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.

Adventist Today tries to defend its leftist politics

I was noticing when I was reading some comments on the Adventist Today Facebook page, the only place you can comment…well not me but those people who are not banned for disagreeing with Adventist Today.  It was very enlightening to read what Adventist today had to say for themselves when it was pointed out that they are pretty leftist in their articles. Here is the comment:

Pastor Tom Hughes Will Adventist today ever get back to theology, spiritual issues, Church issues and stop force-feeding us with liberal politics? Adventist Today Tom Hughes
1) This piece is one of ten (and counting) published this week—even during a holiday week. We don’t have to “get back to theology, spiritual issues, church issues” since we haven’t stopped covering them. Given your social media posts espousing political stances (not just theology, spiritual and church issues), your partisanship is well-known and your disagreement with this piece unsurprising. Those are your right. What are problematic are the consequent inconsistencies in your criticisms here of AT, for example, claiming that what you do is politically balanced and neutral, denying AT the freedom you assert you can exercise, and complaining about suppression of disagreement despite your multiple comments on this thread. Neither do we mischaracterize your promotion of your views as “force-feeding” those who choose to read them. 

2. Please clarify this comment:
“it has been discussed many times but the black conferences want to keep things the way they are so that they can make sure they have female soccer tuna tees for there pastors to serve.”

This is really a  very telling comment. After all, I very much agree with Pastor Tom Hughes assessment that Adventist Today is mainly posting Liberal politic articles.  Now AT starts out with a rather strange statement about the number of articles posted in a week. As if that has anything to do with things. Let’s say that 8 of the 10 articles were by social justice warriors, how would the number of articles refute Pastor Tom Hughes' statement? It would not at all. If one were to refute the accusation they could point to the numerous political conservative articles or writers posting on Adventist Today. That they don’t, because they don’t have any is a very telling fact that Pastor Tom Hughes is correct about the liberal politics of the articles and writers.

They then followed with something that is very likely true. Political Progressives think their politics are their religion. So they think that all the political statements are just as much theology, spiritual issues, and church issues.  Here is a segment of an article which does a pretty concise job of showing the Progressivism as religion aspects:

“The government must be helmed by the progressive clergy and used as a tool to ensure progress. Social institutions must be torn down and inequality dissolved.  Past sins must be confessed and offerings given as recompense. Good American citizens, so saith the god of progress, vote and act in a way that enables unabated progress toward equality. This doctrine is well-expressed, inerrant in a creed on a commonyard sign: “In this house, we believe: black lives matter, women’s rights are human rights, no human is illegal, science is real, love is love, and kindness is everything.”

If progressives and Democrats are good, then by deduction Republicans are evil—and evil must be opposed. Therefore every Republican measure is a heartless measure intended to further inequality. Republicans are moral monsters who love fascism, cheer the victimization of the vulnerable and scramble to push Granny off the nearest cliff. Republican laymen must be ignorant boobs at best and malevolent wolves at worst.

Dogmatism leaves no room for doubt. It even leads to an almost end times-like eschatology. As Matthew Rose recently pointed out in First Things:

“The politics of gender, sexuality, race, and immigration are increasingly eschatological. Their power and appeal depend on the belief that they advance a liberating moral narrative, inspiring a secular Exodus that will lead to a secular Pentecost . . . [H]istory must progress toward greater individual freedom and social equality because any other outcome threatens the moral intelligibility of history itself. The stakes could not, therefore, be higher. Should the next emancipatory chapter fail to be written—or should a future Trump or Brexit alter its forward flow—it would not be a mere disappointment. It would interrupt a story that justifies their deepest commitments, and the theodicy in which they are engaged.”

Conservatives on the other hand, allow for doubt and question utopian thinking. Social programs may in the end lead to further inequality. No individual person is perfect and thus no institution is perfect. Government cannot bring about perfect equality, but instead only keep itself and its citizens from descending too far into authoritarian oppression. https://loneconservative.com/2018/01/11/progressivism-new-religion/

The AT comment goes on to tell us how well they know of Pastor Tom’s social media positions which I know nothing about and even after AT comments I still know nothing about even though as they say: “your partisanship is well-known and your disagreement with this piece unsurprising” Now there is a strong refutation! The accusation, predominately leftwing articles the response you are partisan. Well, wait is not that his complaint, AT can’t deal with the complaint they instead attack the one complaining.

AT continues: “What are problematic are the consequent inconsistencies in your criticisms here of AT, for example, claiming that what you do is politically balanced and neutral, denying AT the freedom you assert you can exercise, and complaining about suppression of disagreement despite your multiple comments on this thread. Neither do we mischaracterize your promotion of your views as “force-feeding” those who choose to read them.”

 Inconsistencies in criticisms, what inconsistencies, would not that be helpful to know I mean the accusation is pretty straight forward, he may have dealt comments to other people, but that is not really AT responsibility to deal with those statements, why not deal with the central issue. Now how is a comment that problematic? He is not writing an article published on AT neither is he denying AT any freedom. “claiming that what you do is politically balanced and neutral, denying AT the freedom you assert you can exercise,” OK Pastor Tom claims leftist lean to AT articles and now suddenly Pastor Tom is denying AT the freedom to be balanced and neutral. Really I am pretty sure that is exactly what Pastor Tom is asking AT for. Then it follows with more subterfuge about how AT is not claiming that Pastor Tom is “force-feeding” his views on others in the comments section. Well, that is certainly big of AT. This is all very classic way of hiding from the accusation by attacking the person making the accusation. It is not a defense, it is not even logical. It also turns out that both AT and Pastor Tom's comments were removed, as I was going to include some of them in this article, but low and behold they are gone now! Of course, the excuse will be they are against policies. Strangely suppression of other views is often done by the excuse it is just because they did not follow the policies.

Sadly logic has little to do with the articles on Adventist Today anymore. For example, the above comments come from the comment section in reference to this article https://atoday.org/why-i-reject-american-exceptionalism by Lindsey Abston Painter 3 July 2019. In which she defines American Exceptionalism as…nothing she does not define it, she does not point to any definition at all. In fact here is her most direct statement on it.:

“I don’t know how to be patriotic anymore. I love America. But I can’t believe it’s better than any other nation, or its people are better than other nation’s people. I can’t believe that God has any special interest in my country over other countries. I deny American Exceptionalism. America is not intrinsically better than the rest of the world. It’s only better if we are better. President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said in a speech, “America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” Is America still great in light of what’s happening on our southern border?

We can infer from what she rejects as to what she thinks American Exceptionalism is. Not that that is what it actually is but apparently she rejects her own incorrect view of what American Exceptionalism is. If she had bothered to even dig as deeply as Wikipedia she would have found that the first two tenents of American Exceptionalism is what makes it important. Not patriotism people from any country can be patriotic that is certainly not the meaning. Here is what Wikipedia says:

American exceptionalism is one of three related ideas. The first is that the history of the United States is inherently different from those of other nations.^[2] In this view, American exceptionalism stems from its emergence from the American Revolution, thereby becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called "the first new nation"^[3] and developing a uniquely American ideology, "Americanism", based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy and laissez-faire economics. This ideology itself is often referred to as "American exceptionalism."^[4] Second is the idea that the US has a unique mission to transform the world. As Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg address (1863), Americans have a duty to ensure, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Third is the sense that the United States' history and mission give it a superiority over other nations.

The theory of the exceptionalism of the U.S. has developed over time and can be traced to many sources. French political scientist and historian Alexis de Tocqueville was the first writer to describe the country as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840.^[5] The actual phrase "American exceptionalism" was originally coined by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin as a critique of a revisionist faction of American communists who argued that the American political climate was unique, making it an 'exception' to certain elements of Marxist theory.^[6] U.S. president Ronald Reagan is often credited with having crystallized this ideology in recent decades.^[6] Political scientist Eldon Eisenach argues in the twenty-first century American exceptionalism has come under attack from the postmodern left as a reactionary myth: "The absence of a shared purposes ratified in the larger sphere of liberal-progressive public policy....beginning with the assumption of American exceptionalism as a reactionary myth.”

Thanks to Painter we have a good view of the postmodern left’s reactionary myth view. Ignore history, and facts and plead to poorly formed but emotional ideas. Somehow larger than ever illegal border entry suggests to her that there is nothing exceptional about America. I mean why would so many people try to get to this unexceptional country. But it all works as long as your publisher defends the indefensible.

