Atoday and Global Warming

Adventist Today posted another leftist article. Once again following the party line of acceptance of Global Warming. Which of course is termed Climate Change to hide the fact that Global Warming and cooling is not really something new or different for the earth. But instead of dealing with the article I was intrigued by the challenge that was given in the comments section on Facebook. Here are the two posts I am referring to:

Stewart Pepper I don't believe global warming due to CO2 is possible for a very different set of reasons than is postulated here. I do believe the driver of what I genuinely believe to be a hoax is a move to one world government. Having said that, I am NOT a fan of Stephen Bohr. I'd like to write my own article as to why I don't believe.

7

• 7h

• 

  Top Fan

  David Geelan I can't speak for the editors of the page, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they'd be willing to publish a well-written piece with a different view, and I for one would be delighted if you wrote it and they shared it.

So here is my wager. AToday will not publish an article of a different view because they have no interest in different views. They have sold their souls to the Progressive Political world of the Democrats and that is why they never post anything other than Progressive Political material with an Adventist tilt. Though admittedly sometimes the Adventist part is hard to determine.

Ryan Bell, case study of Political Progressivism to the religion of Progressivism.

Ryan Bell is back in the news as he was recently interviewed by the Christian Post. In the article entitled: Former pastor Ryan Bell on why he abandoned his Christian faith: I gave it my best shot Bell gives us some clues about how his politics became his religion and the new Progressivism displaced his Chrisitan faith. I doubt he understands how this really happened to him but it is something many of us have warned against for the last several years.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all profess an all-knowing and all-powerful supernatural being: God.  Progressives may say they do not belong to a religion because they do not believe in God.  But Progressivism professes an all-powerful State.  The State is Progressives' god and determines what is moral and immoral and has the power to destroy whom it wants. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/progressivism_takes_its_place_among_the_major_religions.html

Toward the beginning of his interview Ryan Bell says:

" Another way to think about this is that conservative Christianity is a very bounded community. There are clear markers of who is in and who is out. Part of the theological and ministry project I found myself a part of was widening that community to include more people and a broader analysis of politics. Eventually, it widens so far that it includes everyone and at that point, I didn't feel the need for Christianity, per se. It was just the human family.

Notice how his supposed broader analysis of politics led him to feel no need of Christianity. Progressives often feel that they have the truth on politics, that truth becomes their truth and their believe in their political views is their new religion. Bell continues:

CP: How do you describe yourself now? Would you call yourself an atheist?Bell: There's no one identity that perfectly captures how I think of myself today. I am an atheist, for sure, but there's so much more to me than that. I'm a humanist in the sense that I don't believe anyone is coming to save us. We are the ones we're waiting for. I'm also a democratic socialist, which describes how I understand politics. My humanism and my democratic socialism go hand in hand. I can't separate existential questions about meaning and value from political questions about who has access to a materially good life.

Bell's Progressivism led him to socialism and socialism to humanism which is actually a religion

Roy Wood Sellars, who drafted Humanist Manifesto I, wrote in The Humanist (Vol. I, 1941, p. 5), an article “Humanism as a Religion,” in which he stated:Undeniably there is something imaginative and daring in bringing together in one phrase two such profoundly symbolic words as humanism and religion. An intimate union is foreshadowed in which religion will become humanistic and humanism religious. And I believe that such a synthesis is imperative if humanity is ever to achieve a firm and adequate understanding of itself and its cosmic situation….
Religious humanism rests upon the bedrock of a decision that it is, in the long run, saner and wiser to face facts than to live in a world of fable. https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/10697-is-humanism-a-religion

With Bell's new Progressive religion it is the way of integrity:

...Do you think this trend is being driven by the current secularization of American culture?Bell: The short answer is, yes, I think there is probably a positive feedback loop of some sort at work here. Secularization is driven by people determined to live their lives out from under old norms that turned out to be very exclusive and harmful to large swaths of the population. That secularization, in turn, encourages others to step out and live their lives with integrity and authenticity. If we take secularization to mean the de-religionization of America, then I think this means people are increasingly comfortable re-evaluating their ethics without reference to religion. People like Joshua Harris have done incredible harm to people by telling them that who they are isn't trustworthy or good. When you start to see the falsehood of that narrative come to life in the lives of the people you've influenced then yeah, that's either going to force you to question the foundations of your belief system or it will force you deeper into denial. Thankfully (from my perspective), Mr. Harris has chosen the path of integrity.

In an article in the Atlantic entitled: "Politics as the New Religion for Progressive Democrats" We read this:

Democrats have traditionally had a strong base of religious voters. A decade ago, more than 80 percent of self-identified Democrats were affiliated with some sort of religion, according to the Pew Research Center. The party was nearly one-quarter Catholic and nearly one-half Protestant, including mainline, evangelical, and historically black denominations. By 2014, those numbers had shifted significantly: Pew found that 28 percent of Democrats identified as religiously unaffiliated.

One of the closing paragraphs of the Atlantic article sums it up:

"Perhaps the takeaway from this data, then, is that the Democratic Party is going through a transformative moment of both sentiment and identity. Many liberals are feeling anger, and finding ways to express that. The elite part of the party, especially those who are well educated, is most engaged. And for these people, progressive politics may offer a form of meaning making, especially if they are disconnected from other forms of ethnic or religious identity."

It is pretty clear that Progressivism will lead to two things. 1. the removal of Christianity and 2. Progression toward socialism. As Bell says. "My humanism and my democratic socialism go hand in hand."  We always have to remember that in socialism the democratic part is just window dressing. 

"But democracy is by no means a limit one may not overstep; it is only one of the stages in the course of development from feudalism to capitalism, and from capitalism to Communism. Vladimir LeninThe goal of socialism is communism.Vladimir Lenin

Bell is on the path to the more Perfect savior of humanity via socialism and communism. We all know the old Soviet Union and its attitude of Atheism the political progressivism of Ryan Bell and frankly, many of the writers at Adventist Today and Spectrum are on that same path.

For Further reading consider this article from Discover the Networks:

Marxist doctrine holds that just as society evolved from feudalism to capitalism, it will inexorably progress still further to socialism and eventually communism. Communists consider socialism to be an intermediary step between capitalism (out of which socialism is said to grow) and communism. That is, communism (whose motto is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”) is deemed a further development, or “higher stage,” of socialism (whose motto is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds”). Communism, in other words, is viewed as the more “perfect” of two systems that both advocate public ownership of the means of production, centralized economic planning, and the widespread redistribution of wealth.

The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds, or the quality and quantity of work that people perform, stands in marked contrast to the communist principle of distribution according to people’s needs. The former, because it accepts deed-based distribution of wealth, is considered easier to implement in a capitalist society without large-scale overhauls of existing political and economic structures. In essence, socialists view capitalism as a viable economic mechanism whose reins must simply be transferred from the currently dominant “oppressor class” that misuses capitalism to exploit workers, into the hands of the “worker class” which could use the system for laudable ends. http://archive.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=115&type=issue

Response to Karisma1980

This is the response to the comment made on this blog post

It is nice that Andrew Dykstra has a friend to stand up for him. The verse is most notable by its absence, also I did not claim he ignored it he did ignore it. But you would have to talk with him as to why it was not mentioned. I could give a theory but as you noticed I did not. Nor did I mention anything about equal marriage whatever that is

I can see very well you are not using the rule of gracious interpretation for my article. There is no such thing as implied ad hominem. It is either stated or it is not stated. You don't have implied attacks against a person, it happened or it did not happen. As for a strawman how can there be a straw man argument by including non-normative sexual desires in the category of "all non-normative". To be "a straw man argument someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold. Instead of contending with the actual argument". If he says "all non-normative people" and I argue that that category holds a whole lot of unpleasant things, I am arguing against his stated position. You are simply claiming what he says is not what he really thinks. Maybe it is not what he thinks but it is what he wrote!

The title of my article is also addressed to the editors of the article. A decent editor would have told Andrew that his use of "all" as in "all non-normative" is a huge mistake as is the use of "all" in most generalizations (hasty generalization), any argument that uses all can be defeated if one exception can be found. If you logic fails your position fails. In this case, a good editor could have fixed the problem by simply striking "all" and saying many non-normative. Now, that would be the easiest method but the article does not even define non-normative so the reader has to define it for themselves and the dictionary definition is: "not normative, not based on norms" Kind of a huge category there!

Did I attempt to clarify what Andrew meant by "all non-normative" No as if he was not going to define non-normative in his article why should I expect him to define it for me? So I took his words at face value. I did not assume that he did not say what he wanted to say.

Now that you think that "informed consent" is the norm for "all non-normative" people I would have to ask you why you think that. I would say rape is non-normative, necrophilia is non-normative, pedophilia is non-normative, none of those seem to require consent. The idea that there is one norm of informed consent found in all non-normative people is kind of silly. However, you did not say all non-normative people feel the need for informed consent you said Andrew and other LBGT Christians feel that way. Is that your definition of non-normative, or the more problematic "all non-normative" people. Further, you say bestiality is out at the start...so you feel it should not be included in the non-normative category? Are you saying that Children rapists do not fit into the non-normative category? I sincerely doubt any Psychologist would exclude them from being non-normative, why or what gives you the credibility to tell us that those things are normal contrary to medical and societal opinion.

The only way you have a case is if you defined non-normative other than meaning what the definition is, not defined by having a norm. However, you are correct Andrew did not imply "that these three further states were part of his insight" He specifically stated it using his logical fallacy of "all non-normative people" as he said: "represent all sexually non-normative people"

Of course, all this ignores that his insight is developed using eisegesis rather than exegesis and it ignores that the texts were referencing people without sexual capacity through mutilation or the supreme will power (or the rare born that way). At least for LGBT that is rarely the case and not even close to applicable to the context.

Now if Marygrace would like to tell me the specific absurdity in my article, I wait eagerly...oh and if she does maybe tell me how I am a hater and how she can feel so free to use real ad hominem attacks.

AToday's false premise

I know there seems to be no end to the absurdities on the Adventist Today website, but it is hard to believe what kind of fictions they try to pass. They must be taking their cue from the leftist media who so often distort the news. This time it is so obvious that it destroys the whole point of the AToday article. Here is the first paragraph from  Loren Seibold  |  20 September 2019  |  

Elder Wilson’s first sermon to the world church in 2010 was predictive of the kind of leadership he would practice. Beyond a few manufactured trivialities (reading non-Adventist authors, meditation) he showed that his leadership style would involve enforcing upon the church his personal understanding of Adventist orthodoxy. This sense of himself as “the first minister” (his father’s description of himself when GC president) came through when he began to call himself “President of the World Church of Seventh-day Adventists” instead of “President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,” which may seem a small difference, but is actually quite revelatory of who he is. 

He links to an AToday article by Ervin Taylor which does not tell us that Wilson ever calls himself the "President of the World Church of Seventh-day Adventists" but it could be from some copy editor, the article says: 

To be honest, I’m not sure, as yet, what to make of this. In the case of the article, perhaps this is just some copy editor forgetting to put “world” in front of “Church” so that what should have appeared was “Ted N. C. Wilson is president of the Seventh-day Adventist world church.” But is that true? To be specific, should not the byline have read: “Ted N. C. Wilson is the current president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists”? But what difference does it make?    

He does not give an answer to what difference does it make and Loren Seibold offers no real reason for why it is revelatory of who Wilson is, assuming Wilson actually ever said it. I did an internet search and found no evidence that Wilson ever called himself “President of the World Church of Seventh-day Adventists”. So the article Siebold linked to does not say Wilson called himself that and it does not appear on the internet somewhere at least readily apparent that he said it but on AToday it is just stated that Wilson began to call himself President of the World Church of Seventh-day Adventists. Funny how that works.

But will anyone else notice this? Nope. Watch the facebook comments and see if I am right!

 

Is there intelligent life at Adventist Today?

I try to resist, but old habits die hard. I read the article on Atoday called: The Non-Normative Jesus, What the Eunuch Passages Say About People on the Margins.  It takes as its Bible reference the following verses from Matthew chapter 19. I quote it below with the section in red being the verse not used in the article.

NIV  

1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 

2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 

5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 

6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” 

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 

12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

The ultimate conclusion seems to be found toward the end of his article. He writes:

My reading suggested to me that our modern understanding of the word “eunuch” does not do full justice to all who could be included within its meaning. I began to feel that in this context, eunuchs represent all sexually non-normative people, including gay men, lesbians, so-called “barren” women, people whose gender identity does not fit the male/female binary, and any other sexually non-normative group excluded from privilege. 

Certainly the eunuchs of old were non-normative but clearly, the verses are talking about those without sexual interest due to being born that way, castration or accident and those who have completely controlled and removed their sexual desires for the Kingdom of heaven. Very likely the last is perhaps a 1 and a million position but certainly like the others not likely anyone you have met. But does Eunuch represent all sexually non-normative people? The pedophile, the person fond of bestiality, the sadist? To the author Andrew Dykstra it appears that those should be included in his "all sexually non-normative people". 

