I could not think how to point out this problem with President Obama in a way that reflected the purpose of this blog until I read something from Clifford Goldstein this last week. First President Obama, in an example of saying one thing the opposite of what is true. At the recent Obama question and answer session at the House Republican Retreat in Baltimore President Obama in referring to a fictional account of some none existent Republican plan that was to do twice as much as Obama’s plan and cost nothing Obama said:
“And the notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs -- why would I resist that? I wouldn't. I mean, that's my point, is that -- I am not an ideologue. I'm not. It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me you could do this cheaper and get increased results that I wouldn't say, great. The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made.”
Notice the part where he says I am not an ideologue. An ideologue by the dictionary definition is:
1: an impractical idealist : theorist 2: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
It is the second definition that is most often used, a partisan advocate of a particular idea.
Notice later in the speech how Obama verifies that he is an ideologue:
“Now, what I said at the State of the Union is what I still believe: If you can show me -- and if I get confirmation from health care experts, people who know the system and how it works, including doctors and nurses -- ways of reducing people's premiums; covering those who do not have insurance; making it more affordable for small businesses; having insurance reforms that ensure people have insurance even when they've got preexisting conditions, that their coverage is not dropped just because they're sick, that young people right out of college or as they're entering in the workforce can still get health insurance -- if those component parts are things that you care about and want to do, I'm game. And I've got -- and I've got a lot of these ideas.”
This is an ideologue position because it puts forth that these components have to be met; even though they cannot be met. For instance any insurance plan that includes preexisting conditions will not reduce people’s premiums because the premiums have to cover more people with already known problems that will require more treatments. If you cover more people who currently don’t have insurance then again those already paying for insurance will have to pay more to cover those who don’t have insurance. Of course the young people just out of college could get health insurance but don’t want to pay for it because they don’t expect to use it that much. So what he has done is present an impossible ideal that he claims if you have a plan that can cover those components he will listen. But of course since there is no plan including that coming from the Congress or the Senate democrats that can do that, clearly the Republicans can’t do the impossible either.
Now why this example is included on a Adventist religion blog is because it is a frequent tactic of Adventist as well as other Christians in dealing with ideas that they oppose. Here is a portion of what Clifford Goldstein recently wrote on the Spectrum blog comments in response to Ron Osborn’s article:
“My big question, as I said, was in reference to evolution and the cross, because I can't see how evolution can be true and the cross, at least the subtitionary model (the only model the Bible teaches [I know that's a zinger on here]) could possibly be reconciled with it. I was waiting for your response to that.
I must admit I was disappointed. Is what you wrote above your answer? If so, then I am confirmed even more in my belief that one has to chose evolution, or Jesus, but not both.
Your words, "Or does this narrative in fact keep the cross as far away from the creation as possible? The standard legal-forensic model of Christ’s death may in fact be a desperate attempt to isolate the creation story in Genesis in a way that allows us to read it without any reference to Christ at all" . . . ? Maybe I'm missing something here, but what in the world, brother, are you talking about? Am I alone in finding those two lines uncomprehensible?
Can anyone on this blog give me a logical, coherent, biblical way of harmonizing evolution with the cross? I'm even willing to listen to someone harmonize a Maxwellian-subjective-view of atonement with evolution, if they can. “
Goldstein even while challenging someone to show him an alternate view posits that his view is the only real view anyway. In other words he sets himself up in the ideologue position. He is asking for someone to explain a different view from his own that incorporates all of his already preconceived notions. Particularly his Substitutionary view of Atonement. He says: “at least the subtitionary model (the only model the Bible teaches…)” and then later says “Can anyone on this blog give me a logical, coherent, biblical way of harmonizing evolution with the cross? I'm even willing to listen to someone harmonize a Maxwellian-subjective-view of atonement with evolution, if they can.” Setting up the impossible mission where the subjective view of atonement most be based upon the Biblical version which he has already told us is only Substitutionary. There is thus absolutely no way for anyone to present a logical coherent view that will be viewed as logical and coherent to Clifford Goldstein. The ideologue position prevents the ideologue from ever listening to anything that is not their position even if their position is impractical.
This does remind me that I have to finish my article which may help answer Cliff’s question. But even as you read it you will realize that there are vast differences in ways of interpreting things that have to be considered. You can’t declare this is what has to be incorporated for me to accept the idea behind theistic evolution and the reconciliation to God through the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. I even doubt that people like Cliff would read to the end of part two and maybe that is why it has taken me so long to work on part 3. See: Ecclesiastes the Anti-Fundamentalist Book
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. (Galatians 5:22-25 NIV)
All of these fruits are characteristics of God.The call is to attempt to stay in step with the characteristics of God…a goal for certain and a goal we often fail to achieve. But God does not fail to achieve these characteristics.That leads me to something I heard in a song and frankly something I have heard all my life. The line is something like “we are condemned by the law of God”, I am not going to link to any of those statements as a goggle search gave me a result of over 4 million hits. But let’s think about that for a moment.
If God is defined by these characteristics, let’s specifically use the term “kindness”. Would a person who was characterized by kindness create a law with the intention of it being to condemn people? It is hard to imagine someone saying that it is a kindness to create a law to condemn.What good does that do? It would seem that with kindness as the reason any law would seek to benefit people rather than to condemn them.
Paul addressed this issue when he said: “So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. “(Gal 3:24 NIV) Paul who actually never says that the law condemns us fights against the idea of being held prisoner to the law which was powerless (Rom 8:3) because of our sinful nature, faith in Christ could do...the law then leading us to Christ and Faith. The law as intended was a kindness, a good thing offering guidelines for a people new to self governing. The kindness of the old Testament law however was not meant to condemn people it was the misuse of the law that caused people to think it was meant to condemn us. What do they think of God if His law is meant to condemn?
If our fundamental assumption about God is based upon the idea that God’s law condemns us we have set up the presupposition that God is against us. A direct contradiction of the New Testaments declaration:“What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? “(Rom 8:31 NIV) This presupposition becomes the root of so much misunderstanding about God which culminates in the idea that God had to pour out His wrath on Christ so that God could forgive us. An idea which flies in the face of the characteristics of God : “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Here is an excerpt from Yahoo News, LA megachurch hopes to win Super Bowl ad contest The ad is for Doritos’ but it is based upon the mockery of the Resurrection of Jesus. Apparently this megachurch is populated by twenty-somethings who like to make short videos and have little understanding of Christianity or of the attacks against Christianity. Mainly the attack that says Jesus faked His death, there was not real resurrection it was just a hoax.
“The tongue-in-cheek ad opens on a funeral scene and then cuts to a young man alive in a closed casket. His body is covered in Doritos and he is watching the Super Bowl on a tiny TV while chomping on chips as mourners sob outside. Two friends, who are in on the prank, snicker that by faking his death, their friend will get a week off work and an endless supply of his favorite snack.
But the man gets excited when his team makes a big play and jostles the casket, which tips over to reveal him inside with a pile of crushed chips.
After an awkward pause, his buddy jumps up and nervously exclaims to the shocked assemblage: "Aaaah! It's a miracle!"
Actually the Aaaah part is more singing reminiscent of Hallelujah.
So will this bring the gospel to people? Or bring people into this megachurch? Likely not but it does serve to bring disrepute on Christianity, the religion that opponents claim is a hoax. But then again I have yet to find a megachurch that offered really good teaching on theology so what could we expect. It seems to me that even the Liberal Christians like Bishop Spong though they don’t believe in the historical resurrection would have more respect for the concept than to make it a correlate with a hoax. Or even attempt to hear someone say the hoax idea of being trapped inside a coffin for even a day with only a salty snack and a TV is the act of a genius.
But it made news and apparently to some that is the point of life.
Both Adventist Today and the Spectrum Website referenced an article by Brad Cole in regard to Haiti and Steven Wohlberg’s recent comments so I finally got around to reading Dr. Cole’s article. It is to say the least a sad commentary upon the way some Adventists use and misuse Ellen White and the Bible to support themselves and negate others. A very interesting case study because of how Dr. Cole edited out Wohlberg’s reference to the Ellen White quote which Wohlberg used as his supporting idea. Notice what Dr. Cole says:
The fact is that more than half of Haiti’s 9 million inhabitants practice Voodoo, Haiti’s dominant religion, and that some of the grossest forms of immorality are rampant. Significantly, much of Haiti’s dark Voodoo previously migrated to New Orleans--a city mostly destroyed by Hurricane Katrina….Evidence indicates that Port-au-Prince, the capital of Haiti, fits the category of a city ‘full of transgression, and sinful in the extreme.’ On January 12, at 4:53 pm, it was virtually ‘destroyed’ by an earthquake. On the morning of August 29, 2005, New Orleans experienced its own disaster from the sky.
Dr. Cole makes no attempt to cite the quotation that Wohlberg uses when he says: ‘full of transgression, and sinful in the extreme.’ He linked to the Adventist Today news article which used the Ellen White quote but in his response he seems to have forgotten why Wohlberg says what he says. It is because Ellen White says God will destroy things:
"I am bidden to declare the message that cities full of transgression, and sinful in the extreme,willbe destroyed by earthquakes, by fire, by flood. All the world will be warned that there is a God who will display His authority as God. His unseen agencies will cause destruction, devastation, and death." Evangelism, p. 27
Dr. Cole continues:
Should we be concerned with this statement? I believe so. One of the fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists is the concept of a great controversy between God and Satan, and that this controversy revolves around God’s character. Ellen White’s “Conflict of the Ages” series highlights the actions of God and Satan from the beginning of the rebellion in heaven, to the events of Gethsemane and the Cross, and to the final end of sin and sinners. It seems to me that to leave Satan entirely out of the equation in an event that ended the lives of so many is a sad omission and puts God in a very bad light.
It seems that our natural instinct is to believe that bad things happen as a result of God’s punishment for sin. Several years ago I heard the story of an entire family who was killed in a car accident while on their way to church. At the funeral people were discussing how something like this could happen until finally it was suggested, “There must have been an Achan in the car.”
Our natural instinct? Wohlberg introduced it not with our natural instinct but with reference to his authoritative prophet. Wohlberg is aside from following Ellen White following the Old Testament concept of God as destroyer. After all if you are of the presupposition to take the Bible literally as so many fundamentalists and traditional Adventists do then God does a lot of punishing with death disobedient or non Israelite people.
Dr. Cole then writes:
This concept is frequently addressed in the Bible as well. When Satan left God’s presence to punish Job and his family, the servant who witnessed the destructive event (that we know was caused by Satan) exclaimed, “The fire of God fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the servants, and consumed them” (Job 1:16). When the “friends” of Job came along, they also could only make sense of his fate by invoking God as the punisher for some sin that Job had committed. It isn’t until the end of the book that God comes on the scene to direct Job’s attention to a beast called Leviathan who had these descriptive attributes:
It is striking how many people get their theology from the book of Job. Satan there is not used about the person we later came to call as Satan and the satan in Job is not seeking to punish Job but to test him to see if he can remain righteous. Satan in Job is acting not on his own but on the authority of God:
But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face." The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger." Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD. (Job 1:11-12 NIV)
Dr. Cole then takes a page from the colorful early Christian Father Origen to whom much of the credit for the Lucifer myth goes, by trying to pretend that Leviathan of Job 41 is Satan. The idea that Origen held but even though the Christian church accepted the Lucifer as Satan part they generally did not accept Leviathan as Satan.
Cole continues:
Elsewhere in scripture, this same beast is described with these words: “On that day the LORD will use his fierce and powerful sword to punish Leviathan, that slippery snake, Leviathan, that twisting snake. He will kill that monster which lives in the sea” (Isaiah 27:1 GW).
How many other “slippery” and “twisting” snakes does the Bible describe? What we see in the book of Job, one of the earliest writings in scripture, is God beginning to paint the picture of a proud enemy who is responsible for suffering.
In Isaiah 14, Satan is described as being unveiled for who he is which prompts the surprised response:
To begin Isaiah 27:1 is a reference to a mythological creature. As the Expositor’s Bible Footnote reads:
1 liveyathan (liwyatan, "Leviathan") appears in several OT passages Job 3:8; Pss 74:14; 104:26), where it is clear that a great sea creature is being described. Most scholars consider the creature described under that name in Job 41:1-9 (40:25-29 MT) to be the crocodile. The implication of a plurality of heads in Ps 74:14, however, certainly suggests a mythical creature; and the term as used here is normally linked with Ugaritic Lotan, the chaos monster destroyed by Baal in the Canaanite creation myth. As indicated in the commentary, the use of such a term does not imply acceptance of Canaanite mythology but simply the knowledge of it, so that the term may be applied figuratively to monstrous enemies of Israel and of God.
Of course Isaiah 14 is not about Satan it is in the series of chapters dealing with the surrounding nations of Israel and is specifically about Babylon: On the day the LORD gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended! (Isa 14:3-4 NIV)
Dr. Cole then tries to show that Satan causes natural disasters, but fails miserably. His best effort is this quote after Jesus heals a woman: Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?" (Luke 13:16 NIV)That diseases were long attributed to demons goes back into the earliest times of humanity and ancient Israel but that still does not indicate that such things as earthquakes and floods etc are caused by Satan.
Returning to the issue at hand Dr. Cole writes:
While we may not be able to say that every disaster is a direct action of Satan, the “powers that rule this world” (1 Corinthians 2:6) are those of Satan’s kingdom, not God’s. When we watch people trying to dig themselves out of rubble, our minds should be repulsed at the nature of Satan’s kingdom rather than reflecting on God as a punisher.
Though he has never made a reasonable case that any natural disaster is caused by Satan he assumes that he has. In fact he moves from the scientific age to the pre-scientific age with his assumption that natural disasters are caused by either God or Satan. Neither of which are true. At best one could argue that the natural laws were set up by God and therefore ultimately they function upon the physics of God’s laws but even that would not attribute such disasters as punishments of God and as Dr. Coles attempts have shown us there is no Biblical reason to grant to Satan the ability to cause a natural disaster, whether it be a rain cloud, flood or earthquake. It is simply not a part of the Biblical record. The stretches that one tries to make it appear that Satan can, appear almost laughable.
Dr. Cole continues:
Satan is the destroyer, not God, and we do great damage to God’s reputation when we label the slaughtered Lamb as the destroyer. It’s true that many see the destructive acts in Revelation as the judgments of God and interpret end time events in that light, but I have greatly appreciated the wisdom of those who see this book not only as a revelation of Christ, but also of the Adversary [he then quotesSigve Tonstad, Saving God’s Reputation]
This is what is so very interesting. Dr. Cole has completely ignored Ellen White’s statement that Steve Wohlberg built his case upon. He completely ignores the numerous other Ellen White statements of God caused destruction as well as her statements about the plagues and trumpets and seals of the book of Revelation. It is not that he ignores Ellen White for he begins his presentation referencing her and her Great Controversy views. But he has completely ignored the real question which is what do Adventists do with such quotes of Ellen White? After all, the quote that Wohlberg uses is not abnormal for Ellen White. She thought that the 1906 San Francisco was designed by God to close down the Saloons.
In the calamity that befell San Francisco, the Lord designed to wipe out the liquor saloons that have been the cause of so much evil, so much misery and crime; and yet the guardians of the public welfare have proved unfaithful to their trust, by legalizing the sale of liquor. Those who have been placed in positions of official responsibility, and who in the recent past have become thoroughly familiar with the advantages of the closed saloon, now deliberately choose to enact laws sanctioning the carrying on of the liquor traffic. They know that in doing this, they are virtually licensing the commission of crime; and yet their knowledge of this sure result deters them not. (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 1906-10-25.006)
In fact it was God’s destroying angels that wrecked the city in Ellen White’s view:
Retributive Judgments"While at Loma Linda, Cal., April 16, 1906, there passed before me a most wonderful representation. During a vision of the night, I stood on an eminence, from which I could see houses shaken like a reed in the wind. Buildings, great and small, were falling to the ground. Pleasure resorts, theaters, hotels, and the homes of the wealthy were shaken and shattered. Many lives were blotted out of existence, and the air was filled with the shrieks of the injured and the terrified
"The destroying angels of God were at work. One touch, and buildings so thoroughly constructed that men regarded them as secure against every danger, quickly became heaps of rubbish. There was no assurance of safety in any place. I did not feel in any special peril, but the awfulness of the scenes that passed before me I cannot find words to describe. It seemed that the forbearance of God was exhausted, and that the judgment day had come.
"The angel that stood by my side then instructed me that but few have any conception of the wickedness existing in our world to-day, and especially the wickedness in the large cities. He declared that the Lord has appointed a time when He will visit transgressors in wrath for persistent disregard of His law. (Life Sketches of Ellen White 1915 page 407)
As long as Adventists like Brad Cole refuse to deal with the real problem that Ellen White presents they will end up the losers in the battle for a rational religion.
There is a fairly persistent idea that I hear Adventists say. It is about how unique Adventist's Great Controversy theme is. Here are a couple examples:
The Great Controversy theme. An understanding of this theme is unique to Adventists.
What I had not really noticed before was that in our fundamental belief #8 we have defined this supposedly unique Adventist idea.But strangely enough there is nothing really unique in it.
All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God's adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the worldwide flood. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. (Rev. 12:4-9; Isa. 14:12-14; Eze. 28:12-18; Gen. 3; Rom. 1:19-32; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; Gen. 6-8; 2 Peter 3:6; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14.)
It begins with the standard Christian Lucifer myth which began with Origen and Tertullian about 300 AD and is widely accepted throughout Christianity. About the only thing that is unique to Adventism is the line which says: “Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict,” which implies that there are unfallen worlds watching the conflict here. At least it is implied in the fundamental belief we know that the concept of unfallen worlds watching is provided in the writings of Ellen White. The idea that we are a spectacle to men and angels is however related in the Bible and again widely accepted in Christianity.
Some examples of other Christians writing depicting the same things as the major portions of Fundamental belief 8.
I could go on an on with this but the point is that if this is really what Adventists believe about the great controversy then there is very little that is unique to the idea. In my opinion what most Adventists mean by the phrase Great Controversy theme is all the extra material that Ellen White adds about Lucifer before the fall, the Adam and Eve story, the story of Job and the crucifixion of Christ. Because it is only her additions that make anything unique and those things are not even included in the Fundamental belief.
Adventist Today Website has a good article on one of the problems that haunt many traditional Adventists. Some excerpts from the article:
Television producer, radio host and author Steve Wohlberg directs White Horse Media—an independent Adventist media ministry based in Newport, Washington. In his most recent newsletter sent by e-mail, Wohlberg made comments that has drawn comparisons to Pat Robertson's now infamous quote, in which he blames the recent earthquake on a pact Haiti made with the devil centuries ago.
[After quoting Ellen White]
Evidence indicates that Port-au-Prince, the capital of Haiti, fits the category of a city "full of transgression, and sinful in the extreme." On January 12, at 4:53 pm, it was virtually "destroyed" by an earthquake. On the morning of August 29, 2005, New Orleans experienced its own disaster from the sky. Now notice how Jesus Christ puts both earthquakes and sky events together as clear "signs" of His approaching return. …
Yes, God is speaking to His world through these disasters. Whether He directly causes them, or merely allows them, nevertheless, they can be biblically classified as divine "judgments" to be taken seriously. No one knows how much longer God will continue to tolerate sin on planet Earth. Soon, "the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night" (2 Peter 3:10), and Jesus Christ will come suddenly to rescue those who have repented of their sins, have accepted His gospel, and become loyal to their Maker.
It does seem that Wohlberg and Robertson have a similar view of God. Robertson believes that Haiti made a pact with the Devil and has been cursed ever since and the earthquake is another manifestation of the curses. Wohlberg that the earthquake is biblically classified divine judgment. The difference it appears to be only in the semantics divine judgment vs. curse. But of course it is not only the fundamentalist Christians who seem to hold such ideas. Famed actor Danny Glover said of the Haiti earthquake:
“And I hope we seize this particular moment because the threat of what happens in Haiti is the threat that can happen anywhere in the Caribbean to these island nations, you know?
They're all in peril because of global warming; they're all in peril because of climate change. When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm saying?”
I am not sure if the climate summit results which caused the response of the earthquake is from God or from Gia or Mother Nature apparently the concept is still the same. A powerful knowledgeable force punishing people for their actions through an earthquake.
That leads us to the problem of why this powerful force…this deity, would use such indiscriminant force to cause such destruction. Rather haphazardly destroying the bad people and the good people; the servants of voodoo and the servants of God, the voodoo priest and the Christian missionary. What about all those Traditionalists who use (actually misuse) this quote from Amos: Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7 KJV)Wouldn’t it be nice if God was to inform somebody about such a judgment as an earthquake, maybe like a location and a date or maybe just a specific reason announced so that maybe like Nineveh some could repent? Wohlberg of course seems to think that if Ellen White said a hundred years ago that “…cities full of transgression, and sinful in the extreme,willbe destroyed by earthquakes, by fire, by flood, that is all we need to know. That pretty well covers them all however, so the question is when and where and what size makes a city. Not particularly helpful in any way without some real specifics, it is rather like the false prophets that Jeremiah had to deal with: The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence. (Jer 28:8 KJV)Because so far on this world if you predict there will be a war, or evil, or pestilence you will always be right. It always happens at some time and if you don’t have to say when or where or what type of evil or what type of pestilence or who will be at war with whom your prophecy is useless but always correct. But to attribute that prophecy to God is the error.
The good news is that we don’t have to listen to the foolishness of the Pat Robertson’s, Danny Glover’s and Steve Wohlberg’s of this world. There are far more sensible voices such as these people who spoke on the subject of the Haiti earthquake, they may be wrong in other things but at least here they have it right:
. . . if God merely hated Haiti, there would be no missionaries there; there would be no aid streaming to the nation; there would be no rescue efforts -- there would be no hope. . . .
Everything about the tragedy in Haiti points to our need for redemption. This tragedy may lead to a new openness to the Gospel among the Haitian people. That will be to the glory of God. In the meantime, Christ's people must do everything we can to alleviate the suffering, bind up the wounded and comfort the grieving. If Christ's people are called to do this, how can we say that God hates Haiti?
-- R. Albert Mohler Jr., president, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
I am a believer in God, and that God exists independent of the natural world. I do not believe in a petty god who chooses random moments to selectively lash out at individuals or groups who have transgressed. . . .
-- Jack Moline, director of public policy for the Rabbinical Assembly
Dispensationalists believe that God favors some countries and people over others and that he rewards and punishes those who please or displease Him. That false belief is the source of the outrageous Pat Robertson statement. . . . God sent His Son to die for us. If God could commit such a gracious act for our redemption when we had no concern for Him, why would he rain down judgment on Haitians and not on Saudi Arabians, whose extreme religion supports terrorism around the world?
-- Cal Thomas, syndicated political columnist
[Quotes taken from the Washington Post “On the Panel”]
If you are wondering what the future of is for Progressive Seventh-day Adventists is consider the recent Generation of Youth for Christ (GYC), formerly General Youth Conference 2009. When you first click on the following link to the video you will be treated to a song service out of yesterday. Possibly pre 1970’s considering even my Academy Worship programs were a bit more modern than this song service. In any case it is the Seventh-day Adventist traditionalists youth that make up this organization. At the question and answer session a who’s who of Adventist leadership were empanelled. Many General Conference Vice Presidents,two Division Presidents as well as Bill Knott the editor of the Adventist Review. Dr. Mike Ryan, Ted Wilson, Mark Finley, Dr. Ella Simmons, Don Schneider, Paul Ratsara,
As leaders of the General Conference would you speak to the commitment level of the GC leadership as well as the global leadership to the authority of Scripture even when it cuts across cultural practices?
Mark Finley replies: Culture should never dictate scripture. John 17 verse 17 Jesus said they word is truth the general conference of seventh-day Adventists is clear on the authority of scripture. Scripture always transcends culture. Now there can be cultural aspects in which Paul says I become all things to all men so the methods can be adapted but not theology.
[1]
The Second question dealt with net evangelism. Mark Finley defended Net Evangelism by asking how many had attended and by saying that for those who were baptized through the Net Evangelism how much was it worth to them.
The Third question (1:01 min.) dealt with explaining the organization of the Adventist church. I won’t bother with transcribing the question and answer except to note that the explanation by Paul Ratsara President SIDbegan with this statement:
“Our God is a God of order and He has given us a wonderful structure to support the mission of the church.”
He then goes on to explain the levels of the church organization.Concluding with:
“This is a wonderful structure that the Lord has given us.”
[2]
Fourth question:(1:03) We understand that the church exists to protect our fundamental beliefs…Some not all of our colleges and Universities continue to hire and protect professors who do not believe in our core beliefs such as creation, many youth have lost their faith under such teachers how can this be stopped?
Dr. Ella Simmons responds:
…[F]irstof all my personal stand and the stand of the church is that Seventh-day Adventist schools at all levels including colleges and universities exist for one purpose. In most countries of the world today there are excellent systems of education but we operate Seventh-day Adventist education institutions to pass on to teach Seventh-day Adventist world perspective, Spiritual understanding scriptural knowledge and so forth. Ellen White says, that we must hold onto this, that education and redemption are one. If our schools are not thoroughly and uniquely Seventh-day Adventist they should not exist. We have no reason for them other than that they are thoroughly Seventh-day Adventist. Then that indicates that in order to give Seventh-day Adventist education we need, have an imperative for Seventh-day Adventist committed practicing Seventh-day Adventist faculty leadership and staff. We have all been in a position in which individuals have been hired into our schools who have not been Seventh-day Adventist we appreciate our colleaguesbut either they will betray themselves as Christians by teaching what we believe if they are not Seventh-day Adventist or they betray us by teaching something other than Seventh-day Adventist believe in our schools. It is clear from Genesis to Revelation that Academics and spiritualityare one, the divisions that you hear aboutthat we read about are false they are work a tool of the devil, clearly. I could go on and on…
[3]
So what can we do as young people?
Ted Wilson responds (1:07): It is so important to have leadership at colleges and universities who are absolutely committed to the 28 fundamentals of beliefs, to the word of God, to the three angels messages …
[4]
Question 6 (1:08): How do we work through the system what are ways we can stand for truth?
Dr. Ella Simmons responds:
For example I would always say when called upon to answer those questions evolution lets just go right there. I believe that as a scholar I needed to know the theories of evolution but never to accept it as facts. So I would always have to say in class and on my test papers according to you this is what has happened although I still believe that in 6 days God created the heaven and earth and so forth, and there’s a way to do it without creating a problem and people will respect you even while they continue to disagree with you.
[refer to 3]
Mark Finley (1:11) responds:
To follow up on what Ella has said there is a difference between a teacher who makes a comment in class that I may not fully understand and they may have a different perception of truth then I do and a blatant open statement that violates the tenets of scripture and the Adventist church. A comment on Academic freedom. In a sense Academic freedom is a myth and here is why when I agree to teach in an Seventh-day Adventist college by that very agreement I agree to be supported by Seventh-day Adventist tuition dollars from Seventh-day Adventist parents who want a Seventh-day Adventist education so I voluntarily by choice give up freedom to teach contrary to Seventh-day Adventist values and if I can’t do that the thing to do and be intellectually honest is to say I no longer believe that and go teach someplace else where that can be accepted. So Academic freedom there are Catholic universities whose boards meet who dismissed recently teachers because they weren’t teaching Catholic theology in a Catholic university. There are Presbyterian boards and Lutheran boards who meet and so the issue is yes as Adventists you work together we work in harmony and love but the intellectual honest thing to do for somebody who may no longer believe Adventist theology is to find a place where they can teach in harmony with what they believe.
[5]
Question: for Don Schneider(1:14)...A question that is for those professors who may not take that integrity position and remove themselves from that…I think this question is directed that way. Recently there has been an online petition asking the General Conference to tolerate monogamous homosexual relationships some of the signers are ministers and professors of our schools some sit on boards of organizations that teach very divergent doctrines, what should be done when church employees receiving a check from the church openly seeks to undermine the very teachings they endorse?
Don Schneider after saying he would sit down and talk and not act as if it were a trial says:
It has been my job to deal with people some of them I have asked to quit. Very rarely almost always as we visit I can find the time to ask a question are you having a lot of fun doing what you are doing. People who are not supportive of this church are by and large not having fun either. And people who are not enjoying what they are doing are not the doing the good job supporting this church often. And that leads me to another point then, hey if your not having fun and your not really into the mission of this church would you want me to help you find something else? Almost always that has taken care of the issue for me. Almost never have I said okay next Tuesday we go to trial be ready cause we’re coming at ya. That just hasn’t been necessary in my experience.
[6]
It is hard to believe he really believes this answer. Culture even during the Biblical times changed and theology changed as well. If not then we would still be stoning to death Sabbath breakers adulterers and rebellious children. We would not allow any women to even speak in our congregational assemblies per some of Paul’s comments even though earlier in Old Testament times there was a female judge, Deborah. Finley’s answer certainly indicates that he would in no way allow a woman to serve as a Pastor in the Adventist church.
Ultimately if you do not consider culture Scripture would be incredibly hard to interpret. So culture actually helps define scripture and our culture also redefines scripture. For example our culture through the aid of Western culture and scripture has grown to see slavery as an evil. Yet much of scripture allows for slavery. We can find racist ideas in scripture but our culture has shown us the problems of racism. In fact throughout Christian history as culture became more enlightened our theology of God also became more enlightened, we moved from the God of wrath and retribution to a God of love. Culture and Scriptural understanding grow, they play off of each other, one does not transcend the other, they are both components of our understanding. Truth may transcend culture but we are still on the road to truth, what we say is truth even as Christians has changed as history has noted. Even in Adventism short history truth has changed, such as the shut door concept of the 1800’s. Saying we have the truth or something is the truth is far different from really having the truth.
I don’t think it is wise to tell such untruths to impressionable youth. I am assuming that he actually knows that God did not give the Adventist church instructions upon how it should be organized. The organization is similar in structure to the Methodists system from which many of Adventist founders came. Since he did not offer to explain where God informed the Adventists of their church organizations structure I can assume that he does know that God really did not give us the organizational structure we employ. The only way to make his statement work is to assume that if the structure was decided by Adventists at some conference to frame the Adventist constitution that action is the same as God giving us the structure. Which really gets us into logical trouble when whatever we decide to do becomes the instruction of God…the Reformation was largely fought to get away from such hubris.
The Ellen White quote is: “In the highest sense the work of education and the work of redemption are one, for in education, as in redemption, "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." "It was the good pleasure of the Father that in Him should all the fullness dwell." 1 Corinthians 3:11; Colossians 1:19, R.V (Education page 30, 1903)
Of course this is the highest sense and it is expanded upon when she earlier stated:“Love, the basis of creation and of redemption, is the basis of true education.” (Education page 16, 1903) Love as Paul famously said does not always try to get its own way, so education needs to be based upon love rather than traditions or church dictates.
What “thoroughly Seventh-day Adventist” means I don’t really know. Apparently it means that only Adventists can be hired to work at our schools as faculty and staff. Of course the controversy is not about non Adventist faculty teaching evolution it is about Adventists who teach evolution. Because frankly you can’t get anywhere in Science without acknowledging evolution, you can say it is not a fact but for all practical purposes it is a fact. Of course evolution or Darwinism as some critics mistakenly refer to things is not about the first origin it is about change. Those changes are seen, the theory of evolution explains what we see. Saying as Ella Simmons does later that she simply does not believe it because she believes the heavens and earth were created in 6 days is not science, it is not even reasonable it ignores the reality, the evidence, that the theory of evolution is explaining.
She concludes with: “It is clear from Genesis to Revelation that Academics and spiritualityare one, the divisions that you hear aboutthat we read about are false they are work a tool of the devil, clearly.” I am reminded of something I learned in College, if someone begins with “it is clear” or “clearly” you are about to hear something that is not clear and is often untrue. You don’t have to say it is clear when something is clear. It is a rhetorical device to try and prop up a weak argument. In this case a gratuitous assertion which is a logical fallacy and really a silly statement as we have great academics who are spiritually not inclined at all.
4.There were several mentions of the desire to have our teachers committed to the 28
Fundamental beliefs during the question and answer period. It appears that contrary to the desires of our church founders and the preamble of the 27/28 fundamentals of belief, Traditional Adventists have taken the fundamental statement as a creed. Wilson also includes the three angels messages which is done with the statement meant as a code word for the doctrines of the Adventist church. Again a very common practice among the Adventist traditionals. (simplified we say the 3 angels message is Present Truth which includes the unique Adventist interpretations of Daniel and Revelation; It encompasses 7th day Sabbath commandment keeping Sunday worship to be the mark of the Beast, Investigative Judgment, Adventist church as the Remnant called out from Babylon the apostate Christian churches, and Ellen White as the Spirit of Prophecy) The goal of all this is to have only church leadership and teachers and staff who are Traditional Adventists. These statements seemed to be met with hardy agreement from the Traditional Adventist young people at the conference.
Academic freedom is a myth if the institution does not hold to such freedom. Not because of the reason Finley gives, a science teacher is not hired to teach the literal 6 days of creation because it is the fundamental belief of the Adventist church, they are hired to teach science. Vague statements like “Adventist values” does not discount the scientific validity of evidence and scientific philosophy to be taught in a Adventist classrooms. In fact one of the biggest Adventist values should be the search for truth and it should demand investigation, including things that may go against the popular beliefs of the Adventist churches leadership or traditions.
I did not find the accounts of Catholic Professors fired for not teaching Catholic theology. I did find some interesting accounts of the misuse of power by CatholicUniversity administrators which amounted to retribution of whistle blowers.
6.Don Schneider presents us with the typical way that happens to whistle blowers or those who go against the power of the leadership elite. That is the retribution that makes their work environment so uncomfortable that they no longer seek to remain employed at their job. Here Schneider attempts to make such things appear as compassionate. When support the church means; do what we say, believe what we say to believe, than indeed who would want to support that church. The church is not God. When it seeks to think of itself as God, as doing what it is doing as being what God wants then the church has sunk to a low from which it will never rise. Well maybe I should not say never. As at one time the Roman Catholic Church behaved that way, it took hundreds of years to correct it’s over reaching dogma and still has a ways to go. But when a church that sees itself as carrying on the Reformation starts acting like the all knowing authority that forced the Reformation rebellion against her abuses; then we have serious problems in the Seventh-day Adventist church.
I was listening to and then reading some material today about the upcoming General Conference session coming up this year in Atlanta. I wanted to see what the percentage or number of delegates were that were not employees of the denomination. I could not find any numbers from either this or previous conferences. My guess is that it is very very small. The language in the General Conference Constitution at first glance makes it appear much larger than the reality.
Sec. 9. Division administrations shall consult with unions to ensure that the entire division delegation shall be comprised of Seventh-day Adventists in regular standing, at least 50 percent of whom shall be laypersons, pastors, teachers, and nonadministrative employees, of both genders, and representing a range of age groups and nationalities. The majority of the above 50 percent shall be laypersons. Delegate selections from General Conference and division institutions, and those selected under Sec. 8.d. above, shall not be required to satisfy the quota for laity.
Notice in that list only one is truly a layperson. Pastors and teachers and nonadministrative employees are all employees of the denomination. So If I assumed that each of those 4 categories equally made up the 50% of the session delegates that would give us 301 laypersons to 2108 denominational employee delegates. Even of those 2108 employees 1054 would be administrative denominational employees.
Something to consider when you hear that our church has a representative form of governance. Or as I heard to today the church is seeking to give even more delegates to young people. As the ANN second line in their report said:
The General Conference’s structure is arranged in geographically based administrative layers, with churches grouped in conferences, the conferences in unions (which comprise several states or a smaller nation) , and the unions in 11 divisions (the North American Division includes the U.S., Canada and Bermuda) These administrative units, together with the medical, educational, publishing and food-processing institutions whose boards they control, employ more than 111,000 people. Tithes are not retained at the congregational level, but are passed up the structure, giving the hierarchy considerable flexibility to redistribute funds from wealthier parts of the world church to newer and poorer segments, and thus to orchestrate expansion. The hierarchy’s control over finances and its voice in the choice of leaders at lower levels also enables it to exercise considerable influence over the whole church. This is so in spite of a system of representation, in which delegates from the constituent bodies choose the committee members who select the officers and department heads at each level. However, constituency meetings, especially those at the higher levels of the organizational pyramid, have proved unlikely to act independently because the system for choosing delegates (who are appointed rather than elected) has ensured that the vast majority hold leadership positions in the church or other church-paid positions.
Driving home yesterday I saw a bumper sticker that said “No Theocracy”. It is kind of interesting to consider that idea. After all the two main religions that might have had Theocracies are Christianity and Islam. Both of those religions hold that their God is loving, in Christianity “God is love” in Islam “Allah is merciful” both are said to be merciful and forgiving and seeking repentance from humans. So why is the idea of no theocracy so popular?
For those of us in the Western world if we were asked to name some theocracies from history there are likely only three that we could name. The first because of Islamic turmoil in the world would be Islamic nations that held to or still hold to Sharia Law. The second would be the Roman Catholic Churches dominance in the Middle Ages. A time when such things as church Inquisitions, burning heretics and condemning certain areas of scientific thinking took place. The final and perhaps the first thing some would think of is the theocracy of ancient Israel recounted in the Old Testament Bible.
Merely reflecting on the history of theocracy answers our question pretty well. Theocracy is a word first popularized by Josephus:
“a word first used by Josephus to denote that the Jews were under the direct government of God himself. The nation was in all things subject to the will of their invisible King. All the people were the servants of Jehovah, who ruled over their public and private affairs, communicating to them his will through the medium of the prophets. They were the subjects of a heavenly, not of an earthly, king. They were Jehovah's own subjects, ruled directly by him (comp. 1 Sam. 8:6-9). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theocracy
The word though is more properly understood as:
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
The reality it seems, is that the nations were never really run by God, they were run by people who claimed to either speak for God or claimed to receive their instructions from God. Because these nations were never really ruled by God they never really presented an attractive nation or government to the rest of the world. Few modern people who read their history will say, “I sure wish I could have lived then”.
What I often find interesting is how people knowing full well the atrocities that occurred within the theocracy of ancient Israel think that those atrocities were the result of God. Rather than the results of those people speaking for God; or perhaps they were recorded as the people, those religious authorities wanted, attributing to God things that God would actually be very opposed to.
For whatever reasons they assumed that something is what God wanted to happen whether a result of a battle or an earthquake or some other natural occurrence. It is not hard to see such things; certainly other nation’s religious leaders were behaving in similar ways. It has been a trend in all other examples of theocracy we can think of, leaders doing what they want and attributing it to God, so perhaps it is something to consider when we read the stories in the Old Testament. We can still learn lessons from such things and isn’t that what the main functions of the Bible is, to teach us, to lead us to Christ who shows us the character of God. If that character does not match the God of the theocracy…perhaps it is because as is often the case someone was usurping the role of God and not doing too good a job of it.
So I say a hardy amen to “No Theocracy” at least until we see God face to face, because those middle men and women, those prophets, priests and kings have done a terrible job of revealing an accurate picture of God. Maybe for some it is the best they could do, but for many it is simply the corrupting nature of power. We therefore have to be a bit more careful before repeating everything as true just because it was a part of our religious tradition.
Imagine my surprise when wandering about on the internet I discovered that I was named as a Jesuit! Just to be clear I am not a Jesuit, have never been anything other than a Seventh-day Adventist and I was raised as a Seventh-day Adventist. Now who knows about the future but the likelihood that I will go through the process of becoming a Jesuit is pretty unlikely. Here are some of the quotes from the website. [I reduced the size of the fonts that he used so that my post looks better]
A JESUIT Speaks:
He is first dividing Seventh-day Adventists into classes. TSDA's = Traditonal Seventh-day Adventists; PSDA's = Progressive Seventh-day Adventists. We have already shown that this treasonous endeavor that has dominated the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not biblical.
[PROGRESSIVE ADVENTIST PROPERLY DEFINED: A band of Jesuits determined that the Seventh-day Adventist Church MUST change and become cooperatively ecumenical so that it can join with the rest of the churches to form one big global church. The people pushing it are very patient to confuse their agenda even to conjuring up plans that appear anti-ecumenical, but the object is to lead the church ultimately to that route...
He Then goes on to quote much of my article with his insertions interlined. For example:
They have the tremendous patience and persistence of fascists. They never give up their agenda even if they are expelled. They will bark till the end how everyone must be tolerant. As was shown by the tumult caused during the forceful pushing of the Celebration Worship Style in the Adventist Church,WHEN THEY GET THE UPPER-HAND, THEY WILL NOT THINK TWICE TO EXPEL THOSE WHO EVEN SPEAK AGAINST THEIR IDEAS OR MOVEMENTS.]
He writes: Why I am a Progressive Seventh-day Adventist; Am I a Dreamer or just a Fool.
Several years ago I wrote an article for Adventist Today on the differences between Traditional Seventh-day Adventists (TSDA’s) and Progressive Seventh-day Adventists (PSDA’s). The question that is still often asked of me is why, if I don’t agree with the TSDA’s views, I am still an SDA. [He, by the ideas he holds and by his intolerance and insistence that everyone must accept his ideas, never was a Seventh-day Adventist and never will be!] That question is not restricted to being asked by the TSDA’s; it is asked by former Adventists and even other PSDA’s. To most it appears that the default position of Adventism is the TSDA viewpoint. Frankly I ask myself the question far too often.
As you can tell his comments don't really deal with what I said as much as his bias against me. You will notice that before he quotes my article he asserts in red capitals how Progressive Adventists " WILL NOT THINK TWICE TO EXPEL THOSE WHO EVEN SPEAK AGAINST THEIR IDEAS OR MOVEMENTS."
Here are few of the other comments he makes:
[But millions of other and by far the majority of Adventists WOULDN'T! Should loyal Adventist care what the "Progressive Adventists" think when these "Progressive Adventists always show they don't care what anyone else thinks, even starting tumult in the Adventist Church because they can't keep their "dreams" to themselves, nor go away and join others with their same "dreams?"]
[Here it comes! The terrible disease of the "Progressive Adventists!" When anything comes that challenges their Jesuit revolutions that everyone MUST have, they attack it and leave the tolerance and the debating behind. That is why THEY ALWAYS must make reference to the terrible "weaknesses" of Ellen White and then grump because we must find it necessary to point out their weaknesses they are very proud of! First is a put down of Ellen White or anyone else who stands in their way, then they even create "worship styles" and concepts none of even God's prophets ever dared to do! Before they move to commit treason in the church, shouldn't they look in their mirrors and first tell themselves how perfect they are?]
[If we tell the truth, we will warn Adventists that "Progressive Adventists" never were Adventists at all, but are Jesuits!]
Okay I admit it is poorly written and reflects poorly on the author of the website but I had to point it out after all it is not everyday that I learn that there is some Adventist with the secret knowledge that I am a Jesuit.
Submitted for your consideration; there is little written about the conditions which produced our world in the state it is in. The following is my theory as to the role played in this story by God’s Law. It is based largely on my understanding of the entire Bible beginning to end, it is likely much different from what most people think about when they think about God's Law.
Sometime ago undoubtedly before the creation of Earth, there existed a Law. A law I will refer to as the Law of God. This law in its basic nature was extremely simply yet profound. The Law is "God is Love". Like the law of gravity this law can’t be broken. It is a fact, it is just the way things are, it exists because that is what the character of God is. Nothing anyone can do can change this law, however someone could distort, or misrepresent the law. To use and old English word, the law can be transgressed. Say I am a cleverly deceptive person and I try to tell you that gravity is not a result of the mass of an object, but the result of a giant gopher who is trapped in the center of the earth and by his animal magnetism he draws all objects toward him. Lets say I got a lot of people to believe my explanation of gravity. In fact in doing all this I have not changed the law of gravity, it still exists as it always did. However I have gone beyond the bounds of the law (transgression). I have violated it by my bizarre reinterpretation of the law of gravity.
Now lets move from earth to heaven in the beginning (whenever that was). There is a law in heaven, not a set of written precepts, but one based on the nature of the author of the universe. That law is "God is Love". Like the law of gravity on earth, this law can’t be broken, it exists and it is true. But this Law of God can be reinterpreted in such a way that it is violated. Say there was a cleverly deceptive person, lets say Satan (the name literally means an adversary). Now if Satan were to say that God is not really loving, that He is hiding important information from us, information that could make us just like Him. And that basically God is not a truthful person, Satan’s reinterpretation of the Law of God would violate the true Law of God. The law that "God is love" still exists and is still true, but Satan’s transgressed against the law, his redefining what God is, has confused other persons.
At this point it is important to note that God has no law that says you must love Him. He wants us to love Him but love can never be forced, in fact to force love would be against God’s Law, i.e. "God is Love". It is His kindness which leads us to repentance, and repentance leads us back to loving God. Do what I say or else, is one of the distortions which try to redefine love. Because of Satan’s distortions of God, Satan is removed from Heaven and God proceeds with His plan to answer Satan’s inaccurate and slanderous view of God. Remember that Satan literally means adversary which indicates that God now has to answer people's misunderstanding of God as well because even with the best of intentions a person could misunderstand God and distort what God is like thus transgressing the Law of Love. This is important to remember as we even as Christians and believers in God have been known to and often continue to distort the law of God, the law of love.
The Law "God is love" is the foundation upon which all other laws dealing with humans is based. It is to what all other laws point. The laws given in the old testament are intended as our school master to point us to the one supreme law of God. This is why on the Sermon on the Mount Jesus points out that even our thoughts quite apart from actions can be counted as sin. Or as Paul tells us even good things done, if done apart from faith in God are sins. We violate the law when we misrepresent, or ignore "God is love". If someone says God loves good little children but He cannot love naughty little children. That is as much a violation of the law of God as to say that we are gods. The law of God stands not on written instructions on how to live and what not to do, but upon the very nature of God Himself.
Many in our churches today will say that the 10 commandments are a transcript of God’s character. I pity anyone who reads the 10 commandments as God’s character. What a distorted view they must have of God. He would be seen as someone demanding human worship, punishing those who reject Him and showing mercy to only those who obey Him. Not a particularly loving God, rather one who loves you only after you first love and obey Him. This is not to disparage the 10 commandments, there is nothing wrong with them, they are good. However they must be viewed in the context derived from the entire Bible, that is that "God is love". They are instructions on how to live toward God and man. They point to the one law, "God is love". They do not provide anyone with salvation, rather they instruct the reader as to how to live in harmony with the supreme law of God. They are as Paul says, our school master teaching us of our need to return to God.
Abraham acting out of a relationship with God, and guided by the Law of God, followed God’s instructions to offer up Isaac. Realizing that God’s actions are out of love, Abraham trusted that whatever was going to happen would be for his own families good. And true to the law of God the ending was good just as he expected. When a person comes to this point in their lives, that is, they know that "God is love" they are meeting all the requirements of Gods law. No other laws are needed in their lives.. Because this one law is the summation of all others. Their faith is counted as righteousness. This is why Paul could say: Col 2:14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. (NIV) Because the Law of God’s love was so completely revealed to us through Christ’s life death and resurrection, the written code is no longer the best method of bring us back to repentance. Gods kindness is shown so perfectly through Jesus Christ that He is now the central point of the gospel message. If there remains any reason to teach the law, let it be the law of Love.
[from http://newprotestants.com/GODSLAW.htm This is posted here to help satisfy those critics of mine who complain that I never offer enough devotional material here. ]
I just read Tim Jennings blog and I wanted to point out the selective nature of people like Dr. Jennings. Their tendency to pull Ellen White quotes to make it appear she thought differently then the reality of what she wrote. He begin well by pointing out the idea that the Lesson study guide promotes as truth some rather nasty ideas about God. Here are some excerpts of his article.
Jesus - Angry Executioner or Baby of Bethlehem?
Friday, December 25 200911:25
Last weekend our class started the Lesson Guide for the New Year, The Fruit of the Spirit. I was so shocked by one paragraph from Thursday, December 31 that I had to blog about it. Here is the paragraph:
Between 1730 and 1745 the American colonies from Maine to Georgia experienced a religious revival known as the Great Awakening. Jonathan Edwards was a leader in this movement of spiritual renewal. In July of 1741 he preached a sermon entitled, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” which for some has become a symbol of the bleak, cruel, and hell-bent outlook of many Christians. However polemical, this sermon did express the truth about the awful weight of sin, the attitude of an infinitely holy God toward sin, and the surety of the day of judgment. [emphasis mine].
In case you are not familiar with the specific sermon cited above, here is an excerpt from Jonathan Edwards Sermon preached July 8, 1741:
[cut some of the Edward's quote]
It is everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery. When you look forward, you shall see a long for ever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite.
Do you find this sermon presents the “truth about the awful weight of sin, the attitude of an infinitely holy God toward sin, and the surety of a day of judgment”?
Let’s consider another Christian writer and speaker who came about 100 years after Jonathan Edwards. Below is Ellen White’s perspective on sin and God and judgment:
We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. The sinner brings the punishment upon himself. His own actions start a train of circumstances that bring the sure result. Every act of transgression reacts upon the sinner, works in him a change of character, and makes it more easy for him to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death. {1SM 235.2} [emphasis mine]
Does this sound like the same God that Jonathan Edwards was describing?
Jonathan Edwards describes a universe in which God is angry, wrathful, without mercy or pity and inflicts pain and immeasurable suffering upon His creatures. It is absolutely mind boggling that our Study Guide would quote such a grossly distorted representation of God as a “source of truth” about Him.
The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death and sin, if unremedied results in death (Romans 6:23, James 1:15). But Jonathan Edwards describes an existence in which God is the source of death, the cause of suffering, the inflictor of torment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Satan is the father of lies and his primary lies are about God. If we believe Satan’s lies about God then we distrust God, fear Him and remain separated from Him.
While Jennings is correct in taking to task the lesson study guide he is in error with his use of Ellen White. Ellen White’s quote is not about end time judgment it is in fact talking about the consequences of sin in this life not in the Judgment after life which is what Edwards is talking about. Ellen White is writing about the 10 commandments. In context the Selected Messages quote says:
The law of ten commandments is not to be looked upon as much from the prohibitory side, as from the mercy side. Its prohibitions are the sure guarantee of happiness in obedience. As received in Christ, it works in us the purity of character that will bring joy to us through eternal ages. To the obedient it is a wall of protection. We behold in it the goodness of God, who by revealing to men the immutable principles of righteousness, seeks to shield them from the evils that result from transgression. {1SM 235.1}
We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. The sinner brings the punishment upon himself. His own actions start a train of circumstances that bring the sure result. Every act of transgression reacts upon the sinner, works in him a change of character, and makes it more easy for him to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death. {1SM 235.2}
The law is an expression of God's idea. When we receive it in Christ, it becomes our idea. It lifts us above the power of natural desires and tendencies, above temptations that lead to sin. "Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them" (Ps. 119: 165)-- cause them to stumble. {1SM 235.3}
There is no peace in unrighteousness; the wicked are at war with God. But he who receives the righteousness of the law in Christ is in harmony with heaven. "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other" (Ps. 85: 10).--Letter 96, 1896. {1SM 235.4}
To properly compare Ellen White to Edwards on the subject of torment after judgment Jennings should have used statements which address that subject.
“Then I saw thrones, and Jesus and the redeemed saints sat upon them; and the saints reigned as kings [ 291 ] and priests unto God. Christ, in union with His people, judged the wicked dead, comparing their acts with the statute book, the Word of God, and deciding every case according to the deeds done in the body. Then they meted out to the wicked the portion which they must suffer, according to their works; and it was written against their names in the book of death. Satan also and his angels were judged by Jesus and the saints. Satan's punishment was to be far greater than that of those whom he had deceived. His suffering would so far exceed theirs as to bear no comparison with it. After all those whom he had deceived had perished, Satan was still to live and suffer on much longer. {Early Writings 290.3}
“Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {Early Writings294.1}
There is certainly still a considerable difference between Edwards and White here. A difference in duration of the torture but does either one of them present an intelligent view of God? Edwards make little sense with God tormenting people for all eternity, a truly miraculous event but to what purpose? Then Ellen White presents a view of a shortened torture but again for what purpose? I am going to hurt you and then kill you, will that teach you a lesson or will that act as simple revenge? It won’t teach a lesson because you are going to be dead and if God is in the business of revenge then saying He is love would be false.
I was thinking how we Adventists generally don't do anything for Christmas Eve or Christmas day. So I thought I would propose something. It is probably not too late to try it this Christmas if someone's church feels they would like to try something different or they can take the idea and prepare for next year. Of course most people don't want to have some big program on Christmas Eve so they can spend most of their time with their families. So my idea is to have pretty much an automated program that could be simply run hourly (think how shocked the neighbors would be to see the Adventist church open on Christmas Eve).
So what I did was set modern Worship Music into the Luke nativity account. You can download it here.Use Winrar to uncompress the file you can download it here(though hopefully you all have the program by now.) As it turns out I think the music has a far more important message then the Biblical text but that is because the music can take all kinds of Bible information and but it in the song but the text just has to read in a linear fashion. Ideally I would want to combine the sound with visuals but that would take a lot of time and pictures. A simple decorated church could act nicely with lights and candles.
Now this is not meant to replace the traditional Christmas programs that many churches present. There will likely be some Christian church in the community that does have a special Christmas eve presentation and many others that have a presentation weeks before Christmas. This idea is more for the neighbors of the church. Possibly those who are going out to look at the lights. Perhaps the church could offer hot chocolate to people outside or inside if they have a fellowship hall before and after each hourly presentation.
Obviously not everyone likes the same kind of music. I chose Modern Worship music because it is similar to what most popular music is like, that is it is comfortable to the majority of people. Other choices could be made, from Country to jazz, the difficult part is finding music that connects somehow to the text in the narration.
Simply stated the idea is to enable your church to be open to your neighborhood on the most Christian of holiday's without the need for a large portion of the church membership to have to sacrifice their family time and without having to tax the most musically talented of the church. No indoctrination, just some simple Christmas joy to share with your community.
Today in an article on the Spectrum Website entitled: Theological Harmony in New Orleans By Bonnie Dwyer, she reports on the joint meeting Adventist Theological Society and the Adventist Society for Religious Studies, the article states in the opening paragraph:
Adventism’s two theological society presidents agreed on the biblical call for social justice and the significance of Scripture on people’s lives during a historic session in which the two societies met to not only share a meal but to present ideas for discussion.
She does not define what “social justice” means and that is a problem. Today it is often a code word for redistribution of wealth through the government. As this article The Scandal of Social Work Education NAS Study says:
Use of the term "social justice" today generally equates with the advocacy of more egalitarian access to income through state-sponsored redistribution. The phrase is also frequently used to justify new entitlement rights for individuals and whole categories of people, i.e., legally enforceable claims of individuals or groups against the state itself. ("Economic justice" is even a stronger term, largely confined to populist and radical rhetoric.)
Here is a University of Wisconsin student newspaper’s definition of social justice in response to an article by Dr. Hansen mentioned who asserted social justice is misleading rhetoric.
Dr. Hansen’s article proposes, “until ‘social justice’ can be precisely and understandably defined, programs to promote this goal cannot hope to succeed.” Well, is it really that difficult to define it? Social justice is a system, a process, and an end result where all members of society have equal access to resources and benefit from them equally without regard to their identity, specifically race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, religion, class and age.
You notice that the student newspaper author describes the goal not the system. Socialism and communism are the two most commonly used systems or processes which claim to end with this utopian goal. We know from experience that neither system ends in the utopian goal however. Notice the newspaper author included “ability” in the list, let us assume that the government had a medical school. By the social justice definition above anyone could go and demand equal access to the resources and the benefit of the medical school education whether they had any ability or not. We could hope that the person with no ability would not graduate from the school…but if you can’t differentiate due to ability everyone needs to graduate. Achievement and ability mean nothing under this type of social justice.
From Sharpton to Wright, social justice has come to mean redressing the wrongs of the past in the form of government benefits or reparations. The expression has a hint of retribution as in “you owe us.” In actuality, the words haven’t any real meaning. There are always those who grieve, and as long as the government attempts to satisfy those with a gripe, the plaintive cry for social justice will have irresistible appeal.
Fair and proper administration of lawsconforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice. See also civil rights.
I guess if that is the definition that the two theological societies are agreeing upon that is good. They are agreeing upon the most basic idea or civil rights found in the latter half of the 20th century. Hardly a newsworthy proclamation unless one of those groups had been opposing civil rights. I think common sense tells us that that is not really the meaning of social justice that is intended, but we have to hold out that possibility sense those involved seem unable to define what they mean…thought when you can’t define your meaning the chances become much higher that the use is a code word otherwise why not define your terms.
"Social justice" is a phrase currently often employed by "emergent church" types who, in their reaction to the Church's nonparticipation (actual or perceived) in the world, suddenly believe they're the only ones interested in helping the poor and feeding the hungry.
Apparently among many, these problems -- and the world entirely? -- are viewed to have begun yesterday. There's no perspective of history, the fact that people in both the Church and governments have been aware and trying to alleviate poverty before -- especially when it comes to the failed attempts of federal governments to overextend their constitutional (and worse, Biblical) bounds and take the place of the citizenry and religious institutions in terms of charity.
Among such "social justice" advocates, there's also very little perspective of the actual Scripture in these quasi-utopian visions, which indirectly contradict the Bible's portrayal of the rest of human history.
Christ-followers certainly disagree on what end-times events occur when, but there is (or was) an overall consensus against the notion that people would eradicate poverty, hunger, all that sort of thing, without Christ or at least before He comes back to take a look at our planetary renovations.
But now we're back to the same stuff -- and while it's very, very true that Christ-followers are to be a means of "common grace" toward the poor and abused among nonbelievers, this is not the be-all-and-end-all of the Gospel. "Social justice" is only an outgrowth: at the center should be the actual truths of God as Creator, humans as rebels against Him, and Christ as redeemed. Are these professing evangelicals using "social justice" as a means toward proclaiming the Gospel? Or do they operate completely the opposite?
As it is, many of them are advocating a clone religion of Christianity And, as His Utter Subliminity Screwtape (from C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters) said is such an effective strategy. In this case, the "new" idea is Christianity And Social Justice -- and it's not so new, either; it's a mere strain of "liberation theology" liberalism that's somehow been accepted as legitimately evangelical. (10 Dr. Ransom at 10:52 AM on Jul 22:)
Sometimes I stumble upon really foolish Adventist blogs. Today I found a real case for remedial reading. The Blog entitledTheirmanygods which seems to have articles praising David Asscherick and Walter Veith has an article on Southern Adventist University. Here is what they say:
Southern Accent’s” issue for February 12 contained an article titled “Jesus is dead” which claimed to show that the teaching of the physical and tangible resurrection of Jesus was a rather late addition to Christian belief, one which was not shared by the earliest witnesses of Christianity, whose (possibly hallucinatory) belief was only of a spiritual and insubstantial resurrection." (Donn Leatherman School of Religion, Letters To Editor, Southern Accent, http://accent.cs.southern.edu/?p=587)
Wow! The Adventist university's student paper put out a "proclamation" that "Jesus is dead".
When I first read this I thought they were saying that Donn Leatherman of the School of Theology was the one who wrote the article. In fact he wrote the article in response which pointed out several flaws in the Jesus is dead article. When we look at the Jesus is dead article in the online archives we see the following disclaimer.
DISCLAIMER: This is not the official view of Southern Adventist University or The Southern Accent.
Look for the School of Religion’s response in next week’s Accent.
Shane Akerman | Contributor
The following submission is simply an expression of my personal views.
The intention is not to offend but to provoke thought and discussion. My hope is that this campus can be a safe place for tough questions and the sharing of ideas.
The link that was included in the Theirmanygods blog is the link to the School of religion’s response to the Shane Akerman article. Yet that somehow to the apparently unbalanced or at least severely prejudiced mind became a proclamation that Jesus is dead by the Adventist University’s student paper.
There is a serious question here besides the obvious one about alarmists blogs and that is how could anyone take Shane Akerman seriously when he spends that much money to go to a private Christian school when he believes Christianity is a based upon a lie (e.g. all the New Testament books hold to the idea of the resurrection and continued life of Christ). It does appear that the article did stimulate some thought which is important because some of these issues don’t get enough attention even at Christian schools and students should know what the arguments and presuppositions of atheist and agnostics are. Having an article written by someone who actually believes what he is saying is often more memorable than just reciting the standard atheist and agnostic objections. I don’t think we have to believe everything the Bible says, but if the religion’s core is false, if there is no resurrection, if there is no Jesus Christ who is God than Christianity has nothing.
1.We are now facing an unusual time in which those on the inside of our church are questioning our distinctive teachings and doctrines more than those who despise us. Many of us are walking away from the mandate that God gave to us.
You will note that at the beginning of the printed edition of the sermon a theme that will run through the sermon. God has given the Adventist church a mandate…a message, a set of distinctive teachings and doctrines.
That is a powerful argument if it is true. Can we demonstrate that God actually gave the Adventist church a mandate of doctrines? The answer of course is no, we cannot demonstrate that, we can only believe that. Is that belief correct however? If it is correct then there is no point in questioning our distinctive teachings. That is the presupposition that the sermon author and most traditional Adventists begin with. Presuppositions can be dangerous however, what is the basis for the presupposition, that is an important questions and frankly it has to be dealt with as it is never safe to simply have faith in ones presuppositions. The Bible asks us to have faith in God, not our presuppositions or even our interpretations of the Bible. Faith in God is very different than faith in our message, our doctrines or our belief that we have the “truth”.
2.My dear fellow workers, I want to tell you today, that one of the powerful keys to success and power in our churches and our pulpits and in our evangelism is resolute faithfulness to the word of God, and to the message God has given to us to preach!
As is frequently the case with Preachers they act as if the “word of God” carries no elements of interpretation, either culturally, historically or symbolically. They exhort the need to be faithful to the word of God by which they usually mean the Bible (though some Adventists would include Ellen G. White in the word of God category). Yet we know very well that they have no intention of remaining faithful to the instructions of the Bible. The Bible says that Sabbath breakers, and rebellious children and adulterers should be executed.It tells us to not mix seeds in our fields, to not wear garments out of different kinds of cloth, to wear fringes etc. Are those things part of the message God has given us to preach? If not why not, if not how do this proponents of the “word of God” determine what is the message God has given us to preach? It appears he is back to his presupposition again.
3.We must preach our message. All of it! There are forces that seem to be dismantling what was so laboriously put together under the indispensable aid of the Holy Ghost. There is a picture of erudition which we carelessly call scholarship, but which is more scholasticism. Ellen White says its as certain that we have the truth as that God lives. She spoke of a platform of truth. She knew that we’d always be gathering sources and resources, but she said, "Don’t get off the platform." The Holy Spirit is not one to foster confusion, and He does not divide the saints. He may bring separation from the mixed multitude, but not from the saints.
I think within the first few paragraphs we can see where he is going. Ellen White is our message, we have no need for scholarship we have Ellen White. Whatever Ellen White said is the truth that we have, Ellen White acts as the Holy Spirit to us, we as the church should be drawn together by teaching the things that Ellen White revealed. Whether they agree with the Bible or whether they make sense or whether they were based upon the beliefs of her day is unimportant because Ellen White was the agent of the Holy Spirit, clearly he is part of the Ellen White is the word of God crowd. At this point let us define scholasticism. Since I am not a Preacher I can actually help people learn rather than pretend I am simply telling them what God wants. The Wikipedia defines:
“Scholasticism is derived from the Latin word scholasticus (Greek: σχολαστικός)[1], which means "that [which] belongs to the school," and was a method of learning taught by the academics (scholastics,school people, or schoolmen) of medieval universities circa 1100–1500. Scholasticism originally began as an attempt to reconcile ancient classical philosophy with medieval Christian theology. Scholasticism was not a philosophy or theology in itself, but rather a tool or method for learning that places emphasis on dialectical reasoning. The primary purpose of scholasticism was to find the answer to questions and resolve contradictions. Scholasticism is most well-known for its application in medieval theology, but was eventually applied to many other fields of study.”
In effect Brooks is telling us don’t question, don’t try to solve contradictions, don’t be involved in the dialog of different ideas. We have the correct ideas from Ellen White, who, because he believes she was simply giving us what the Holy Spirit said all we have to do, is do what she said, believe what she says to believe.
That is what this is really all about. Traditional Adventism has like Brooks reveals in this sermon a cultic view of Ellen White as the voice of the Holy Spirit giving us as he says: “In the writings of Ellen G. White, that inside information which God sent just to us,..” So not only is it insider information it was sent to only Adventists, not to the whole of Christianity just to Adventists. This is a type of Adventist Gnosticism, where Adventists alone have the secret knowledge (gnosis). Again he maintains a presupposition that is based upon Adventist tradition not upon real evidence.
4.Guide. Some of what they’re doing is because they don’t know any better. We’ve got to guide them concerning where they ought to go, what they ought to do, what they ought to wear, what they ought to think. And we ought to do it with the Word of God and the Spirit of Prophecy.
5.A young woman who had always been friendly came to church loaded down with jewelry. When I approached her, ready to speak, she wouldn’t even look at me. She avoided me. She couldn’t be friendly as usual. No wonder our churches are turning cold! It’s because our members remain guilt-ridden and insecure and not sure of what they really stand for. They hear about easy divorce, about moral falls even in the ministry, Sabbaths on the golf course, or on the bicycle trail, or at the beach, theater-going, attacks on Ellen G. White. What’s happening amongst us?
Notice the greater portion of his problem revolves around Ellen White, her Sabbatarian ideas, her recreation ideas her ideas about jewelry and naturally those who question Ellen White.
We need to finally come to the understanding that there is a segment of Adventism who holds a very cultic view of Ellen White, who fails to acknowledge her errors, refuse to acknowledge what the Adventist church does acknowledge about her literary borrowing and acknowledge that much of her work was in fact the teachings of her own Methodist traditions. Those traditions took on new importance because of the assumption that Ellen White was speaking for God. As such ideas which were never Biblically based, such as not wearing jewelry or what one can and cannot do on the Sabbath (Puritan ideas) became incorporated into the Adventist church as if they were really from the Bible, because there were people who applied to Ellen White the idea that her words were the words of God.
Brooks may say that he wants his church back. I say I want the Christian church back. The church based upon a reasoned view of God, a church that is willing to dialog with other ideas within the Christian community. A church that seeks to learn rather than thinks they know it all. A church not build upon the traditions of some 19th century special Adventist prophet. A church that learns how to take the good and leave the bad from other prominent Christian as well as our own prominent Adventists.
My fear is that Brooks will get his church back and it will sink into the type of cultic sectarianism that Dr. Walter Martin saved the SDA church from in the latter part of the 1950’s. After all there is no dialog with the traditional Adventists like Brooks. Those who disagree are agents of the Devil or working in concert with the devil. This by the way is a major part of the sermon, dealing with music, naturally based upon obscure presuppositions where according to Brooks the devil says: “Then let’s talk about Christian jazz and religious gospel rock. They are contradictions of terms, you see.”
I really want to say to him take his church back, but for the damage that he does to the cause of Christ with his view of God and his view of the church. It may be there is a place in the religious world for those who think that they have all the answers and that such a fictional assurance is needed by them and their followers. There are so many different types of people in the world and some probably can’t tolerate rational thought or scholarship etc. So maybe we need to save a section of Adventism for those people. But I would hate to see the whole church organization move in that direction; though today the agitation to do exactly that seems to have once again renewed itself.
The word intellectual when not prefaced by the term “pointed headed,” reflects by definition the use of one’s intellect over emotion or experience. It is by and large in Western society the legacy of early Christianity. The Christian faith is built upon the books written by people after the time of Christ. Jesus wrote no words for us to quote or they would surely have become the Scripture to all Christians. There was no shortage of books about Jesus or about Christians in those first three centuries of the Common Era. There were many literary works with many differing views of God and Jesus Christ.
In the second century Marcion edited and presented his own view of what the Christian canon should be well before the proto orthodox (those who were the first to hold to what would become orthodox Christianity and then compiled a more standardized Christian belief) decided that a canon was a good idea. Marcion’s canon included several books by Paul and an edited version of something very similar to Luke’s Gospel minus the first few chapters. Marcion was a member of the Gnostic form of Christianity. As such the God of Jesus Christ and the God of the Old Testament were two different Gods and as with many Gnostic’s Jesus was not man or God/man He was a spirit, a phantom who only appeared to be a man. We know about Marcion because of what the Early Church Fathers wrote about him, we have none of his writings but we have a good number of other Gnostic writings many found in Nag Hammadi in 1945. Examples of Gnostic writing include the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Truth. Those being the most readable but by no means cover all the Gnostic or other works from the early centuries of Christianity. Recently the news has told us about the new find called The Gospel of Judas. The debates in the first 400 years of the early church dealt with what today some call the “Lost Gospels”. It was from the Early Church Father’s writings until the find at Nag Hammadi that the Gnostic views were known. It was up to the Early Church Fathers to deal with those works and we can still read of their intellectual arguments.
The Early Church Fathers and even the Gnostic Christians were intellectuals. They used literary works to argue their position against the Gnostics and we have even seen Gnostic literary work that argues against the proto orthodox form of Christianity. The very literature we have today can often be traced back to these intellectual debates in early Christianity. Even the very simply logical idea of context of written material was decided by Christian argumentation. What is common sense to us today was part of the battle ground of the intellectual processes of our early Christian fathers. Today we would likely laugh at many of the arguments that some of the Early Church Fathers used. Yet the encapsulation of the Christian Canon was based upon years of Christian debate; arguments, rebuttals and appeals to reason. However these Christians show us intellectual debate does not remove God from the process.God must act upon the human mind; it is the point of contact between the transcendent God and the physical man; the nexus between the spirit of man and the Spirit of God.
Intellectual Christianity takes work and as time passed it became easier to merely follow religious institutions. Man by his nature is often lazy and seeks the path of least resistance. Not all men of course, for the Christian church could never have been founded by lazy men and women. As orthodox Christianity grew and spread so did the power of the church. With time intellectual Christianity diminished. The Protestant Reformation gave renewed hope to Christianity as the intellectual Christians began to question what tradition had done to the orthodox Christian religion. The Bible as the accepted standard, again took center stage and intellectual Christians championed new ways of understanding the messages that God had inspired. The mind, perhaps God’s greatest handiwork was used by God through the agency of intellectual Christians to rehabilitate the Christian church from the damage done by tradition. When emotion and experience based upon tradition were opposed by the God enabled intellectuals, the church changed.
Protestants today are in need of intellectual Christianity as much as any other time in history. The intellectual activity of our predecessors does not automatically flow to us. Their wisdom and their folly are there to be seen and learned from by those willing to process the information. Protestant heritage includes great minds; men and women of great accomplishments. But to use our intellectual faculties we have to make decisions that likely will lead us away from traditions which were not well founded. Not all emotion, experience or tradition is contrary to intellectual process. But it is the intellectual process that evaluates emotion, experience and tradition deciding what to keep and what to discard. History is less a guide and more a milepost; a sign to the ever vigilant and a message to those who desire understanding.
As the Adventist church stands at a point where it must decide to cling to tradition or accept intellectual Christian challenges, so also must other Protestant churches. The term Evangelical at one time meant the idea of a church spreading the good news of God found in the four gospels. Today the term has come to mean the same as fundamentalist. Evangelical now means people who hold to the Bible as inerrant, infallible and holding to a strictly vicarious atonement, scientifically and socially out of step with reasonable people. While a Christian may not worry too much about what the world says of them (realizing that as Jesus said the world would reject His followers as it rejected Him). Still there may be some truth to those who now use the word Evangelical as derogatory.