What About Universalism

“There really is evil in the world, and wickedness, and every brand of stupidity. There’s meanness and heartlessness and…I don’t even know which of them is me.” (Mr. Graff in Ender in Exile by Orson Scott Card, page 317)

Has it ever bothered you when you think about the idea that God grants salvation based on what someone knows or believes? What of those who have no way of knowing what seems to be the important part of attaining this salvation, due to mental capacity or cultural relevance or simply how a person was or was not raised? There are simply too many factors in play to accept the idea that God grants salvation based merely upon what someone believes.

In the early centuries of the Christian church this idea of salvation by believing the right things was first written about, but the Biblical concept of a loving God suggested to some that there must be another way of understanding salvation. The concept of how God can fail to save when that is His goal led to a number of interesting quotes found in Church Fathers on Universalism.

Noted Christian author William Barclay presents his Biblical reasons for Universalism as

“First, there is the fact that there are things in the New Testament which more than justify this belief. Jesus said: ‘I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself’ (John 12:32). Paul writes to the Romans: God has consigned all men to disobedience that he may have mercy on all’ (Rom. 11:32). He writes to the Corinthians: ‘As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive’ (1 Cor. 15:22); and he looks to the final total triumph when God will be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 15:28). In the First Letter to Timothy we read of God ‘who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,’ and of Christ Jesus ‘who gave himself as a ransom for all’ (1 Tim 2:4-6). The New Testament itself is not in the least afraid of the word all.” I am a Convinced Universalist, by William Barclay1

Some Universalists speculate in numerous ways about how this will be done. They would probably rather not speculate so much but most assuredly feel pressured to present their views because of the more traditional views of eternal torment and the redeemed taken to heaven. However, noting that Christians throughout the centuries have made their predictions only to show no real ability at predicting the future, I will not bother to predict how things can occur, other than to say that I believe that God is capable of demonstrating firsthand to people His love and then offering them the healing of a change, in the twinkling of an eye, to begin life anew. The traditionalist will no doubt ask about those who refuse to allow God to change them. I honestly don’t think that will occur because the weight of reason and evidence are so against refusing the love and healing of God. Suffice it to say, I think if someone has a firsthand person-to-deity talk with God, not through a still small voice or some preacher’s words or some ancient book, that God can present a case that no being could counter or fail to see the wisdom of. In fact, our innate selfishness would likely say, “This is a great deal; don’t pass it up!”

The traditionalist will likely protest that we only have this life, then the Judgment. We have to learn to trust and believe in God now before we die and before the Second Coming. The problem with that view is that we see through a glass darkly.2 Interestingly, that is not talking about glass as in the glass bottle or even the bottom of a glass. No, it refers to a looking glass more commonly called a mirror, a mirror without glass at all. The ancient mirror was simply polished metal bronze or silver. Metal, as anyone who owns silver knows, tarnishes and dulls with time. What is more, it points us back to ourselves. Now we have this warped view of ourselves and God and theology but one day we will see Him face to face. Why depend on the warped view today of what will someday be known for sure? Does that really sound like the way a God of love would act toward His hurting creation?

So, why be a Christian or belong to a church if all people will be saved? Isn’t the reason to follow Christ so that we will be saved? God through Christ is the one who reveals that salvation is the gift of God. It is not something you earn by keeping a list of rules or sacrificing lives or property to gain favor with God. Christ has revealed God’s love, forgiveness and acceptance, that God desires to heal you and be reconciled with humanity. The purpose of the church is to point to this love, forgiveness and reconciliation and encourage those things in people’s lives. Thus, the members of a church that believes in Universalism move from knowledge-based salvation to practical healing of relationships with other people. Which I would think is an even higher calling than personal salvation by believing the right things.

Does that mean, then, that all religions are equal? that they all lead to the same place? Unfortunately, all religions are not equal; not all religions lead to healing and helping relationships with other people. Keep in mind that aside from the practical aspects of a religion, the good things it does or the evil things it does, its supernatural claims remain unverifiable. The Islamic terrorist who cuts off a journalist’s head in pursuit of his religious goals, whether for the glory of his god or the establishment of his caliphate, is judged by us on his actions rather than his beliefs. However sincerely that person may believe that he has the truth and is following the dictates of those beliefs, those beliefs are still unverifiable so the actions must be what we judge.

