we see a brother....well, let me quote directly:

• And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. (Leviticus 5:1)
  
• Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. (Leviticus 19:17)
  
• But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand. (Ezekiel 33:6)

Ya? Public sins are, after all, the responsibility of the witnesses to them to deal with--to sound the trumpet, figuratively. Now, where's that trumpet smiley!

[watchbird]

Is there such a thing as a "private" "public" business? Haha...I think you were looking for a reaction on that one! And the Bible is clear that when we see a brother....well, let me quote directly:

• And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. (Leviticus 5:1)
  
• Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. (Leviticus 19:17)
  
• But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand. (Ezekiel 33:6)

Seems to me the third is the most applicable to the present situation. The first will have application in some instances, but in context it seems to be speaking specifically of those who have been called to be a witness in a legal court situation. The second, in context is focused more on how one handles things between himself and another individual. But the third clearly states that the watchman who doesn't sound the warning when he sees danger will be held responsible for whoever gets harmed by the danger that he did not expose.

What about the New Testament? Are there similar principles expressed there? Or is the New Testament only sweetness and light ... love your brother and don't expose his sins?

Ya? Public sins are, after all, the responsibility of the witnesses to them to deal with--to sound the trumpet, figuratively. Now, where's that trumpet smiley!

We don't stand on the city wall and blow trumpets now. No one would hear if we did. Everyone is inside snackin and watchin................

So we use electronic "trumpets"....... here's a couple ..... .......... .....

[PeacefulBe]

Seems to me the third is the most applicable to the present situation. The first will have application in some instances, but in context it seems to be speaking specifically of those who have been called to be a witness in a legal court situation. The second, in context is focused more on how one handles things between himself and another individual. But the third clearly states that the watchman who doesn't sound the warning when he sees danger will be held responsible for whoever gets harmed by the danger that he did not expose.

What about the New Testament? Are there similar principles expressed there?

Matthew 18 is one such passage that deals with how to handle sin. You invoked this one recently.

Matthew 18:15-17" If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (I would imagine that this means praying diligently for him. Isn’t that what we are supposed to do for pagans?)

Or is the New Testament only sweetness and light ... love your brother and don't expose his sins?

I know you must be using irony here. Certainly you don’t seriously intend to characterize the New Testament as “only sweetness and light”.

Matthew 27:45,46 From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Matthew 27:50,51 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

As I understand it, in the Old Testament, mankind was under the Old Covenant of the law, still practicing the sacrificial system that pointed forward to the coming Redeemer. In the New Testament, the Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant of Grace.

The sacrificial system was finished. The price of grace and mercy was paid.

Yes, the New Testament is filled with sweetness and Light - and grace and mercy and exhortation and…

[Green Cochoa]

This is a little bit deep, but for all those who are able to understand some legalese, consider this for a moment. The two "covenants" and the two "testaments" are one and the same, essentially. The word "testament" is a legal term, and represents a will, as in "will and testament." A will or testament does not take effect until the death of the testator. At that point, the testament becomes legally binding, and unchangeable. Figuratively speaking, it has been "signed" by the blood of the testator and can NO LONGER be changed.

Jesus' death on the cross sealed the old testament as truly as with any legal will. That we have a "New Testament" does not in any way remove that which was binding from the "Old Testament." It is IN ADDITION TO the old covenant law, which has now become binding through the death of the testator.

Hebrews
9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
9:2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the showbread; which is called the sanctuary.
9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
9:4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
...
9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

The Old Covenant, or "Old Testament", was never to be "replaced" by the new. However, the symbolic blood of the animals which were a type of Christ, met their fulfillment in Christ's death. The faith-building exercise pointing toward a future event was no longer required, "future" having already been realized.