There was once a time that I found interesting theologic material on Adventist Today. Now it seems to be filled with positively infantile and absurd reasoning. Oh and go look at the comments on Facebook, the only way one can comment on Adventist Today. Though they often block people on Facebook as well. No comment about the missing verse 9 which is pretty central to the whole question the disciples ask, the reason for their concern is well stated in the Benson Commentary as:

Matthew 19:10-11. His disciples say, If the case of a man be so with his wife — If the marriage-bond be thus indissoluble, and a man cannot dismiss his wife unless she break that bond by going astray, but must bear with her, whether she be quarrelsome, petulant, prodigal, foolish, barren, given to drinking, or, in a word, troublesome by numberless vices; it is not good to marry — A man had better not marry at all, since by marrying he may entangle himself in an inextricable snare, and involve himself in trials and troubles which may make him miserable all the rest of his days. But he said, All men cannot receive this saying — Namely, that it is not expedient to marry; save they to whom it is given — As a peculiar gift, to conquer those inclinations toward that state which are found in mankind in general, according to the common constitution of human nature.

I also think it is pretty unwise to base concepts to heavily on the words of Jesus when the Pharisees came to test Him, as they were trying to entrap him and Jesus was avoiding their traps. As the famous saying goes, the plain things are the main things. When we try to explain the vague things we usually are just inserting our preconceived ideas and trying to make them work with the text. 

It is important to actually note the meaning of the word eunuch:

Encyclopedias - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Eunuch

EUNUCH

u'-nuk (caric; spadon; eunouchos):

Primarily and literally, a eunuch is an emasculated man (Deuteronomy 23:1). The Hebrew word caric seems, however, to have acquired a figurative meaning, which is reflected in English Versions of the Bible where "officer" and "chamberlain" are found as renderings (compare Genesis 37:36; 39:1, where caric is applied to married men; Esther 4:4). The barbarous practice of self-mutilation and the mutilation of others in this way was prevalent throughout the Orient. The religious disabilities under which men thus deformed labored under the Mosaic law had the effect of making the practice abominable to the Jews as a people (Deuteronomy 23:1; Leviticus 22:23-25). The law excluded eunuchs from public worship, partly because self- mutilation was often performed in honor of a heathen god, and partly because a maimed creature of any sort was deemed unfit for the service of Yahweh (Leviticus 21:16; 22:24). That ban, however, was later removed (Isaiah 56:4,5). On the other hand, the kings of Israel and Judah followed their royal neighbors in employing eunuchs (1) as guardians of the harem (2 Kings 9:32; Jeremiah 41:16), and (2) in military and other official posts (1 Samuel 8:15 margin; 1 Kings 22:9 margin; 2 Kings 8:6 margin; 2 Kings 23:11 the King James Version margin; 2 Kings 24:12,13 margin; 2 Kings 25:19 margin; 1 Chronicles 28:1 margin; 2 Chronicles 18:8 margin; Jeremiah 29:2; 34:19; 38:7; compare Genesis 37:36; 40:2,7; Acts 8:27). Josephus informs us that eunuchs were a normal feature of the courts of the Herods (Ant., XV, vii, 4; XVI, viii, 1). From the single reference to the practice in the Gospels (Matthew 19:12), we infer that the existence and purpose of eunuchs as a class were known to the Jews of Jesus' time. There is no question with Jesus as to the law of Nature:

the married life is the norm of man's condition, and the union thereby effected transcends every other natural bond, even that of filial affection (Matthew 19:5,6).

But He would have His hearers recognize that there are exceptional cases where the rule does not hold. In speaking of the three classes of eunuchs (Matthew 19:12), He made a distinction which was evidently well known to those whom He addressed, as was the metaphorical use of the word in application to the third class well understood by them (compare Lightfoot, Horae Hebrew et Talmud; Schottgen, Horae Hebrew, in the place cited.).

How Origen misunderstood and abused the teaching of this passage is well known (Euseb., HE, VI, 8), and his own pathetic comment on the passage shows that later he regretted having taken it thus literally and acted on it. His is not the only example of such a perverted interpretation (see Talmud, Shabbath 152a, and compare Midrash on Ecclesiastes 10:7). The Council of Nicea, therefore, felt called on to deal with the danger as did the 2nd Council of Aries and the Apos Canons (circa 21). (Compare Bingham's Ant, IV, 9.)

It is significant that Jesus expresses no condemnation of this horrible practice. It was in keeping with His far-reaching plan of instilling principles rather than dealing in denunciations (John 3:17; 8:11). It was by His positive teaching concerning purity that we are shown the lines along which we must move to reach the goal. There is a more excellent way of achieving mastery of the sexual passion. It is possible for men to attain as complete control of this strong instinct as if they were physically sexless, and the resultant victory is of infinitely more value than the negative, unmoral condition produced by self-emasculation. These "make themselves eunuchs" with a high and holy purpose, "for the kingdom of heaven's sake"; and the interests created by that purpose are so absorbing that neither time nor opportunity is afforded to the "fleshly lusts, which war against the soul" (1 Peter 2:11). They voluntarily forego marriage even, undertake virtual "eunuchism" because they are completely immersed in and engrossed by "the kingdom of heaven" (compare John 17:4; 1 Corinthians 7:29,33; 9:5 and see Bengel, Gnomon Novi Test. in the place cited and Clement of Alexandria., Strom., iii.1).

See MARRIAGE.

LITERATURE.

Driver," Deuteronomy," ICC, Deuteronomy 23:1; Commentary on Mt, in the place cited. by Morison and Broadus; Neander, Ch. Hist, II, 493; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, 72; The Expositor, IV, vii (1893), 294; Encyclopedia Brit, article "Eunuch."

George B. Eager

Copyright Statement These files are public domain. Bibliography Information Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Entry for 'EUNUCH'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". 1915.

Spectrum refuses to be accurate

In a recent article by the editor of Spectrum I noticed conflicting quotes attributed to President Ted Wilson. The article: Secrecy: The Adventist Experience used as it's example a supposed quote from the October 9 2017 GC meeting which was given as (emphasis added):

"Gener­al Conference President Ted Wilson about how the recom­mendation had come to the committee, noting that the vote of the General Conference and Division Officers (GCDO) had included (forbidden) proxy votes. “You weren’t supposed to know that,” Wilson said, as he began his explanation about a vote of the committee taken while GCDO was traveling and when some members had left to handle crises in their home territories..."

The specific quote being  “You weren’t supposed to know that,”. I commented on the Spectrum Website comments section that the link the article gave to the report did not say “You weren’t supposed to know that,”. Using the article linked to the quote was: 

The discussions were very positive on getting to an appropriate goal. We canvassed those there and those who were not there. A very few who said they did not want to vote because they had not seen the document. The results are what you indicated. The vote that you mentioned. The fact you mentioned was only known to a very few people. There have been leaks. People have misused information that has caused this to be very flammable. Private information has been taken and misused again. One final thing, the chair did not vote.”

So in the  comments, I commented a second time:

I guess I need to make this clearer. Which quote is real and which quote is not? Or are they both wrong. “You weren’t supposed to know that,” or “The fact you mentioned was only known to a very few people” Those are not the same! I think inaccurate quotes are very poor journalism.

The powers that be did nothing, no attempt to answer, no attempt to correct the original article and then it occurred to me that these articles are not meant to be accurate they are meant to please a certain group of people, When the cause is more important than truth, accuracy is of little importance. No other commenters addressed the quotation. This even though that quote was the very foundation of the supposed secrecy in the article. The secrecy of the SDA church is not my concern it is truth and accuracy. If you don't have either of those two things, articles are really useless for information purposes. They may serve well for propaganda or emotional arguments to people who already feel the way the author does but little else.  I have noticed this more and more in the Progressive Adventist media mainly Adventist Today and Spectrum. Facts are a minor concern to their ideological agenda. Frankly, the errors are so numerous I could not possibly find the time to point them all out. But I wanted to point this journalistic malfeasance out before I actually completely wean myself off of reading these websites. If I can't trust the information and especially if I can't trust things that are stated as actual quotes of people. There is little point in spending the time to read them.

Since the editor would not correct the problem I decided to research and see which quote was accurate. The linked quote is more accurate but it is not in itself accurate. Possibly it was from notes taken at the meeting as the article was published the day after the meeting Bonnie Dwyer did not have the full recording to get the quote right. That, however, is not the case for an article written 2 years later, the video of the meeting is available on Youtube you can find it here starting at 2:32:40 and going until about 2:40. When you hear the recording you see that those few people mentioned were the handful that were tallying the votes. When you have leaks from people who are supposed to tally votes that is not a good in any situation.

The following is my transcription without the pauses and false starts of live impromptu speech from the video 2:38:29:

"Now the interesting thing to me is and I think this is a very highly sensitive situation. that first of all the vote which you mentioned as being a vote which did not approve of those who were in the presence of our meeting. That was only known by a very small handful of people who are counting the votes. We then immediately indicated that there were votes that had come in from those that had been surveyed, and that was the vote announced to the group. I announced it in two different buses, It's very curious to me that information has been leaked..."

Anyway, that is pretty far away from you weren't supposed to know that. Just to be clear here he is addressing the last part of Randy Roberts statement as recorded in Spectrum that was:

“But there is actually something that concerns me even more, and that is my  understanding that a previous vote on the matter actually lost by a count of 29-26, following which several who were not in attendance, some of whom had not been able to read the document, were asked to vote. It was that vote, then, that passed by a count of 36-35.

There may be skullduggery afoot here but you will never prove or even make a good case if you can't provide accurate information.

Adventist Today presents foolish article on separation of church and state

Adventist Today has brought to us a very powerful example of what Pastors should not do. In the article entitled Can a PastorCall Evil by Name—Even If It’s Political? By Reinder Bruinsma.   He begins by asking the question: “…the question of how pastors in their preaching might address some of the moral dilemmas that are currently hotly debated at all levels in the United States. How might they do this in a way that respects the separation between church and state?”  At this point, it should be pointed out that “Reinder Bruinsma lives in the Netherlands”.  So notable he is not any kind of authority on the United States Constitution.  It does appear from his article that he does not know that the term separation of church and state is not found in the US Constitution but it is a term Thomas Jefferson used in a letter in 1802. The websiteUSconstitution.net  states: “ The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

So Pastor Bruinsma begins with a false premise as it matters little how the church respects the separation between church and state. The Establishment Clause found in the Constitution is directed at the government. That is why it says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Amendment 1 

He continues by saying: “Americans will often claim that their country has realized a full separation between church and state, but looking at this as a European I am not so sure. Whenever I visit a church across the big pond, I see, to my amazement, a national flag on the podium. And I wonder why there is no protest when the president ends his speeches with the words: “God bless America!” And how is it that American leaders will host “prayer breakfasts” and that the Senate has a “chaplain”? I could mention many more things that make me wonder…”

He wonders also: “ I have been utterly amazed to find, for example, even among well-informed Adventist friends whom I highly respect, a lot of resistance against a type of universal health care coverage that, for a considerable time, has proven to function quite well in a number of European countries (among those, my own country). When this approach is labeled “socialist” it surely betrays a definition of socialism that differs significantly from that of most people in western Europe.” 

It is termed socialized medicine because the government is the main provider of medical care  In a socialist government the state controls the means of production. In socialized medicine, the state controls the medical care. It fits the definition of socialism quite well when applied to medical care as opposed to general state socialism. But if you incorrectly define something at the beginning it is easy to continue with more errors to prove a point that was never a fact in the first place. But to return to the other incorrect definition, separation of church and state.

The Establishment Clause gives the freedom of churches to have or not have flags on the podium The Federal Government cannot tell a church to put a flag on the podium. The restriction is to be on the government telling churches what they can or can’t do. Though admittedly after years of political Progressive politics we have seen the government interfering much more than ever before with religious freedoms in the US. The Senate does indeed have a chaplain. In Thomas Jefferson’s day they had church services held in the US Capital building and George Washington and a host of other Presidents publically prayed.

Incredibly looking at the comments about this article no one on Facebook has even realized that the author of the article does not even understand the history or application of the United States of America’s constitutional rights.  I don’t expect a guy from the Netherlands to be very conversant with the US Constitution but somehow this kind of foolishness is readily posted on Adventist Today. Possibly with their extreme leftist views, they themselves have no concept of the US Constitution.

But there is an important point to make here Bruinsma says: “My interest here is the prophetic role of the pastor in the pulpit. “ That is my concern as well. What do we do with Pastors from the pulpit who don’t know what they are talking about?  It happens far too often that Pastors think that their limited knowledge is good enough to comment on political issues.  To determine what political issues are good and what is evil.  Bruinsma offers us no real guidance but hopes that Pastors will have courage and wisdom from on high. I, however, would offer a more substantial bit of guidance. I would say that Pastors have a duty to research their subjects thoroughly before they make presentations. That means that they don’t just give one side of a political idea even if it is popular in the Leftist media. Instead be knowledgeable about both sides of the question, problem or solution.  We don’t see this a lot on Adventist Media anymore but it is not too late for local church pastors to actually take some accountability even if the Adventist media refuses to.

Adventist Today article decries fictional Christian persecution in America.

A recent article on Adventist Today begins with this: “A spate of recent books, articles, and public statements by prominent personalities has claimed that Christians in the United States are being persecuted for their faith” The author Raj Attiken Persecution—Realand Imagined   then precedes to not give us one quote or the name of one article to support his claim! “Instead he focuses on the Vice President’s address at Liberty University. Again not quoting anything or even giving the reader a linkto the transcript of the address . You can read it for yourself

When you do read it you see that when Pence talks about persecution he is not talking about persecution in the United States. In the United States he talks about loss of religious freedom. He said:

 “The truth is, we live in a time when the freedom of religion is under assault.  Yesterday, I was informed by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom that today Christians suffer more persecution around the world than any other religion.  In fact, the United Kingdom released a report just last week that said persecution of Christians worldwide is “near genocide levels.”

In the last few months, we’ve seen unspeakable attacks on people of faith — on Jewish synagogues in Pennsylvania and California, on mosques in New Zealand, Christian churches in Sri Lanka, and on three historically black churches in Louisiana.

No one should ever fear for their safety in a place of worship, and these attacks on people of faith must stop.”  (Applause.)

When Vice President Pence speaks to the students about life in the United States he says the following:

“But my message to all of you in the Class of 2019 is — derives of the moment that we’re living in today.  You know, throughout most of American history, it’s been pretty easy to call yourself Christian.  It didn’t even occur to people that you might be shunned or ridiculed for defending the teachings of the Bible.

But things are different now.  Some of the loudest voices for tolerance today have little tolerance for traditional Christian beliefs.  So as you go about your daily life, just be ready.  Because you’re going to be asked not just to tolerate things that violate your faith; you’re going to be asked to endorse them.  You’re going to be asked to bow down to the idols of the popular culture.

So you need to prepare your minds for action, men and women.  You need to show that we can love God and love our neighbor at the same time through words and deeds.  (Applause.)  And you need to be prepared to meet opposition.

As the founder of this university often said, quote, “No one ever achieved greatness without experiencing opposition.”

The sad part about this is the author probably never even read or listened to Pence’s speech. He likely just took his que from the leftist media. As the author says: “Some called the speech a display of the “evangelical persecution complex.”” (The Atlantic, The Washington Post, Sojourners etc)  The author then reinforces his thesis by saying:

“While it is a fact that religious minorities are being persecuted in parts of the world, it would be a far stretch of the imagination to claim such persecutions in America, though some make that claim and are surprised that it isn’t obvious to everyone. I find these claims of persecution of Christians in America to be hyperbolic at best, and fictitious at worst. Segments of the Christian community often overplay the persecution card. “

The author completes is circular reasoning by again not giving any quote or reference to anyone actually saying there is Christion persecution in the United States. But having built the straw man he firmly knocks it down by saying it is hyperbolic or fictitious. Well yes having giving us no actual facts it is pretty clearly fictitious. He then brutally asks why Christians need to identify themselves as victims of religious persecution. He even adds the Adventist faith community to this claim of current persecution. Even though in Adventism  has not been talking about current persecution but claim to religious persecution at some future unknown date. Often termed prophetic expectations.

Dr. Attkien is a Professor of religion at Kettering College and former President of the Seventh Day Adventist Ohio Conference. This is strange that an educator cannot be bothered to give us any sources for his claims or is incapable of accurately relating the information from a public speech by the Vice President of the United States, who I would think Dr. Attkien would know that all of those speeches are transcribed and made public. It is very likely that this is simply the reactionary tendency of the political leftist to try and make the current administration look foolish. With the added bonus of the Intersectional trends of the leftist movement to denigrate white Christian men…the top of the intersectionaldespised pyramid. In any case the article is pretty much wrong from beginning to end other than the part where it talks about real persecution out the in the world, like Pence said in his speech.