Adventist Review publishes smear terms.

I may have been too hard on the editors of Liberty Magazine and Adventist Today online. It could be that Adventists are simply incapable of being sensible editors of any publication. Consider this from the March 15 2012 Adventist Review:

No question, Genesis 1 and 2 present challenges. Bible students have been trying to work their way through the Creation account for thousands of years. The issue isn’t that the texts aren’t without difficulties; everyone knows that they are. The issue is the “solution” Seventh-day Darwinians want to impose upon them.

So who are the Seventh-day Darwinians? Is there a definition in the article by Clifford Goldstein? No, no definition. Can we find it in the dictionary or Wikipedia. Not listed there either. Maybe there is an organization called “seventh-day Darwinians” Again no.

But we can search the internet and see that the Adventist Review and Clifford Goldstein has published articles using the term before. In 2003 Goldstein wrote an article entitled Seventh-day Darwinians. No definition there either, in fact the title is the only mention in the article of Seventh-day Darwinians. Then Again in the Adventist Review again in an article by Clifford Goldstein we read another article entitled Seventh-Day Darwinians,Redux. Again I suppose that is what the Redux means, the term Seventh-Day Darwinians is only found in the title of the article, again no definition, no reference to the group known as Seventh-day Darwinians, it appears to be some kind of smear or code language. 

Should the editors be publishing articles with terms that have no definition? Or should opponents of an idea be free to title someone of a different view as with prejudicial terms. For instance should I refer to Goldstein’s articles as information geared toward Seventh-day Totalitarians? 

It is rather sad that in Adventism Darwinian has this biased negative view put forth by people like Goldstein. Darwinism actually has a dictionary definition. And it is perfectly acceptable within the bounds of Christian theology as well as science.

Dictionary.com defines Darwinism as:

the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.

 

Or the American Heritage Science Dictionary as:

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.  See Note at evolution.

The acceptance of natural selection is pretty universal among biologists, not just atheist but also Christians, numerous examples of this type of natural selection have been produced. In fact I know of one Adventist who wrote book on Dinosaurs (though not a scientifically viable opinion on dinosaurs) who uses natural selection (Darwinism) to explain the immense diversity of animal life which he asserted to occur after the world wide flood since clearly that many animals would not fit on the ark of such recorded dimensions. He is a supporter of the six literal, consecutive, contiguous, 24-hour days of recent origin creation theory as well. Would a belief in natural selection actually place him in the Seventh-day Darwinian label? I suppose it depends upon who you ask and why do you think you should even respect their answer or ability to define a term that has no definition.

So who is more foolish the writer that uses a prejudicial but meaningless term or the editor that just passes on the prejudicial but meaningless term? They seem to both be doing it multiple times, so it is difficult to say. Perhaps they are equal in their prejudice and poor reasoning capabilities. It seems The Adventist Review editors simply pass on the biases that they agree with. When editors can’t be objective then they fail at their jobs and they fail to maintain a standard of trust of the magazine. This seems to be a theme in Adventism today.

Roy Adam’s When All Else Fails Attack

In the most recent edition of the Adventist World Roy Adams has a “special feature” in which he recounts his experiences after writing his first article on William Paul Young’s book “The Shack” First he tells us how his fellow church leaders loved his article. “It was a classic” one tells him and how others wrote in to support Roy Adam’s article. He then leads on to three letters that were against his article.

The first thing we should remember is that letters to the editor are not laid out as articles themselves they are generally simply emotional statements of people for or against something or perhaps small corrections. They are not position papers and thus they are not formulated to be as persuasive and encompassing as an actual article which is intended for publication.

So Roy Adams in effect goes after the by standers in the controversy rather than dealing with the numerous articles which actually were written as counterpoint to his own article. It is perhaps the way of the weak argument to behave by going after the less well armed but in a world of propaganda which is what most of the Adventist Review has become it is one sure way to win the propaganda war. Responding to a few letters rather than to more complex arguments such as my own: See Review of William Young’s The Shack

The Shack and the Adventist Review Article.  

What is striking early on after seeing how Mr. Adams has to shore up his support from the Ministry Magazine editor who termed Adams piece a classic (which if you think about it says a lot about that editor if he thinks that article is a classic, unless he was being sarcastic) how Adams does not even realize the implication of what he wrote in his first article. For example in letter 2 he quotes the following letter and writes:

2. Reader B: “Mr. Adams begins his article by criticizing the beautiful music of Ave Maria…. [I did no such thing!]

 In fact he calls the work improper and unbiblical. He writes in his first article:

But notwithstanding the song’s valid scriptural elements (based on Luke 1), what we have here is essentially a prayer to Mary, disguised to most of us because of its Latin rendition. Would I be as moved by the piece if its words were simultaneously translated as its beautiful melody sounds in my ears? The lyrics end, as follows:

“Holy Mary, Mother of God, 

pray for us sinners now 

and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

If I allow my love for the music to blind me to the inappropriateness of its lyrics, then that would be sheer emotionalism on my part. Praying to the dead is improper and unbiblical.

At least he did note that the song has valid scriptural elements. But it certainly appears to be a criticism and to pretend he has not criticized something when clearly he has shows something wrong in his own mental processes. Beauty does not prevent the need for valid criticism of the content. But don’t pretend that no criticism was intended when it was and people can tell what you intended. Or worse yet parse your ideas to say well hey I criticized the lyrics not the music, but simply making a declaration “I did no such thing!” is disingenuous.

He then goes on to say that what he found in the three letters, again ignoring the other responses that were published throughout the Adventist network of people, Anger, embarrassment of our belief and a simplistic naïveté. Actually that is my normal feeling when reading the Adventist Review. The foolishness of articles like Adams in the Review will also foster anger and embarrassment at Adventist doctrine and leaders. For example here is how Adam’s concludes his article:

…If we’re after making solid Christians, we’d better be completely honest with our audience and not sugarcoat the evidence. To raise The Shack, de facto, to the level of sacred text is silly and naive. Imaginative fiction, however well-meaning, can never trump the Word of God. 

Not one letter writer or any article writer writing to counter Adam’s view suggested raising The Shack to the level of sacred text. So where does that idea come from? It is merely a rhetorical technique, a piece of propaganda to help him sustain his position as a wise expositor of Christian teachings. Certainly he is being naïve; he is also misrepresenting the letter writers which he has set himself against. It is deceptive and manipulative and ultimately since he avoids the real issues he is an obscurantist. But I can say it is a fitting follow up to his first article, poorly reasoned and generally worthless.

There is one final note which I will reflect on; Adam’s criticizes the unbiblical and improper lyrics of the Ave Maria. But there is an equally unbiblical and improper statement made in the Adventist World issue. It is carried on “The People’s Place” Quote of the Month. It reads:

“Eve fell because she thought there was something better. Adam fell because he thought there was no one better.”

There is nothing in the Genesis story or anywhere else in the Bible to imply that Adam fell because he thought there was no one better, i.e. Eve. What that quote does is take an Ellen White idea and raise it to a tradition read into the story and then praised to the World Adventist church. Is that really any different than what the Ave Maria does with Catholic tradition?

One thing I don’t expect to see is that the Adventist Review or World Edition will begin to start thinking critically, and that is the saddest part of all.

The Shack and the Adventist Review Article

As it turns out I was able to find a copy of the review of “The Shack” on the internet so you can see what the Adventist Review published. