Facebooks laughable fact-checking

 So this is an excerpt from the Facebook Fact check on the Literature Review of the lockdowns on covid-19 mortality. Their claim is that it “Independent fact-checkers reviewed the information and said it was missing context and could mislead people.”

Those so-called independent fact-checkers are mostly supported by Facebook and Tik-Tok and some other Leftwing organizations and private donors who donated in 2016. Yes not too updated there are they and they are not at all objective. For example, here they complain about the use of the word lockdown.

“Another point of contention was the paper’s definition of a lockdown. A lockdown is typically defined as a measure that requires people to stay at home and avoid activity outside the home involving public contact. However, the authors defined a lockdown as “the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI)”. Non-pharmaceutical interventions are measures apart from taking medicine and vaccination. This means that simply making isolation for infected people mandatory or imposing a mask mandate would count as a lockdown.”

From the original:

[We use “NPI” to describe any government mandate which directly restrict peoples’ possibilities. Our definition does not include governmental recommendations, governmental information campaigns, access to mass testing, voluntary social distancing, etc., but do include mandated interventions such as closing schools or businesses, mandated face masks etc. We define lockdown as any policy consisting of at least one NPI as described above.4]

 Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist and professor at Imperial College London, pointed out that “by that definition, the UK has been in permanent lockdown since 16th of March 2021, and remains in lockdown – given it [remains] compulsory for people with diagnosed COVID-19 to self-isolate for at least 5 days.”

 Samir Bhatt, a professor of statistics and public health at Imperial College London, likewise expressed similar concerns about the definition used in the paper, saying, “The most inconsistent aspect is the reinterpreting of what a lockdown is […] For a meta-analysis using a definition that is at odds with the dictionary definition (a state of isolation or restricted access instituted as a security measure) is strange.”

[Actually the dictionary definition is: “b: a temporary condition imposed by governmental authorities (as during the outbreak of an epidemic disease) in which people are required to stay in their homes and refrain from or limit activities outside the home involving public contact (such as dining out or attending large gatherings)”] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lockdown

That being said, when it came to their analysis, the authors applied the usual definition of a lockdown, as Bhatt pointed out: “The authors then further confuse matters when in Table 7 they revert to the more common definition of lockdown.”

So a table that breaks down the studies by NPI suddenly becomes reverting to the more common definition by having a heading that says: Lockdown(complete/partial).  As usual Facebook fact-checks are garbage!

Doctrines define relationship in the church

There may actually be some hope that the Seventh-day Adventist church is waking up from their self induced delusions. Recently the Adventist Review in an article my Andy Nash actually admitted that Adventists are leaving the church due to not believing Adventist doctrine. Up until now he points out people left, and yes they left in a big way, over relationship issues. He writes of the past this way:

Past studies indicated that if someone left the Adventist Church, it was almost always because of bad experiences or relationships, not because they changed their beliefs.

In a 1998 report, “Why Do Adventists Quit Coming to Church?” prepared by the Center for Creative Ministry, Adventist researcher Monte Sahlin wrote: “Three out of four leave for reasons having to do with their relationships with people and groups, while less than one in five leave because they no longer believe in some teaching of the church.”

Then he goes on to write about a new study:

“The study, “Former Seventh-day Adventist Perceptions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” was conducted in 2011 by Southern Adventist University’s School of Business under the direction of marketing professor Lisa Goolsby. Goolsby was approached by Pastor Jerry Arnold and member Ken DeFoor of the Collegedale, Tennessee, Community church about exploring the reasons members are leaving the church. More than 600 former Adventists from throughout the U.S. were invited to answer questions online; 190 participated.

When asked why they quit attending the Adventist Church, 49 percent of respondents cited disagreement or disenchantment with Adventist doctrine, while another 10 percent cited their own lifestyle choices being out of harmony with church teachings. Only 38 percent of responses cited a bad personal experience or “other” reason for leaving. (The respondents were able to cite more than one reason.)

When respondents were invited to give open-ended feedback about their departure from the Adventist Church, 68 percent of the comments concerned Adventist doctrine, 47 percent concerned judgmental attitudes or other problems within the church, 31 percent concerned cofounder Ellen G. White, and 15 percent concerned legalism. (The respondents were able to submit multiple comments, which were then categorized.) “

Now for some analysis. First that last paragraph above. 68% of comments concerned Adventist doctrine and another 31% Ellen White. As most know Ellen White as a prophet is included in the 28 fundamental beliefs of Adventism. So of the comments received it would be more telling to say that 68+11= 79% we related to doctrines of the Adventist church.

In fact it really appears that those claiming relationship issues as the previous reason for Adventists leaving the Adventist church is probably inaccurate as well. So if we search for the 1998 report “Why Do Adventists Quit Coming to Church?” we would probably find a similar gloss over the real reason for the relationship problems. But unless you are connected to some Adventist school you are not likely to find the 1998 report. So I can't really comment on its methodology or conclusions. But there is an article that seems to draw heavily from the report.

The Seventh-day Adventist church puts out a study guide, the Ifollow Discipleship Series in their lesson plan entitled Member Care: Reconnecting they write the following:

Here are some depressing statistics: In most Adventist Churches across North America, typical Sabbath attendance is equal to about 50 percent to 55 percent of the total num-ber of members on the books. A number of churches have completed a name-by-name analysis of their entire membership list and found that typically a third of the members have not attended even once in the past 12 months. “Shut-ins” were not counted in this percentage.

A survey of active members found that 72 percent report that they have a relative or friend who used to be an active member of the Adventist Church but has since dropped out. Dr. Roger Dudley, director of the Institute of Church Ministry at Andrews University, followed a random sample of 13 and 14-year-olds from Adventist families for 10 years, until they were 24 and 25 years of age. About 65 percent had left the Church over those ten years and only 10 percent had returned later, or a net loss of more than half of our young people. It is estimated that there are one or two million former, inactive and “fringe” Adventists in North America and about 500,000 active members who attend at least once a month. Why do we have such a big dropout problem? Ten major studies have been completed by Adventist researchers since the mid-1970s and much has been learned that can provide some answers. Most grew up in the Adventist faith, and were not converts from evangelism. The most common “dropout” is an adult under 50. The median age of drop- outs is 40. The median age of members is 51.

A survey of the general public conducted by the Center for Creative Ministry asked: “Have you ever heard of or read about the Seventh-day Church?” Seven in ten of those over 50 said “Yes,” but only 58 percent of those 30 to 49 years of age; 35 percent of those 18 to 29; and a disappointing 10% of those under 18. Clearly, the Adventist Church

is not connecting with new generations of Americans, even those raised in its own families and schools. And it’s likely that some of the above reasons, especially worship and music style, have something to do with it.

Another place where we’re clearly failing to minister effectively is when people face storms in their lives. Dropouts are three times as likely as active members to be divorced and remarried, and four times as likely to be divorced and single. They are more likely to report stressful life events and moves from one home to another. Yet surely the church is the place where someone facing a major life crisis can most expect to be truly heard, held, and comforted!

Six in ten former members had a non-member spouse as compared with 28 percent of the active members. Did members make a concerted effort to make friends with the non-member spouses, without making it look like they only wanted to add them to the books?

Here are some reasons these former members give for why they left the church: “There is too much politics in the Adventist church [and] church leaders are more concerned with the number of baptisms than the people baptized. The church has too many rules and regulations. Adventists think they can work their way into heaven, and the church is too organized.” They did not feel accepted by the other church members. “The coldness of church members influenced them toward leaving the church, also bigotry, hypocrisy, and judgmental attitudes.” They may express a lack of Adventist friends, and a lack of visits from church members and pastors.

A significant number leave because of dissatisfaction with local church leaders; there is a perception of a lack of sympathy by church leaders for their problems.

In other words, no matter what the life crisis or the reason for leaving, the bottom line is, dropouts are people who never bonded with the core group of their congregation. Two out of three, while they were active members, did not have an office or volunteer role in the congregation. They report few visits by church members or pastors, even while they

were still regular attenders.

Three out of four leave for reasons having to do with their relationships with people and groups; while less than one in five leave because they no longer believe in some teaching of the church. Often it’s for reasons that have already been outlined above. Problems arose which were not addressed, and the person just slipped away. The sad fact is, what most

likely happened back at church is that people shook their heads, assumed the person “wasn’t really committed,” and continued to bring names up as prayer requests, but did not do anything.

Here is the key, in their analysis 75% leave over relationship issues, the last paragraph above says that the reasons are mainly those outlined above and can be summed up as people at the church assuming the person “wasn’t really committed”. Why would they be assumed to not be committed? Because much of what they classed as relationship issues were doctrinally related and the relationship strain came because the person questioned or didn't tow the line of necessary belief in some perceived Adventist fundamental. Take a look at the reasons listed earlier in the quoted material from Ifollow. Let us list those reasons:

1. There is too much politics in the Adventist church

2. Church leaders are more concerned with the number of baptisms than the people baptized.

3. The church has too many rules and regulations.

4. Adventists think they can work their way into heaven,

5. The church is too organized.”

6 They did not feel accepted by the other church members. “The coldness of

church members influenced them toward leaving the church, also bigotry, hypocrisy, and

judgmental attitudes.”

7. They may express a lack of Adventist friends, and a lack of visits from church members and pastors.

There is something that seems to underline most of those reasons. The politics of the church is about agreeing with the church, that will affect how well you fit in the church if you are in or out. Leaders concerned with numbers instead of dealing with issues and questions is again related to doctrine. Rules and regulations are supposedly Biblically derived so again doctrinal. They did not feel accepted, which is again the politics of being in the right group, the one that assumes they have the truth if you are not part of them then those who think they have the truth treat the outsiders coldly. And lastly Adventist friends lacking because they have not been taken into the political power in the church that is endorsed and given power by the leadership of the Adventist church which naturally support loyalty. From my experience it does appear that since the 70's it has been doctrinally based relationship problems that moved people out of the Adventist church for the most part.

Now let me give you a very recent example of how this works using my favorite example of foolish Adventism. Stephen Foster on Atoday.com newest article.

It makes about as much sense (to me) for a Seventh-day Adventist Christian to challenge the inspiration and authority of Ellen White as it does for a Calvinist to challenge the theological authority/bona fides of John Calvin, or a Lutheran of Luther. Yet some members of the voluntary Christian sect or denomination which was co-founded by White—whose commentary on the Bible and whose exegeses and interpretation of the Bible are the result of a prophetic gifting of God—routinely reject her messages (and/or reject the reality of her gifting).

Contradictorily and ironically, some of these individuals believe that they have been given the same or similar gifting; and that, since they live in the present, their gifting is representative of present truth—even though their “truth” may deny or contradict some of what White wrote in great detail.

I view all such claims as bogus at best; and, quite frankly, actually have a much stronger negative opinion of them.

More candidly in my opinion, the ultimate purpose of all efforts to discredit Ellen White is the purposeful destruction of the Advent movement generally, and of its interpretation of the Third Angel’s message in particular.

(Now, of course, I could be wrong; but I’d wager everything that I’m not.)

Basically SDA’s and those who are not SDA have differences with regard to interpretations—and implications resulting from interpretations—of the books of Genesis, Daniel, and The Revelation. This is no different at all than the differences between Adventist conservatives and liberals.

So what are we to do when we fundamentally disagree with what ‘we’ represents? Can those who fundamentally disagree remain together? Can a divided house somehow remain standing?
 

Inspiration provides the following guidance:
“Christ's servants are grieved as they see true and false believers mingled in the church. They long to do something to cleanse the church. Like the servants of the householder, they are ready to uproot the tares. But Christ says to them, ‘Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.’ He then continues the Ellen White quote.

Now is there any question how such a person will treat those with questions about Ellen White or what the meaning Adventists put on the 3 angels messages or any other interpretation? Such people are tares, at best they are not committed at worst they are agents of evil seeking to destroy the church, after all loyalty to the church is the key to their thinking. To disagree with a doctrine, to acknowledge an old earth or realities of evolution etc is to attempt to destroy the SDA church.

It is rather simple doctrines inform how one relates to others. The remnant mentality, the we have the truth and unless you accept it you are evil will lead to broken relationships. But possibly the Adventist church is beginning to realize just what they have produced with all of the Stephen Fosters that they have filled their churches with. To late for millions of us though...then again just realizing they have a problem is far from actually fixing the problem.

If literal Creation ain't true?

The Adventist Review continues upon its course of fundamentalism with the article from Mark A. Kellner the news editor of the Adventist Review. In his article entitled If the Creation Account Isn't True... he presents his best evidence why the Genesis 1 account is true:

If the Bible account of Creation isn’t true, as Giberson and Stephens imply in offering to “incorporate” Darwinism in Christian faith, what must logically follow?

If there’s no Creation . . .
. . . where, and how, did sin enter the world?
. . . why do we need a Savior?
. . . from what did God, if He even exists, rest?
. . . why should we rest if, absent Creation, there’s nothing from which God rested?
. . . how can we believe anything else in the Bible?

Let us first define Darwinism since it seems for many Adventists it is a scary word with meaning that they really must not know.

A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Darwin's ideas have been refined and modified by subsequent researchers, but his theories still form the foundation of the scientific understanding of the evolution of life. Darwinism is often contrasted with another theory of biological evolution called Lamarckism, based on the now-discredited ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Is natural selection incompatible with Christianity? It has considerable evidence to indicate the genetic action of natural selection, why should it not be able to be incorporated into Christianity. Do we have trouble incorporating Electronics or Physic into Christianity? But apparently biological science is not acceptable to many Adventists and of course to Christian Fundamentalists.

Let us take a closer look at the reasons Mark Kellner gives us:

If there is no Genesis 1-3 literal Creation story “. . . where, and how, did sin enter the world?”

You will notice that I did not say as Kellner deceptively said, “If there’s no Creation” because even if one is a theistic evolutionist or an Intelligent Design believer there is still a creation, the how is simply not known, it does not mean there was not a first cause or creation event. But as you read the fundamentalists you will see that they are very manipulative and love to distort the beliefs of others. That is understandable...when you have a weak theory you need to support it and promote it as best you can and for them the best way is to distort information.

Where did sin enter the world? According to the Genesis 1-3 creation story there is no sin...sin is not mentioned until the Cain and Abel story in Gen 4:7. So we have to read the sin into the story based upon subsequent information. But let us assume that the actions in the story are taken as disobedience which is sin, where did sin enter the world?

The answer is in Eden which is located:

Gen 2:10-15 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. (NIV)

Where is or was that you may ask? No one knows. So the first answer the where is unknown, we don't know where. “How” is his next question. The answer assuming the sin was found in the act of eating the forbidden fruit is to be found in the temptation of the couple in Eden by the most crafty of creatures the talking serpent! You may wonder where do talking serpents come from? A good question we don't find many talking animals in the world or even in the pages of the Bible. This serpent then seems to be the instigator of sin because he contradicts God (later in the book of Revelation we read of the serpent of old as a reference to Satan, but Satan was unknown in the Jewish religion until much later, so to understand the story let us look at it from the perspective of those who heard it). So the how for Mark Kellner is sin came because a man and woman of relatively little experience decided to believe a talking snake and follow its arguments (remember Satan is not a part of the story until several thousands of years later). How comfortable are you with that as the story for how sin entered the world? A talking snake that not only spoke the human language but who happened to be in that particular tree at that time with those particular insinuations about God. I suppose if you are comfortable with that you will be just as comfortable with God expelling them from Eden for this one mistake instead of teaching them about what truth is and what lies are and why God may have more reason to be believed then a talking snake.

His next point, why do we need a Savior? Again there is no savior or mention of a savior in the first several chapters of Genesis. There is an announcement of the human superiority to the snake, at least after the snake is cursed for being such a crafty creature. The snake is cursed to crawl on its belly, nothing is said of it losing it ability to talk however which really seemed to be the root of the problem. But with the curse the descendent's will be able to stomp on the heads of the snakes:

Gen 3:14-15 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." (NIV) Actually many people take this verse as a Messianic prophecy. However it is never in the Bible, the old or new Testament used in any way as a reference to the Messiah. That is a later view developed later during the time of the Early Church Fathers, which is where a lot of our traditions come from, even though many of them are purely fanciful ideas. Ultimately the Genesis story says nothing about a Savior or our need for a Savior.