The intellectual Christians that built up the church are becoming less and less visible. Today many of the large Protestant churches have abandoned the long held Protestant church practice of Sunday school. Many churches offer little opportunities for adults to interact with one another in the discussion of religious topics. Cell groups, the popular innovation of the last 20 years are sometimes so authoritarian that questioning a leader is not even allowed. Singing and Sermons have become the main form of religious instruction in today’s Protestant churches with the exception of Televangelists. Divergent views and questions have no place in today’s modern Christian churches. While Adventist churches have not abandoned the Sabbath school program it may be so poorly attended or conducted that it often becomes hard to find a Sabbath school that one feels comfortable presenting a differing view or posing serious questions.
The reason for this situation is very likely that today’s Protestants, as well as Adventists, have accepted the idea that his or her church has “The Truth”. The truth is being preached and there is nothing anyone needs to question or challenge. To challenge and question is what the atheists and the worldly folk do, it is not what we Christians do. It is the decline and fall of the Christian intellectual as the traditional once again gains ascendancy. It is possibly a new Dark Ages at a critical time for Christianity, with the concurrent lack of viability of Christianity in Europe and Canada and the attacks of progressive secularism in America. For Christianity to survive outside of the uneducated third world intellectual Christianity must be maintained. It is something that the Adventist church must fight for; it is something our Sabbath schools must fight for. Sabbath or Sunday schools are a good indication of how well members are assimilated in a church, equally importantly however they are vital to intellectual Christians. Stimulating the thinking process and spurring continued study and application of knowledge.
The Christian church has a long history of argument. The arguments are recorded in the New Testament book of Acts and the writings of Paul. Several New Testament authors warn of the false teachers of the day. Truth and error have always existed inside the Christian Church; even the very godly can produce error and error repeated can become tradition. Christian Intellectuals may not be in agreement, they may even argue in Sabbath school and be critical of their own churches, but it is all a part of the process of thinking and applying knowledge. Christian Intellectuals believe that God will lead them into all truth, as the Bible says. However, since throughout history we have not arrived at all truth it is not likely that we will arrive at all truth today or tomorrow. We are all works in progress, and it is our faith in God manifested in Jesus Christ that maintains our unity even during the disagreements.
* This is an article from my website which I was reminded of this past week or two so I thought I would post it here. http://newprotestants.com/risefall.html
One of my frustrations is the way some people make declarative statements with great confidence that are both historically untrue as well as being Biblically untrue. For example here is how it was used today in the Sabbath School Class I attended this morning. This is taken from Larry Kirkpatrick’s article on his Great Controversy Website:
After all, in 1 Corinthians 15:31 Paul says: I die daily. Is this your experience too? Every Christian needs to die daily. Did you die to self this morning? Are you converted anew as of this morning?
The desires we have are not excuses to endulge, they are simply a result of our fallen state. To follow God means to choose to deny self. Paul said "I die daily."
Victory can be won, through Christ, over all out sinful desires, whatever they may be.
This type of non contextual method of interpretation has lead many Adventists to assert that Paul when he uses the expression “I die daily”, quite apart from the context of danger as he preaches the gospel to some type of metaphysical death to self daily.
Here is the text in question first from the King James Version and then from the NIV to show that there is really no significant difference between translations.
KJV 1 Cor 15:29-32
29Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
30And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?
31I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
32If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.(KJV)
NIV 1 Cor 15:29-32
29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
30And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?
31I die every day-- I mean that, brothers-- just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord.
32If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."(NIV)
Clearly Paul is referring to his life being endangered. But where do SDA’s get the idea that Paul is dying daily to self. It is from Ellen White’s misinterpretation of 1 Cor. 15:31.
Addressed to Two Young Men
Last December I was shown the dangers and temptations of youth. The two younger sons of Father O need to be converted. They need to die daily to self. Paul, the faithful apostle, had a fresh experience daily. He says: "I die daily." This is exactly the experience that these young men need. They are in danger of overlooking present duty and of neglecting the education that is essential for practical life. They regard education in books as the all-important matter to be attended to in order to make life a success. 3T.221.003 (Testimonies Vol. 3 p. 221)
The Lord requires us to be submissive to His will, subdued by His Spirit, and sanctified to His service. Selfishness must be put away, and we must overcome every defect in our characters as Christ overcame. In order to accomplish this work, we must die daily to self. Said Paul: "I die daily." He had a new conversion every day, took an advance step toward heaven. To gain daily victories in the divine life is the only course that God approves. The Lord is gracious, of tender pity, and plenteous in mercy. He knows our needs and weaknesses, and He will help our infirmities if we only trust in Him and believe that He will bless us and do great things for us. (Testimonies Vol. 4 page 66)
The life of the apostle Paul was a constant conflict with self. He said, "I die daily." 1 Corinthians 15:31. His will and his desires every day conflicted with duty and the will of God. Instead of following inclination, he did God's will, however crucifying to his nature. (The Ministry of Healing page 452)
The Lord would have us submissive to his will, and sanctified to his service. Selfishness must be put away, with every other defect in our characters. There must be a daily death to self. Paul had this experience. He said, "I die daily." Every day he had a new conversion; every day he took an advance step toward Heaven. We, too, must gain daily victories in the divine life, if we would enjoy the favor of God. (Signs of the TimesMar. 1887 page 3)
You will notice that this view is not at all the message in Paul, as the Expositor’s Bible Commentary says:
30-32 Another argument for the resurrection is that if it is not true, then suffering and hardship for the sake of Christ are useless. By "endangering ourselves every hour," Paul seems to be alluding to peril looming up in his ministry in Ephesus (cf. Acts 19), where he was when he wrote 1 Corinthians. He is in danger of death every day (v. 31). He seals this assertion with the oath (Greek, ne, "I mean that, brothers") that this is as true as the fact that he glories over them and over their union with Christ. Paul's reference to fighting with wild beasts in Ephesus (v. 32) may be taken literally or figuratively. But since from Acts 19 we see no evidence of such punishment and since it was questionable whether a Roman citizen would be subjected to such treatment, it is best to take the words metaphorically--the human enemies he fought with at Ephesus were like wild beasts. But, Paul says, why go through all this suffering if there is no hope of resurrection? To prove his point, he first quotes Isaiah 22:13, (possibly for the benefit of the Jewish believers at Corinth) from a context of reckless living that the Lord condemns. So without eternal hope through the resurrection, men have nothing to turn to but gratification of their appetites.
From some readily available internet commentaries:
The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible
1 Corinthians 15:30
And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?
Not only they that have suffered martyrdom for the faith of Christ, and for this article of it, have acted very injudiciously and indiscreetly; but we, also, who are on the spot, whether ministers or private Christians, must be highly blameworthy, who continually expose ourselves to dangers, and are for Christ's sake killed all the day long, are every moment liable to innumerable injuries, tortures and death; who in his senses would act such a part, if there is no resurrection of the dead? such, as they must be of all men the most miserable, so of all men the most stupid.
The 1599 Geneva Study Bible
15:3016 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?
(16) The sixth argument: unless there is a resurrection of the dead, why should the apostles so daily cast themselves into danger of so many deaths?
Matthew Henry Complete Commentary
on the Whole Bible
And his next is as plain to us. IV. He argues from the absurdity of his own conduct and that of other Christians upon this supposition, 1. It would be a foolish thing for them to run so many hazards (v. 30): "Why stand we in jeopardy every hour? Why do we expose ourselves to continual peril-we Christians, especially we apostles?’’ Every one knows that it was dangerous being a Christian, and much more a preacher and an apostle, at that time. "Now,’’ says the apostle, "what fools are we to run these hazards, if we have no better hopes beyond death, if when we die we die wholly, and revive no more!’’ Note, Christianity were a foolish profession if it proposed no hopes beyond this life, at least in such hazardous times as attended the first profession of it; it required men to risk all the blessings and comforts of this life, and to face and endure all the evils of it, without any future prospects. And is this a character of his religion fit for a Christian to endure? And must he not fix this character on it if he give up his future hopes, and deny the resurrection of the dead? This argument the apostle brings home to himself: "I protest,’’ says he, "by your rejoicing in Jesus Christ, by all the comforts of Christianity, and all the peculiar succours and supports of our holy faith, that I die daily,’’ v. 31. He was in continual danger of death, and carried his life, as we say, in his hand. And why should he thus expose himself, if he had no hopes after life? To live in daily view and expectation of death, and yet have no prospect beyond it, must be very heartless and uncomfortable, and his case, upon this account, a very melancholy one. He had need be very well assured of the resurrection of the dead, or he was guilty of extreme weakness, in hazarding all that was dear to him in this world, and his life into the bargain. He had encountered very great difficulties and fierce enemies; he had fought with beasts at Ephesus (v. 32), and was in danger of being pulled to pieces by an enraged multitude, stirred up by Demetrius and the other craftsmen (Acts 19:24, etc.), though some understand this literally of Paul’s being exposed to fight with wild beasts in the amphitheatre, at a Roman show in that city. And Nicephorus tells a formal story to this purport, and of the miraculous complaisance of the lions to him when they came near him. But so remarkable a trial and circumstance of his life, methinks, would not have been passed over by Luke, and much less by himself, when he gives us so large and particular a detail of his sufferings, 2 Co. 11:24, ad fin. When he mentioned that he was five times scourged of the Jews, thrice beaten with rods, once stoned, thrice shipwrecked, it is strange that he should not have said that he was once exposed to fight with the beasts. I take it, therefore, that this fighting with beasts is a figurative expression, that the beasts intended were men of a fierce and ferine disposition, and that this refers to the passage above cited. "Now,’’ says he, "what advantage have I from such contests, if the dead rise not? Why should I die daily, expose myself daily to the danger of dying by violent hands, if the dead rise not? And if post mortem nihil — if I am to perish by death, and expect nothing after it, could any thing be more weak?’’ Was Paul so senseless? Had he given the Corinthians any ground to entertain such a thought of him? If he had not been well assured that death would have been to his advantage, would he, in this stupid manner, have thrown away his life? Could any thing but the sure hopes of a better life after death have extinguished the love of life in him to this degree? "What advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? What can I propose to myself?’’
John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible
Verse 30. Why are we - The apostles. Also in danger every hour - It is plain we can expect no amends in this life. Verse 31. I protest by your rejoicing, which I have - Which love makes my own. I die daily - I am daily in the very jaws of death. Beside that I live, as it were, in a daily martyrdom.
If this subject is ever brought up to a Traditional Adventist they generally will have no answer or their answer will be something to the effect that if he was willing to die then he must have been unselfish and being unselfish means that he was daily dieing to self. Which is the classic way of reading information into the text (eisegesis) rather then letting the text speak for itself (exegesis). The funny thing is that as many times as this is explained to Adventists they often will revert to the Ellen White usage rather than the Biblical usage. The idea of dying to self is pretty hard to accept no matter how someone tries to explain it. The best thing is that Biblically there is no need to be telling people they have to die to self. If you want to tell people it is hard to follow Christ that is fine use the text about taking up your cross and following Christ.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. (Mat 16:24 NIV)
In that case you are not dying to self you are discipling yourself, choosing to follow Christ rather than going your own way. Or if you want to talk about killing your “old man” there is a text for that.
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Rom 6:6 -7 KJV)
In any case if the point one wants to make is that following God is not simply doing as you please there are abundant legitimate texts that can be used which are contextually speaking of the subject. There is no need to rip a text out of its context to make the point. Because in fact a text taken out of context is a pretext and ultimately you are not even making a point. Unless of course you are trying to make the point to people who already believe as you do and who take things out of context as much as you do. But in all honesty what is the point of that? Sometime you are going to have to face the people who don’t believe as you do, the people who won’t accept pretexts, why not learn to speak to them properly now and speak to others in our congregations properly within the context of the scriptures now.
A zero-sum game is one where one person or group wins and the other players or group of players lose. It is often wrongly assumed that our economic system known as Capitalism is a zero-sum game. A good quote on that subject is found on this site:
Capitalism means that no one is subject to arbitrary coercion by others. Because we have the option of simply refraining from signing a contract or doing a business deal if we prefer some other solution, the only way of getting rich in a free market is by giving people something they want, something they will pay for of their own free will. Both parties to a free exchange have to feel that they benefit from it; otherwise there won't be any deal. Economics, then, is not a zero-sum game. The bigger a person's income in a market economy, the more that person has done to offer people what they want. Bill Gates and Madonna earn millions, but they don't steal that money; they earn it by offering software and music that a lot of people think are worth paying for. In this sense, they are essentially our servants. Firms and individuals struggle to develop better goods and more efficient ways of providing for our needs. The alternative is for the government to take our resources and then decide which types of behavior to encourage. The only question is why the government knows what we want and what we consider important in our lives better than we ourselves do.
In this analogy Adventism is the construct we are working within. Inside the Adventist church we are able to influence others but not by coercion. In this marketplace of ideas we succeed when we offer people something that they want or need. Based upon the free exchange of our ideas and their ideas for the benefit of all involved. We don’t have to take their ideas and they don’t have to take our ideas, ideas that benefit the person will be accepted those which don’t won’t find a buyer. Adventism is dealing in the wider Christian marketplace of ideas where we struggle to develop better ideas and services then other churches, though for this article we will just deal within the Adventist church.
Before we go on however we have to look at what the alternative is. For instance in economics the main alternative to Capitalism is Socialism. Socialism being that defined as: social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. In Adventism this would be the Adventist leadership or bureaucracy. Thus the leadership would say this is what we believe and this is what you are to believe in Adventism. Since Adventism does not have the force of government, it has no IRS to collect your tithes and offerings, no prisons to jail dissenters, the force of the Adventist socialist leadership would be in the exclusion of membership of church members. Since in Adventism we are dealing in the marketplace of ideas, we are talking about the exclusion from the Adventist marketplace of ideas. A person or group of people could be excluded but still allowed to go and sit and be preached at or they could still go and sing in corporate song services and certainly they could still give to the Adventist leadership. They would simply be restricted when it comes to the expression of their ideas.
Adventism is not a zero-sum game however, it is not a magisterium, it does not take what ideas it accepts and redistributes them as it sees fit. If a Progressive Adventist becomes a traditional Adventist or a traditional Adventist becomes a Progressive Adventist it is not a win lose situation. In fact there are many or maybe even most Adventists holding to ideas between the quintessential Traditional or Progressive Adventist perspectives. Often we would not even agree upon what each idea is that makes up a Progressive or a Traditional Adventist even among those who label themselves as Progressive or Traditional Adventist when describing their own beliefs.