Sadly, many contemporary people feel that there’s no place for judging other people’s actions. But the reality is that everyone has to make those kinds of judgments; those who say that we should not judge are themselves judging. Hypocrisy does no one any good in the long run. You probably can’t judge someone’s sincerity of belief or determine whether a belief has caused a certain action. But the action remains, and everyone still is responsible for his or her actions. In any society, actions must be examined and judged as to whether they help build up or tear down.

Needless to say, from a Christian point of view such things are not arrived at by a literal reading of the Bible. In fact, almost no one actually interprets the Bible literally. Not even the writers and those who first received the writings of the Bible books. A good example is the doctrine of hell. Some denominations hold very high authoritative views of the Bible but don’t accept that there is an eternally burning hell. Others believe that hell is not fire but just separation from God. Hell serves as a good example because there is no evidence in the real world to support one view of it or another. Most of the many supernatural events and ideas contained in the Bible have no real-world evidence to back them up. So the Bible is probably the least problematic of the foregoing reasons for a universalist view.

Where does this leave the universalist? Universalists recognize that there are numerous different ways for people to draw meaning from their religion. A fundamentalist requires a strict set of rules to be followed. He finds comfort in his “knowledge.” His belief is a special kind of knowing. Liberal Christians find more comfort in being able to reason out what they should and should not do. The problem comes when one’s beliefs cause danger and threats to other people. This we see most clearly now in Islamic factions. But at one time or another, we have seen such beliefs on display in Roman Catholic Christians or Protestant Christians, such as their persecution of Mormons. (Mormons themselves persecuted others; e.g., the Mountain Meadows Massacre.)

One of the important Bible verses applicable here is “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). We judge evil and good by actions, and that is not always easy. America drops an atomic bomb that kills over 100,000 people but ends a war which very likely would have killed millions more. Some evil can result in good. Joseph was sold into slavery that turned out for the good of both Israel and Egypt. But society agrees about numerous other evils, such as pedophilia, taking innocent people hostage for ransom, etc. Stoning or beheading homosexuals is evil; it is not evil to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. In free and democratic governments laws can be changed when enough people want the laws changed. Disagreeing with a law is not evil either. A motorcycle operator may not agree with a helmet law, but that does not make him evil; it depends on the law. A sharia law Islamist may disagree with a law of murder so that he can perform an honor killing. That very well could be evil. There are going to be many factors to consider and no one is going to escape this life without judging such things and making decisions. The case has to be made citing evidence and reason; a belief in something unknowable should carry the least weight in any decision process.

Something else is probably pretty important and is paid a lot of attention by people when they talk about their Christianity – a relationship with God. This idea is mentioned a lot but is very ill-defined. You are supposed to establish and maintain something entirely foreign to every human being, namely, a relationship with someone not here, with someone you can’t see or hear or touch. Every other relationship we have includes our being able to see and hear or write back and forth, to communicate in some type of direct matter. Thus, when the traditional Christian talks about a relationship with God, he is not using the term in any of its practical applications to people. This is really a serious problem in terms of language and in terms of understanding God. The best that Christian religions can say about this relationship and communication is that God wrote us a letter a couple thousand years ago that we call the Bible. Or perhaps when you ponder something you will get a “burning in your bosom,” as the Mormons would say. Or maybe it is the still small voice that speaks to you, but how do you tell that voice from your own voice in your thoughts? We are left in a very confused position. Those who claim to have more truth than any other religion must realize that they may not know as much as they think they do – about God, about themselves or others, and certainly about the future.

Practically every paragraph above deserves its own article and I would encourage those interested to explore the topics further, even though on first glance something such as universalism seems to be both a dangerous concept and a greatly expanded conception of the love of God.

1Quoted from William Barkley: A Spiritual Autobiography, pg. 65, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1977.

21 Corinthian 13:12, KJV

Originally published on Adventist Today Online January 13 2015 https://atoday.org/universalism/

Just published here so it does not get lost.