His third point, “from what did God, if He even exists, rest?” According to the story He rested from speaking, because that was the method of creation, “And God said”. The Genesis account says nothing about anyone else needed to rest. So his fourth point is once again not something from the Creation account.

“Why should we rest if, absent Creation, there’s nothing from which God rested?” According to Jesus the Sabbath rest was made for man not because God rested. Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: (KJV) Even if you use one of the versions of the ten commandments it is rest from human work that is given as the reason. Then there is the common sense argument that one should take some time away from working everyday. Could we not answer the question from experience? Or must we like him make it appear that it comes from a creation account that says nothing about people resting? When people ask questions which have nothing to do with the real subject you can be pretty sure that are desperately searching for something to support their preconceived idea.

Kellner's final point in his list is “how can we believe anything else in the Bible?” Now if he really has no ability to tell an analogy from a metaphor or a parable or a symbol, then in fact he must have serious problems interpreting the Bible and everything else that is written or spoken. Should we ask him how can we believe anything of Jesus Christ because he told the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

Luke 16:20-31

At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' "'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" (NIV)

If you are going to take something in the Bible literally that sounds way more literal then the talking snake story. But of course the point of the story is that people don't just change because they see a miracle. And that is really the point of the Genesis creation story, the miracle of creation does not make us believe, whether as literal 24 our days or some other method. God was there and He was the cause, God is the power of the creation, it is not about how it was done. When we see the evidence from nature we simply can't ignore it to cling to the simplistic explanations used to help a privative man understand that there was more to this life then what they could see. Which is such an important lesson because the more we learn the more we find that there are vasts areas of information that we could never see before. We keep exploring and learning more, it makes no sense to me that God did not expect us to continue to grow in understanding of our world and universe. He would not expect us to cling to a simplistic story made for people who did not even know that they lived on a planet, let alone one that was not the end of the universe itself.

So please don't let the Fundamentalism take over the Adventist church even though that is our current leaderships desire.

Educatetruth.com evidence that truth is not sought there

The Adventist Review recently offered their take on the controversy over science and traditional Adventism at La Sierra University. To which La Sierra University published a letter of their own noting the numerous deficiencies and what appears to be biased reporting of the Review. Now, that the Adventist Review is biased toward traditional Adventism and Fundamentalism is hardly a surprise to anyone. Most of us know that the Adventist Review makes no effort to be objective either in reporting or in their selection of articles or writers. That is why you hardly ever read both sides of a story or multiple ideas about a particular belief or doctrine even though the multiple ideas are present in the Adventist community. After all that is the major problem with traditionalism and fundamentalism. It is either their way or heresy.

The La Sierra University letter presented a very good example of this limited perspective found in the traditional/fundamentalist side of things when the letter reported the incidents that occurred between one of their Professors and the website EducateTruth.com. Here is what the letter said under point 8:

The most recent example of the attack website’s questionable practices is a posting on the site made by Dr. Larry Blackmer, the North American Division vice president for education. Dr. Blackmer stated in his post that a number of his remarks made at a Lake Union education summit “had been taken seriously out of context” by the website. Dr. Blackmer’s words reveal the seriousness of his feelings regarding the web editor’s actions. “I feel betrayed by this website,” Dr. Blackmer wrote. “I have explained the context of my remarks, yet you have taken my remarks and used them in a way that demonstrates exactly what I was speaking against.”

Dr. Blackmer, in his post to the website, went on to share his thoughts on the creation/evolution debate going on in Adventist higher education and to offer his support for La Sierra at the current time. The attack website removed Dr. Blackmer’s post within hours. It went on to privately offer to him a heavily edited version of his statement that the website would find acceptable. The edited version contained roughly half of Dr. Blackmer’s original thoughts and removed his direct challenges to the website for posting his comments inappropriately. Dr. Blackmer did not authorize the posting of their revision.

It is a sad fact that those who think themselves with the most truth often fear the most truth. Those who seek to control information seek to control the population. It is true in churches and denominations just as it is true in society and politics. When you know so much that you can’t listen to the other side you really don’t know much at all.

Foot washing ritual; Why Really?

So the Adventist Review has a new editorial on the Foot Washing ritual that the Adventists continue as if it has some relevance. I covered this earlier when the Review covered the topic before. Click the following link to read the article from 2007 Foot Washing - Symbolism over Substance

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.

Review It's Ok Not to be a Seventh-day Adventist part 2

It's Ok Not to be a Seventh-Day Adventist by Teresa and Arthur Beem review Part 2. Part 1 follows this article, again it is a blog thing, If you want to begin with part 1 click here or page down to the next article which is part 1.

Most all books that write about Adventism begin with William Miller and the Millerites. They are an important link in the beginning of Adventism. The book delve into the history of Miller and the Millerites in chapters 2-4. The history while short is written in an interesting manner which is important because it appears to me many people pay little attention to history. History tells us a lot about ourselves as well as our forefathers. In this case the 1800’s spirit of revival and fanaticism which was present in much of America as well as England. The book relates some of the fanaticism of Millerites, the behavior that got many of them kicked out of their respective churches and it covers the heartbreaking results of the great disappointment, the insanity and suicides and the animosity that people felt toward the deceived Millerites before and after 1844.

Unfortunately the authors again lose objectivity when relating the historical information, choosing to ignore the actual feelings of the Millerites and ignoring why they did what they did. That is just as important when dealing with history as the dates and names of people. Here the book falls short. The books states in chapter 2 page 36:

Each church service they disrupted to spread their message of “repent for the hour of Judgement [sic] is at hand” brought expulsion and new cries of victimhood. Millerites saw themselves as “saints” and the masses who rejected them “manifested the spirit of Satan in their opposition to the message” They claimed the reason the mockers and scoffers rejected their message was because “Evil angels urged them on to harden their hearts and to reject every ray of light from heaven, that they might be fastened in the snare of Satan” 60 [ Footnote to Ellen White Early Writings page 238]

The Millerites exhibited little of the love or spiritual fruits for which an authentic movement of God is to be recognized. The midnight cry was to them, God “separating a people from the world , to purify, make white and try, and thus make them ready for the coming of the Lord” 61 Yet in their proclamation of Judgment to the world, they gave Jesus Christ and his gospel peripheral treatment.

That would have been a good place to use all of Ellen White’s quote to show how it was their pious concern to live holy lives for God that lead them to make the harsher statements. How things connect to the gospel is always a very subjective thing. You can make most anything fit into what you think the gospel is. To say that the idea of judgment has nothing to do with the gospel is not very accurate to the Biblical literature. The writer cannot simply ignore the Methodist, the Puritan traditions the proceeded the Millerites and expect that those ideas were not somehow incorporated into the actions of the Millerites when they review their history. Even with the call to repentance in the first paragraph it is clear that they were trying to convey their understanding of the gospel as well as the necessity for repentance to meet their Lord. When looking at the history it is also important to realize that this was predominately a Christian country most people where raised in Christian homes with some knowledge of Christian concepts, it may have only been cultural but it was not the great melting pot of religion that we see in America today. There were certainly pockets of non Christian religions, such as Native Americans and immigrant Chinese but the Millerites did not seem to calculate past their local situations. They did not seem to think about the vast world and how Christianity had not penetrated large areas yet.

Chapter 3 “1844: Look Up For Your Redemption Draweth Nigh” recounts the devastation of the Great Disappointment. The chapter is pretty good again however like the previous chapter on William Miller the authors seem to hold Miller as a prophet or at least that his calculation of the return of Christ was a prophecy. Page 49 begins:

“Was Miller Another Jonah?

Adventists argue that Miller’s prophecy about 1844 was like Jonah’s.101 It was a conditional prophecy; its fulfillment resting on the obedience or disobedience of its audience. But are the two scenarios alike? A comparison shows that Miller denied God had commanded him to preach; Jonah was commanded. Nineveh was spared because of the genuine repentance; the relieved people glorified God. When the people of God repented and listened to Miller, there was only tragedy and disappointment—loss of faith, even suicides. Why would God punish those who had sincerely turned to Him and given all for Him? Miller’s prophecy did not bring glory to God.”

If your like me (someone who grew up as an Adventist) this is the first time you have heard that Miller’s 1844 return of Christ was a conditional prophecy. That is simply not what Adventism teaches. They teach that Miller was right on the date wrong on what was to happen on that date. (interrelates to the Investigative Judgment doctrine). The footnote above is to James White’s book Life Incidents page 188-9. And it does not equate Miller’s 1844 as a prophecy to Jonah. It says:

"And we as much believe that we have done the will of God in thus sounding the alarm, as we believe that Jonah did when he entered into Nineveh a day's journey, and cried, saying, `Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown.' Nineveh was not then overthrown; nor has the Lord yet wrought deliverance in the earth, nor the inhabitants of the world fallen.

… "So we believe that this last cry has been a test; and that with our views of duty, we should as much have sinned against God, had we refrained from giving that message, as Jonah did when `he rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord;' that we should as much have sinned, had we refused to give heed to it, as the Ninevites would in refusing to repent at his preaching; and that all who are angry that we have preached a time which has not been realized, are as guilty as Jonah was when he was angry and prayed the Lord to take his life from him, because God had spared that great city."

To James White it is the test of doing what he believes God wanted them to do that is the same, not that Miller is to be compared to a prophet. In some fairness against the many times the book refers to Miller’s interpretation of Daniel and Revelation passages to calculate the Second Coming as a prophecy the book notes that is not how Miller thought. In Chapter 4 “The Remnant Spark Reawakened” page 54 they write:

“Miller publicly admitted that they had been wrong about the prophecy….”I readily confess I was misled in my calculation…” But Miller’s confession was tainted with blame on others:

I confess I have been thus mistaken as to the definite time; but what of that?...I was deceived in the number and character of those who, without study, argument or reason, rejected the (to me at least) glorious news of the coming Savior…I am thankful to God, although much and sorely disappointed, that I never pretended to be divinely inspired. 120

Miller seemed rather cavalier even though his message had cause [sic] widespread despair, death and destruction. He attempted to preach afterward on the soon coming judgement, [sic] but his health failed rapidly. He rejected what became of his movement as it morphed into the different Advent sects, one being the Seventh-day Adventists. He rejoined the Baptist church and died in 1848, just four years after his failed prophecy.”

Here even though the authors are quoting from Miller where he states he was not divinely inspired they twice call Miller’s message a prophecy. Miller was trying to interpret the Bible prophecies he was not making a prophecy. His prediction was based upon the interpretation he made of the Bible passages it was not however a prophecy as in a God given message. The book is amazingly negligent in not recognizing the lasting change that Miller’s message did for Christianity. It moved the majority of Christian denominations away from the post millennial view to the pre millennial view of the Second Coming. A massive shift from the idea that the world would get better and better till it had a 1000 year reign of Christianities dominance and prosperity at the end of which Christ would return. To the view that Christ could return at any time to rescue His people. The immanent return which now is held by most fundamentalist and Evangelical churches. Certainly not solely due to Miller, but a convergence of thought between Edward Irving in England and Miller’s Preaching in the U.S certainly popularized the concept once again. It is to that immanent second coming that Miller’s quote above is addressing. What the authors see as blame for others is his concern against the post millennial view which he thinks violates scripture. What Miller actually says without the ellipses follows, the material in red is what is quoted in Beem’s book:

During the warm months he attempted no public labors; and his pen, even, seems to have lain idle. The next communication received from him was published in the Advent Herald of September 9, 1846, as follows:

"DEAR READER:- Permit me to address you once more, by calling your attention to the great events which the word of God declares are soon to come to pass, that I may faithfully perform my duty; and that you may be able to answer, in that way which will be satisfactory to your own soul, in the day when God shall judge the secret thoughts of men by Jesus Christ.

"In my former communications to you on this subject, - which is near my heart, fills my soul at times with indescribable joy and consolation, and is big with the hope of soon, very soon, coming into possession of immortality and eternal life, - I readily confess I was misled in my calculations; not by the word of God, nor by the established principles of interpretation I adopted, but by the authorities which I followed in history and chronology, and which have been generally considered worthy of the fullest confidence. And I fear many of you have been blinded to your own interest, which may be of eternal consequences to you, by hasty expressions of full confidence in these authors, before I had carefully and more extensively examined the subject to which I had, in the simplicity of my heart, called your candid and serious attention.

"The testimony of historians, as to the dates of events, cannot affect the testimony of the word of God, that, at certain periods from these events, his promises shall be fulfilled. They may fail, but his word cannot fail. I confess I have been thus mistaken as to the definite time; but what of that? Will you or any man dare to take the ground that, because Mr. Miller or any other man made a mistake, the word of God is not true? No, no. There would be nothing in that worthy of being called an argument.

"But, above all things else, I was deceived in the number and character of those who, without study, argument, or reason, rejected the (to me at least) glorious news of the coming Saviour. Neither did I suppose that a man or woman could have been found on the habitable earth, who loved the Lord Jesus Christ and believed the Bible, that would reject the Second Advent or the redemption of the body; the final salvation of the soul, or the inheritance of eternal life, at the appearing of Jesus Christ. Yet facts warrant me to say, I find more than one-half who profess Christianity denying one or more of these fundamental pillars of the Christian hope.

"I am thankful to God, although much and sorely disappointed, that I never pretended to be divinely inspired, but always directed you to the same source from which I obtained all the information I then had and now possess on this glorious and heart-cheering subject. [You will notice in Beem’s quote they end the sentence after inspired.] Let me, then, exhort you, kind reader, by the value of truth, by the worth of your own soul, and the love of life everlasting, to examine your Bible on the coming of Christ, the redemption of the body, the salvation of your soul, and the everlasting inheritance. Lay by all prejudice, all opinions not founded on the plain and clear declarations of God's word; keep close to that rule which will thoroughly furnish you, and make you perfect in every good work; examine for yourselves; let no man deceive you in these days of deception, when the devil has come, deceiving, if possible, the very elect. Now is the time for you to exercise the `sober second thought;' a good time for you to come over on the side of truth, to choose the good, and refuse the evil. I beseech you do not say, `Nay, I will not examine!' Do not say, `I am well enough off, and I have got the truth!' Perhaps you have; if so, it will not hurt you to reexamine, for every reexamination only makes the truth the brighter, our evidence more clear, and our love for the truth more fervent; it helps to establish our faith and hope, and keeps us from wavering. (Sylvester Bliss, Memoirs of William Miller page 350-51)

One sentence and two partial sentences from three separate paragraphs; placed together, used to pretend that Miller was cavalier and blaming others. These are critical errors in judgment by the authors, quotes need to be used in context, and the use of ellipses should not be to avoid important parts of the original author’s intent but used to avoid having to include extraneous material. Certainly you don’t put a period where the original was just a comma and not indicate that the sentence in fact continues. The authors follow the above quote by mentioning that according to a letter to the editor of a Newspaper that Miller was charged with financial misconduct. Really a letter to the editor? Might be an interesting bit of trivia but letters to editors are notoriously irresponsible, as much today as they were in the 1800’s. If space is so important to the authors of this book, they should give better context of quoted material and less space to rumors.

As someone who has done some research on just when did the Adventist coin and start accepting the idea of the Investigative Judgment I was disappointed that this book does not deal with the concept very well. Many Adventist know that James White did not accept the doctrine for years yet the book makes it appear as though it was instantly accepted. The book writes on page 56:

“Hiram began spreading the “Sanctuary Doctrine” and an expansion of it called the “Investigative Judgment” in his Adventist magazine Day Dawn. In it, he more fully explained that Christ’s atonement on the cross had not been complete. Christ’s second step to our salvation was that He was to review the records in heaven, located in the holy of holies, and begin the process of judging mankind. In 1844, Christ started the judgment of the godly dead and was working up to those living in the present. “

No footnote is provided to this statement or any quote from Edson’s Day Dawn magazine. Which leaves us with very little written material on the origin and incorporation of this peculiar Adventist doctrine. The best I have seen was an article from the Adventist Review that was printed in the appendix of Dr. Desmond Ford’s dissertation Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment You can read the document posted on a discussion forum here. Some good research would have been very welcome in Beem’s book, unfortunately little is supplied and what there is, I think is is questionable on this issue.

The next section will deal with the chapter on Ellen White. As the reader can tell I have already noted enough problems with this book to cause most Adventists to reject it out of hand. I hate to see that happen but I am certain it will if the book continues to be published and distributed without revision. I am sure this is not the kind of review the authors expected from me but I hope that they will consider my comments carefully. I understand the need to write persuasively but more important than being persuasive is being truthful and accurate. When a writer has some important things to say it is important that they don’t allow poor research and/or documentation to poison their work.

Review It's Ok Not to be a Seventh-day Adventist part 1

The authors of a new book entitled It's Ok Not to be a Seventh-Day Adventist by Teresa and Arthur Beem asked me to review their book. They were kind enough to send me a copy, which is kind of a prerequisite for me as I don’t buy a lot of books and certainly I don’t buy them to review. After reading this you may realize why I don’t review a lot of books. In fact I am going to have to review this book in sections because I have several things to say about it and instead of waiting to finish the book I am going to start while things are fresh in my mind.

Right now my opinion is that this could be an important book after it is revised. I would probably think up a new title also.

To begin with there is such clear animosity against Adventism in the Preface that the book is going to be difficult for any Adventist to read further. On the cover above the title the book says “the untold history”, surely the authors don’t want only non Adventists or Ex-Adventists to hear the untold history, so why make the book’s Preface so antagonistic? On page xii of the preface the book states:

The Seventh-day Adventist church is becoming more than just an inconsequential heterodox group. Adventism is quietly cutting a wide swath across believers, causing many people to fall prey to its false teachings.

In Seventh-day Adventism evangelism, the church seeks mainstream status yet its doctrine is not mainstream. The overall thrust of their mission is aimed at people who are already Christians and their ministry is not simply gospel-oriented but focuses on obscure biblical prophecy. Adventism can be confusing because the people can be generous and charitable, so their dogma is assumed to be benign. Unfortunately, the kindness of the members does not reflect the kindness of the doctrines. This church has an eccentric history and culture based in strange, even disturbing doctrines.

So Adventism is not mainstream, ok that is fine but is there something that set’s mainstream apart, does the designation mainstream mean that mainstream churches have no false teachings, no disturbing doctrines or strange beginnings, no personality cults? In the front of the book the authors thank an Assemblies of God Pastor for his inspiration. Their beginning is about as fanatical as the Adventist church, from Brief History of the Assemblies of God:

Seymour had been a student of Charles Parham, who provided the doctrinal framework for the young Pentecostal movement. Parham’s identification in scripture of speaking in tongues as the “Bible evidence” (later called the “initial evidence”) of Spirit baptism became a defining mark of the emerging Pentecostal movement. After students at his Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas, began speaking in tongues at a prayer meeting on January 1, 1901, Parham, through his Apostolic Faith Movement, had some success in promoting the restoration of the gift of tongues. While the Apostolic Faith Movement was largely confined to the south central United States, the revival at Azusa Street catapulted Pentecostalism before a worldwide audience.

If you don’t think Azusa street was an excess of fanaticism then you need to read up on the event as well as Charles Parham. For more see Christianity without a Cross on google books. The sad fact is that Christianity has a lot of fanaticism that smooth out into denominations. Martin Luther was not all that peace loving to those who disagreed with him, nor was Calvin and certainly the Wesley’s moved into Holiness movements that probably rivaled the depression that Millerites suffered with their Great Disappointment in 1844. Methodism’s views no doubt stimulated much of the Millerites understanding just as it does Adventist’s understanding. Those are just some of the recent denominations they don’t deal with the fanaticism that preceded them.

So the preface sets up an “us against them” perspective that carries over in the book. Not really a wise method in my opinion. If you are going to deal with something as emotional as religion you had better write as objectively as possible, if you object to a position as you go through the subject objectively deal with it and present what and why you think something is wrong. Some portions of the book do this within the context of reporting the history and that is good.

The book is heavily footnoted which is incredibly important again when dealing with religion, you have to know who said what and be able to check the context since it is so easy to distort statements on religion. The problem here is the book is not footnoted sufficiently. One of the really big problems with this book is that they confusingly use “ibid”. “Ibid. all by itself means that the footnote comes from the same source and the same page as the footnote that precedes it.” The authors use of ibid while technically correct for a small document does not work for a book for example they have a work cited by author and title and page number and then the next footnote says, ibid Knight p. 190-1, the previous footnote is not to Knight, and if you look back you have to go back chapters to find what they are referring to. I still don’t know as I don’t want to waste that much time reading every footnote to find where that book is fully cited. It would be better to cite fully once in each chapter.

Another footnote problem is found with the following quote on Chapter 3 Pillar 1 Ellen G. White pages 81-2:

“Royalties from the sale of Mrs. White’s books began to rise; in fact, she became, as the White estate puts it, “quite prosperous. In terms of today’s money Mrs. White’s income would have been measured in the millions of dollars.” The books footnote then says: “Ellen G. White Published Writings Website”. Just to test that out I Googled “been measured in the millions of dollars” White – and the first citation is an anti Ellen White website entitled. Ellen White Exposed.com . No other citation from any official Ellen White or Adventist site. That is a pretty major error in citation it is also a violation of the statement that began the chapter on Ellen White.