Since we are not a zero-sum game the various factions should not have to worry about any defections from their camp to the other camp. After all each group could go out and recruit more new members from outside of Adventism. So we are left with this marketplace of ideas, a place where ideas that serve people the best will be most accepted. As in Capitalism we are essentially servants who need to be offering ideas and services that people want and need and are willing to expend their time and energy to become involved with. At some point those being served will want to market themselves and become servants and then besides their time and energy they may offer their money to improve the product. Capitalism is effective because it creates wealth; it is not about redistributing wealth because that is a very temporary solution and much closer to the zero-sum game idea. The church that is creating a wealth of ideas stimulates more people to do more and create more ideas and ways to serve.
Does this seem elementary? Perhaps though today fewer and fewer people believe in Capitalism, usually because they don’t know what it is or because they think that a big government who tells them what to do is a better solution. Why that would be I have no idea, perhaps it is because some people won’t do anything to help someone else unless they are forced to do it. So if government forces them to help others maybe they will actually help some more people; though since the socialism does not create wealth ultimately they defeat their purpose. So it may be inside Adventism where some feel that the Adventist leadership simply knows what is best and they will shower down their wisdom upon the local churches and make them successful and helpful. The fact still remains that innovation comes from the grassroots not from the bureaucracy. It is the innovators that create the wealth.
So how is your local church at innovation, what have they tried, what ideas are being presented. If your church is like mine than it is doing precious little innovation and ideas are routinely limited. I am sure it is more difficult in Adventism since they have the idea that they have inherited the truth…what need of new ideas or innovations then? But really how many of us really believe that?
In the Science vs. Faith presentation “Pastor Jan Paulsen, world president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church talks about miracles and challenges posed by the world of science and the world of faith..”
The following is my transcription of the almost 2 minute video:
The world of science and the world of faith, two seemingly separate worlds are they on a collision course or do they run parallel to each other or maybe occasionally both.
The world of science generally will accept only that which is empirically verifiable for which there really is, they can look back and say this is it how it happened and this is an actual pattern for how it will happen. I tell you what my problem with that is. That when you lock things into that kind of a model they cannot accept something in which the world of faith call miracles. To me the world of faith is a world in which God’s creative powers are constantly on display.
From the beginning, go to the book of Genesis the first chapter of Genesis through the mighty acts of God in history. You see it in the resurrection of Jesus, you see it in the second coming of Jesus, in the resurrection of our own bodies. The way scriptures present it. In the creation of earth made new. These are all displays of God creative power and it’s full of miracles.
The mind of science generally will not accept as reality that which is miraculous. To me this exists this is real. Miracles that is not a problem I have it for breakfast every day. If you cannot accept the miraculous God’s creative powers revealed in miracles ah…your done, finished you have no future.
This is the reality of my life and I observe God’s creative power on display all the time. To me as an Adventist this is important. To accept God’s creative powers and that is being manifested in many many ways.
The series seems professionally done. I did notice several times when he said miraculous that the camera was focused upon his open hand, which I though was kind of a nice subliminal symbolic message. But most of the message was really utter nonsense. That is the reason I transcribed it because somewhere I had read about this and the person thought it was a really good little talk. After I watched it I wondered if we had seen the same thing.
Let’s look at it in more depth:
The world of science generally will accept only that which is empirically verifiable for which there really is, they can look back and say this is it how it happened and this is an actual pattern for how it will happen. I tell you what my problem with that is. That when you lock things into that kind of a model they cannot accept something in which the world of faith call miracles. To me the world of faith is a world in which God’s creative powers are constantly on display.
Our SDA world president has a problem with Science dealing with empirical evidence for what really is and being able to predict what will happen based upon the empirical evidence. Science has given us so many wonderful things we no longer have to think that because it rains or the wind blows it is a miracle of God. Sure that is the way most all ancient religion including the Israelites thought, but we actually have evidence of things like water cycles. It is really not a problem that science has locked into a model of observation and evidence for cause and effect. There would have never been any real progress had they locked into the faith model. Of course recorded human history had a few thousand years of that, times in which man did not really improve himself or his situation and knowledge was limited to a few and even those few limited in their knowledge.
Paulsen continues with the account of God’s creative power’s constant display:
From the beginning, go to the book of Genesis the first chapter of Genesis through the mighty acts of God in history. You see it in the resurrection of Jesus, you see it in the second coming of Jesus, in the resurrection of our own bodies. The way scriptures present it. In the creation of earth made new. These are all displays of God creative power and it’s full of miracles.
Actually we read about the creative power of God in Genesis we don’t see it; neither did the writers of the book of Genesis. They are stories about the creation, the faith is about the belief in God as creator, it is not about how God created, and we don’t have to assume that the stories were meant as the literal method of creation. Even the resurrection of Jesus is not something we have seen. We do count it as credible because we have accounts of people who witnessed or were informed by witnesses and held to their witness even under persecution, more than faith it is a faith based upon some evidence. The other areas mentioned; the resurrection of our bodies and the creation of an earth made new are entirely based upon faith. We have not seen those things; in fact neither have those who wrote those statements in the Bible. We accept them because it is part of our understanding of the kind of person God is. It is our faith and our hope in the gift that God will give us. But it is not seen as a display of God’s creative power, it is an expectation as yet unfulfilled. It may be that we are living in the midst of multiple miracles or it may be that we are not; just as the ancient world thought everything was caused by God only through time and examination and compiled evidence do we see that perhaps the creator creates natural processes which make constant miracles unnecessary. It may even be that the creator’s miracles are so slight, acting upon DNA that we could never witness them until we have greatly advanced in science.
The mind of science generally will not accept as reality that which is miraculous.
And we should be ever thankful that science does not purport the reality of the miraculous. I can’t imagine a more fruitless source of knowledge than to try and study a miracle. Let us assume someone died and after a couple of days came back to life. Documented, the scientists were there and saw the whole thing. They could study the person for the rest of their lives but if the miracle was caused by an outside source say God they are studying the wrong thing. Empirical data may not tell us the origin of something but the processes involved with the thing can be studied. And no one is really studying them if their first or primary reaction is this is a miracle, I eat them for breakfast. If you don’t, then you have nothing, your done, finished; rather an obnoxious put down of science and the scientific method.
All and all Paulsen has presented us with total nonsense but we have to ask why? What is the purpose for such nonsense where he finds the problem of science in that it does not embrace miracles? Even if it did, even if you thought the world was filled with miracles it would not mean that they were produced by your particular God or your particular religious view. There are all kinds of faiths out there in the world, there is simply no reason to pit science against faith in the way that Paulsen has done. This makes me think there is a larger agenda to this. That it is a way to deny scientific reality in favor of the current fundamentalist young earth creationism. At a time when many Adventist theologians and science professors are attempting to reconcile scientific ages and processes with other ways God could create besides by the literalistic 6 days of creation. Paulsen is offering the traditional faith in the literal Genesis account. In other words the same old thing delivered by the science that he decries.
This time Roy Adams begins his Review editorial by saying:
IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAST SUPPER, JESUS INSTITUTED THE FOOT-washing ceremony, a ritual that has experienced widespread neglect in Christendom. The Adventist Church stands among only a handful of denominations still observing the practice. But the reality on the ground is that a high percentage of its members find reasons to skirt attendance at their local churches when “Communion Sabbath” comes around. Why?
Actually Jesus did not institute a foot washing ceremony. He washed the feet of the disciples as a servant and as a lesson. To make this a ceremony or a ritual is to deny the lesson that Jesus taught.
When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. (John 13:12-16 NIV)
It should be of far greater concern greater concern that Christianity has forgotten the lesson the teacher taught here of real service to each other then some created idea of a ritual instituted here.
The article goes on about how uncomfortable this Adventist instituted ritual is for visitors and particularly single people. I would go much farther in that it is uncomfortable to any thinking American. Most of whom have washed their feet mere hours before the ritual and who wear shoes and often socks or stockings and who walk on paved paths for the actual limited distance they do walk. To clean actually dirty feet from the dust of the road before sitting down (very possibly on the floor) to eat is a real service. It had a purpose, today in America at least it has no purpose and it actually gets in the way of the real lesson that Christ taught.
Symbols work well when remembering the body and the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But do we really need symbols or rituals about being a servant to other people? Jesus' body is not here anymore, the symbols remember the incarnation. The other body of Christ is still here and it is all of us, you don't need a symbol to see it, it is on the street, on the pew and even looking back at you in the mirror.
David Hamstra is one of the new bloggers for Adventist Today. In his first article he takes on the topic of Liberals and conservatives in the church entitled Freedom and Security.
Unfortunately he begins by using the terms liberals and conservatives even though those are rarely used in the Adventist church. He states:
Few Adventists who categorize other church members with these terms are willing to apply those labels to themselves. And it is clear to many that those categories obfuscate nuance and abet controversy, yet we continue to use them. Why? What function do they serve?
The reason for that is that people in the Adventist church use more descriptive terms than ill defined liberal and conservative. Instead of conservative they use "traditional or historic Adventist" while on the other end of Adventism they use Progressive Adventist. First problem solved... because Adventists do use those terms about themselves and most know what they mean.
David Hamstra than creates novel meanings for the terms Liberal and conservative.
Liberals are those in our church who feel the need for freedom more strongly than the need for security. Liberals seek liberty (which is freedom) and to liberate those who are captive, whom they believe suffer from too much security. They value creativity and see the world as a canvas waiting to the painted.
Conservatives feel the need for security more strongly than the need for freedom and thus try to conserve structures that provide stability. They see the world as a place of danger and the church as a place of refuge. So they warn those they see freely wandering into danger and defend the church against perceived threats from within and without.
These definitions make no sense to the real world, either in the church or in the political world. Liberals in the political world embrace big government with more government involvement in peoples lives, that is not freedom. Conservatives in the political world favor small government and less nanny state involvement which is equivalent to more freedom. Hamstra's definition does not work in the church any better. Traditional/historic Adventists have no more security, it could be argued they have less security because they have more rules and feel that their acts such as commandment keeping will affect their salvation. But even if we accepted the idea that it was security their security is found in their traditional Adventist beliefs. Which explains the name Traditional, thus we don't have to go and use ill defined words with novel meanings that no one in the church actually uses.
One of the common definitions of conservative is: "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change."
There is a quote which is helpful in getting a handle on where the starting point for traditional ideas begin. That quote goes like this: "The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution" [Hannah Arendt] Thus conservative is related to the society or subset of people in a society and liberal is a reaction to the conservative elements. A conservative in the old USSR would hold to traditional communist party ideas, the liberal would hold to free market ideas.
His conclusion based upon the faulty definitions then becomes:
"With Jesus meeting our needs for freedom and security, we no longer need to emphasize one need over the other."
A nice tidy answer, not that it answers anything at all but it seems to satisfy his sense of order. Perhaps that is all some are looking for, why can't we all get along. The reality is that different ideas don't always get along. Which reminds me of an article I recently read by Richard Mouw about the split between Evangelical and Liberal Presbyterians, where he writes:
I worry much about what would happen to Presbyterian evangelicals ourselves if we were to leave the PC(USA). When we evangelical types don’t have more liberal people to argue with, we tend to start arguing with each other. I would much rather see us continue to focus on the major issues of Reformed thought in an admittedly pluralistic denomination than to deal with the tensions that often arise among ourselves when evangelicals get into the debates that seem inevitably to arise when we have established our own "pure" denominations.
What we need to do is recognize that we have differences and be able to talk about them reasonably, sharpen our thinking. We need to actually be able to publicize that we have Progressive Sabbath School classes, Progressive Adventist churches, after all if the traditionals Adventists can have those things why not the Progressive Adventists.
What would happen however if your local Adventist school teacher attended a Progressive Adventist Sabbath School class? What would the traditional Adventists say or do? Would they say that such a person does not believe the 28 fundamentals and therefore should not be employed by the SDA school?
That is the reality we live in, where one side (many or most Traditional/Historic Adventist) is seeking a pure denomination. I keep reading articles like David Hamstra's and Alden Thompson who has a new book out on the idea that Progressive and Traditional Adventists need each other. Yet I don't see any such ideas coming from the Traditional side of the spectrum. I wonder why.
Through a recent comment discussion over on Atoday.com my interest was peaked about one of the long lasting myths of Adventism. Here is what some of our Pioneers presented as history:
The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures. (See Appendix.) Hundreds of years before the Reformation they possessed the Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution. They declared the Church of Rome to be the apostate Babylon of the Apocalypse, and at the peril of their lives they stood up to resist her corruptions. While, under the pressure of long-continued persecution, some compromised their faith, little by little yielding its distinctive principles, others held fast the truth. Through ages of darkness and apostasy there were Waldenses who denied the supremacy of Rome, who rejected image worship as idolatry, and who kept the true Sabbath. Under the fiercest tempests of opposition they maintained their faith. Though gashed by the Savoyard spear, and scorched by the Romish fagot, they stood unflinchingly for God’s word and His honor.
Uses the quote below from the Eccl. Hist, of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, pp. 168, 169 With this preface:
That the Cathari did retain and observe the ancient Sabbath, is certified by their Romish adversaries. Dr. Allix quotes a Roman Catholic author of the twelfth century concerning three sorts of heretics,—the Cathari, the Passagii, and the Arnoldistae. Allix says of this Romish writer that,—
He lays it down also as one of their opinions, "That the Law of Moses is to be kept according to” the letter, and that the keeping of the Sabbath, " Circumcision, and other legal observances, ought “to take place. They hold also, that Christ the "Son of God is not equal with the Father, and that” the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, these three” Persons, are not one God and one substance; and, " as a surplus to these their errors, they judge and “condemn all the doctors of the Church, and uni" versally the whole Roman Church. Now, since “they endeavour to defend this their error by testimonies drawn from the New Testament and Prophets, I shall, with assistance of the grace of” Christ, stop their mouths, as David did Goliah's, “with their own sword."
This is the quote we frequently read by those who put forth that the Waldenses kept alive the seventh day Sabbath. But we should consider what the author states about the person he is quoting. Notice the last couple of sentences are about the person who he quotes above, the person Andrews is referencing as an authority:
We ought to make this observation with respect to those authors, who in the twelfth century have made mention of the Cathari with this kind of confusion. itai. sacr. Ughellus tells us, in the Life of Galdinus, Arch' p' ' bishop of Milan, that after he had persecuted them, during the eight or nine years of his episcopacy, he died in the year 1173, by his over-vehement preaching against them. Ripamontius, in his History of Milan, gives us the sermon of Galdinus against the Cathari, whom he calls Manichees and Arians. But an indifferent judgment will be able to discover, that that piece is of Ripamontius's own forging, and consequently deserves no credit at all.
D'Achery has published the writing of an author, who pretends to discover the doctrine of the Cathari, of which he had been surely informed by the conversion of one Bonacursus to the Roman faith, who had been one of their Bishops, and had abjured their doctrine.This author makes three sorts of heretics, the Cathari, the Passagii, and the Arnoldistse, whose doctrines he refutes: but a wise reader will easily discern a great deal either of ignorance or malice in this author. (found in the first full paragraph of the above link for pages 168-172 text)
Not high praise for the person who we find often quoted as if it was the scholarly author of Eccl. Hist, of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont. Of course if we read more of Andrews we will see his does use other sources maybe some are better, but overall our knowledge of history has gotten better not worse since the 1800’s and we don’t find this idea about the Waldenses as seventh day Sabbath keepers in our scholarly modern histories. In fact the Waldensian church denies the seventh day Sabbath keeper idea. You can read about it Official response of the Waldesian Church in Italy about SDA claim which concludes by saying:
Therefore, the Waldensians did not keep the Sabbath (in the sense of Saturday instead of Sunday) and were not guardians of the "Sabbath Truth” as somebody calls it. The Waldensians never followed the Seventh-day Adventist’s Sabbath but they followed more Paul in Romans 14,5-8.
We can therefore say very clearly that the Waldensians were not Seventh-day Sabbath keepers and they were not persecuted for keeping Saturday as the Sabbath! Thy were persecuted, [from 1532 (when they joined the Reformation - Angrogna Synod) to 1848 (when they received religious freedom)], because of their Reformed-Calvinistic faith in Christ.
A good loyal Adventist would no doubt counter that they are not talking about during and after the Reformation but earlier in the 1100-1300’s when they were not really what we now term Waldensians. In which case that may be that there were some groups who did continued to observe the Jewish Sabbath, but they are not the Waldensians. That is the point.
For those, most of you know doubt, who won’t be going to check out the links to Google books let me give you the paragraph above the quote so often used by those who quote from of Eccl. Hist, of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, though I will cut out the part Latin:
He accuseth some of these Cathari of maintaining doctrines that are plain Manicheism ; but then he jumbles others with them that are pure Arianism, and others again which seem to have been defended by the Paterines. I shall pass by those doctrines that are wholly Manichean, as, that the Devil created the elements; that he made Adam; that the old Law was given by the Devil, &c. as also those that are Arian, as, that Jesus Christ is not equal with the Father. It is evident, that amongst these he has mingled some which were maintained by the Paterines, who were enemies to the Romish idolatry: …That the " cross is the mark of the beast, whereof we read in " the Revelation, and the abomination standing in " the holy place. They say that blessed Pope " Sylvester was the Antichrist, of whom mention is " made in the Epistles of St. Paul, as being the " son of perdition, who extols himself, above every " thing that is called God; for, from that time, they " say, the Church perished." We see clearly from this passage, that he confounds the Paterines, or Waldenses, with the Manichees, that having been an opinion of the Waldenses, and not of the Manichees, as the Papists themselves own.
After some comments made at the last Sabbath School Class I attended I thought I would delve into the subject of “absolute truth”. First here is a statement from the most recent Adventist Today Fall 2009 Seven Questions for…Doug Batchelor by Marcel Schwantes, page 28:
“Theology students will lose their fervor only if they sit under professors who have lost theirs. If professors teach with a perspective that there is no absolute truth or that everything is relative, they cannot produce a crop of pastors who preach with authority and conviction. A mist in the seminary will produce a fog in the church. Jesus taught with conviction and authority (Matt. 7:28-29). Thankfully, there are still some good higher education options with this caliber of professors.”
I use the quote from Doug Batchelor not because it is a well thought out remark because it is not, but because it is very common for Christians to assert that there is absolute truth. I also assert there is absolute truth, however knowing what is absolute truth is the problem. In Batchelor’s comment he asserts that there are professors who teach that there is no absolute truth. That may of course be true of some professors but if they did teach that than they would be teaching a logical fallacy on several levels. The most common explanation goes like this “since saying that there are no absolute truths - that it is absolutely true that no absolute truth exists - is itself an absolute truth.” It is hard to imagine a professor being soundly rebuked continuing to say there is no absolute truth. It would be just as much of a problem if they were to go about saying that everything was relative. Again if everything was relative their statement would be in the form of an absolute truth (everything is relative). The reality of life is that we should seldom use absolutes such as everything or nothing because so often there really are exceptions. In mathematics since it is already based upon logic and definitions it is much easier to use absolutes. For instance saying that no square is a circle is pretty safe because the definitions prevent one thing from being another thing. When you have solid agreed upon definitions you are again pretty safe to use absolutes, no cat is a dog.
So we see that humanly speaking there are actually absolute truths, those are usually based upon widespread agreement between most all people accepting a definition or a formula as representing reality. What if someone rejects the statement? For example we say that it is absolutely true that man has landed upon the moon. Whether they choose to believe the evidence does not change the absolute truth, because man really has landed upon the moon. Still “According to the July 1999 Gallup poll, only about 6% of the American public buys into that conspiracy theory,” that the moon landing was a fake.
So we can say that absolute truth is not dependent upon anyone actually accepting that something is absolutely true. For a variety of reasons like ignorance or prejudice or some other theory to explain something an absolute truth may be disbelieved. This is where we get into difficulties. Do our particular prejudices or beliefs interfere with ascertaining what is or is not absolute truth? One site on the subject puts it this way:
Many religions contain absolute truths. For example, a Christian might say, “ I know Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. By following his teachings, I will live in heaven when I die.” To the Christian this may be an absolute truth. Imposing this statement on others is where this absolute truth, to the Christian, becomes debated. While many may agree that the Christian believes absolutely that Jesus is his Lord, they are unlikely to agree that Jesus is everyone's Lord is an absolute truth. When a person’s absolute truth is extended to all others, it can be viewed as a philosophical statement of exclusion. Those who do not endorse the absolute truth of another are either pitied or attacked.
As with the case of someone not believing an absolute truth it is equally if not more probable for some to believe because of their tradition or upbringing or prejudice that what they believe is an absolute truth. As we have seen however believing or disbelieving does not create an absolute truth or destroy an absolute truth.
In the realm of religion this leaves us in the position of not really being able to declare much as absolute truths. We don’t have the reality of mathematics or of comparison of concrete defined items; we are dealing with beliefs and philosophical ideas and interpretations of others thoughts and ideas. That creates a much larger gray area of information, how we apply what information we have and how we even determine the information in the first place will have an effect upon what is thought or not thought to be an absolute truth.
So indeed there is such a thing as absolute truth, but the truth about absolute truth is we likely do not know what much of the absolute truth really is. Even stories in the Bible often tend to point out the relative nature of truth against those who have falsely determined that they have absolute truth. For example David eating the Shewbread or Jesus performing miracles on the Sabbath. It is possible that more damage is done by those who think they have absolute truth than by those who say that truth is relative to a situation. Jesus was charged with blasphemy and sentenced to death all without the Pharisees becoming unclean by being at the Pilate s house and then they hurried home to keep the Sabbath.
At the Meeting I attended presented by Jonathan Gallagher there was a point that was mentioned that very much reflected the following statement by Keafan (an atheist I assume) on the Spectrum blog. The idea is basically that without the literal Adam and Eve story Christianity falls apart.
[...]Anyway, I agree that christians who dismiss the recent creation event of Genesis cannot honestly claim that Jesus is still relevant without the literal Adam, Eve, Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil, the introduction of sin by them, and our "fallen" state of that origins story. If they believe evolution over long periods of time what, EXACTLY, have we "fallen" from that would need a Savior?
Jesus compares the end of time as like the "days of Noah". John claims that Jesus IS the creator. Paul appeals to the actions of Adam to prove his Jesus. The whole Great Controversy theme Bevin seems to approve of is contingent on the Garden, Adam, and Eve actually existing as historical, literal things.
As Ross is quoted as saying: "If Adam and Eve aren't real people and the fall isn't a real event in history, then there's not a good reason to believe that Christ rose from the dead and every thing else."
Without the Fall the whole theory of salvation from the consequences of that Fall are ridiculous.
Posted by: keafan (not verified) | 30 September 2009 at 1:38
As I stated in the conversation at the meeting which Jonathan Gallagher held in OlympiaWa., (at some point they said they would post the talks, you can read the written presentations at: http://pineknoll.org/ ) We are in trouble if our concept of God is dependent upon getting people to believe the Genesis story which is very scientifically untenable. Even before the advent of Darwin the Christian thinkers did not hold to the simplistic creation story of Genesis. Once people in the 1700’s began to look at the rocks and later the fossils in the rocks they realized that there are many layers of rocks, and different kinds of rocks. So they developed the theory known as Neptuneism, the idea being that there were a succession of many worldwide floods (related idea known ascatastrophism) of which Noah’s flood is simply the most recent. Each succession as the water evaporated left a different type of rock strata. Ultimately with the different strata there were different fossils. Each time there was a worldwide flood God created life again and repopulated the world (successive creation). Thus was produced the special creation view that Darwin was taught and which with his observations of volcanism he determined not to be necessary. Further it took away the Natural theology aspects since without the need for special creation it took away the need for God’s interaction with the world. Nature was not so perfectly balanced, why did not God create rabbits in Australia since when they were brought there they did wonderfully? Natural selection saw a ruthless struggle for survival, so instead of the natural theology showing how wonderful the character of God is because of the beauty and harmony of creation we see a nature that uses chance and cruelty. Challenging God’s justice and love.
The idea of the fall to a world of chance and cruelty does not let God off the hook for making the world filled with chance and cruelty, because man sinned does not logically equate the creation of ripping and tearing teeth. Natural theology (as nature revealing the character of God) was never a reality, at best it was once a reality in a brief perfect world (if one accepted the story as literaly), but those who came up with the idea of natural theology were not looking at any kind of perfect world. So we really don’t do ourselves a lot of favors by positing everything upon some perfect unknown world. It leads to the simplistic sin changed the world perspective but then you have to ask what is sin that it can produce all this chance and cruelty? When we look at the natural world around us and then at what we think sin means: that is selfishness or rebellion or even the classics, missing the mark or sin is lawlessness none of those things would really effect the natural world. The thinking world yes because an attitude of sin may make thinking creatures behave in ways that could be described as chance and cruelty but they would not be genetic, they would not leave their records in the fossils and the rocks of the world. You would have to go to something a lot more powerful. Which in religion pretty much leaves you with a God or a devil? Biblically speaking there is no indication that the natural world is the result of some creation of the devil. The natural world is seen as the creation of God.
Those pointing to the literal young earth creation story of Genesis still have no real answers for the problems mentioned above. Faith is their answer, not faith in God but faith in their perceived interpretation of the Genesis stories. That God told people the stories and that God intended the people to forever and always hold the stories as literally historically true.
So as we deal with thinking people we can’t simply say this is what the Bible says, "yes it makes no sense but you need to believe it because the whole Christian world view depends on it". No it does not. The Christian view depends upon the reality that mankind is selfish, that we hurt each other and that we make stupid choices and if we could find ourselves some short cut to knowledge of good or of evil or power we would take it. The Adam and Eve story presents a reality of thought that requires no need for it to be actual history: no need to be a complete refutation of the reality that science demonstrates.
We all know stories can teach important lessons or ideas, they don’t have to be true, they don’t have to involve actual people and events to stimulate, inspire or teach something to the listener. We don’t have to have a literal Garden of Eden or a literal worldwide flood to point out the human condition, the tendency for humans to become destruction or wicked. The stories indicate that there is more to life than our wants and desires. That human beings have the capability to extend themselves to think higher, to live with better morals, to pursue better goals. That is where God comes into our thinking. The stories of Jesus present these ideas in the form of incarnate God living with us. However this is more than just stories because the witnesses to Jesus life actually shared what they had heard and seen and even under persecution never recanted their testimony. Jesus does not depend upon the story of Adam and Eve. It stands in the history of mankind, more than as some story handed down from some bygone age when the world was somehow perfect. It stands in historical time and in an historical place with actual historical people recording the points that the authors thought important or they best remembered. though clearly they were not written as simply historical accounts, history is often built upon whatever historical writings we can obtain.
Certainly the New Testament and Jesus referenced the Genesis stories. God as creator, with little attention to how God creates after all who can really explain how God can create. The stories are used just as every culture uses their stories…to teach or remind people of lessons or values. Adam and Eve become the symbol of marriage of a man and a woman. The Genesis story never says they were married but they become the perfect symbol man and woman meant to live together to create the family. Noah and the flood are mentioned again to make whatever point the author in the New Testament or Jesus was trying to make. A shared culture gives people shared stories and that commonality allows them to communicate quickly and efficiently. Noah and the flood tell of a world filled with people of violence and wickedness. The old stories don’t have to change either. For example in America at one time you could say Miami was the murder capital of the country, then later it is Detroit, or Washington D.C. Ancient shared culture stories don’t change, Noah and the wicked people who necessitated the flood are always linked together, deliverance from the wicked by God is always linked, the rainbow and the promise of are God linked. That is the power of a story.
Without the fall story are we in any different reality? No the reality is simply what is, the fall does not make our reality, it does not make our religion. It is a teaching tool of our religion. It is a powerful shared story that has cultural relevance in many ways. It was never meant to dictate our understanding of the natural world, the understanding of God (who was kind of mean in the story, break on rule and your banished) the understanding of creation and the universe. After all the God in the Genesis story is not too much like the God of the New Testament, neither is the God of much of the Old Testament too much like the God of the New Testament. God is progressively understood as we progressively assimilate knowledge. We simply can’t go back to the most primitive understanding and let it rule over our knowledge of years later with so many areas of increased knowledge. What we do is reinterpret the stories, because the stories still have that cultural familiarity; they still are capable of being used as teaching tools. But they don’t dictate our understanding they were never meant to do that and it is highly unlikely that they ever did that in either the Jewish or Christian religions (at least until fundamentalism).
We are at that uncomfortable place where we have to once again reinterpret our beliefs. Strangely enough it has happened so many times in human history and Christian history that we should be a little more used to it by now. No doubt if not for our love of tradition we would be better able to handle the changes but there always seems to be some who get comfortable with an idea or five and cling to them tenaciously.