The book introduces the history of Ellen White by saying on page 69:

“The following biographical history comes almost exclusively from the Seventh-day Adventist sources, which you can find the information online as the official Ellen White Estate website…” By beginning with such a statement and then quoting from an anti Ellen White site and attributing it to a SDA supported site is pretty sloppy.

In my next post I will continue will some comments about the section of the book on William Miller. I promise to say some more good things about the book before I rip apart some other statements. I am doing this because I want to see this book revised so that it can be effective for the benefit of both Adventists and non Adventists. I think it has potential and communicating with one of the authors, I found they live only 40 miles away from me, so maybe there is a chance.

Sunday Law preoccupation among Adventists

In a Recent letter to the Adventist Review Claude Morgan, Religious Liberty director
Greater New York Conference Manhasset, New York writes the following:

I enjoyed Michael D. Peabody’s article, “Sundae Laws” (Jul. 24, 2008). Even though I have followed the subject of Sunday laws with interest for many years, I found a lot of interesting information that was new to me. I am concerned, however, that readers might reach the wrong conclusion if they read too much into Peabody’s remark, “Most Sunday Laws are no longer enforced and are generally viewed as anachronistic.”

For years I also have been saying, “Nobody is interested in Sunday laws but Adventists.” But that is no longer true. The reality is that a renewed climate favorable to Sunday laws has been developing quietly. Two examples: In its August 2, 2004 issue, Time Magazine featured a column by Nancy Gibbs titled “And on the Seventh Day We Rested,” which nostalgically eulogized Sunday Laws. In 2006, Christianity Today, one of the most
prestigious religious periodicals in the country, also ran a column contending that Sunday laws would correct the ills of society.

While Sunday laws are not a center of focus for most people today, the climate of our culture is definitely becoming a fertile seedbed for their rebirth.

Personally I doubt his exclamation that he had been saying for years that “Nobody is interested in Sunday laws but Adventists.” Especially when citing the Christianity Today article. The article in no way indicated that there was any reason to introduce further Sunday laws, in fact it includes this quote:

"Blue laws fell because they became politically untenable," said Bradley Jacob, associate law professor at Regent University. "Not only did non-Christians find them unfair, but even Christians found them silly, archaic, and legalistic."

The article was more a news article which covered a research project. As the Article begins:

Church attendees become more likely to use drugs and drink heavily when states abolish "blue laws." So says a recent study, "The Church vs. the Mall: What Happens When Religion Faces Increased Secular Competition?" The study also found that weekly church attendance and church giving decline after states repeal blue laws, which restrict commerce and labor on Sundays.

"They aren't quitting whole hog," said Daniel Hungerman, a study author and assistant professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame. Instead, those who attend weekly might go monthly, and monthly attendees might show up just at Christmas and Easter. While church giving decreased, the study found other charities saw a corresponding increase in donations.

When a blue law is in place, non-church-goers are about 10 percent more likely to drink heavily than churchgoers. After blue laws are repealed, the gap closes to about 5 percent.

For marijuana and cocaine use, the gap nearly disappears. Non-churchgoers are 11 percent more likely to smoke pot while blue laws are in place. After repeal, the two groups look almost the same.

Other than the title, there is nothing to support Religious Liberty Director’s statement that Christianity Today “ran a column contending that Sunday laws would correct the ills of society.”

Neither does the Time article in any way call for Sunday laws, it mainly bemoans the busy lifestyle of modern America. As the concluding paragraphs state:

With progress, of course, comes backlash from those who desperately want to preserve the old ways. Mom-and-pop liquor stores in New York fought to keep the blue laws to have more time with their families. Car dealers in Kansas City, Mo., pushed for a law to make them close on Sundays so they could have a day off without losing out to competition. Chick-Fil-A, a chain of more than 1,100 restaurants in 37 states, closes on Sundays because its founder, Truett Cathy, promised employees time to "worship, spend time with family and friends or just plain rest from the work week," says the chain's website. "Made sense then, still makes sense now." Pope John Paul II even wrote an apostolic letter in defense of Sunday: "When Sunday loses its fundamental meaning and becomes merely part of a 'weekend,'" he wrote, "people stay locked within a horizon so limited that they can no longer see 'the heavens.'"

In an age with no free time, we buy it through hard choices. Do we skip church so we can sleep in or skip soccer so we can go to church or find a family ritual — cook together, read together, a Parcheesi challenge — that we treat as sacred? That way, at least some part of Sunday faces in a different direction, whether toward heaven or toward one another.

Nothing in modern America promotes the idea of Sunday laws to cause people to attend worship services on Sunday or prohibit Worship services on Saturday. For a Religious Liberty Director to make such statements as that in the above letter is to speak from a poorly informed and generally foolish position.

As to the Review Article on Sundae Laws; it is not freely available on the web other then the first paragraphs. Those sentences lead me to think the story does not give the full information about the origin of Sundae’s as that is still a hotly debated subject between Ithaca NY and Two Rivers, Wisconsin. Naturally being Adventist the Sunday Law idea is preferred: What few people realize about this simple dessert, however, is that it was actually invented as a loophole to avoid stringent Sunday laws that prevented the sale of “soda water” during the late 1800s -- http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1994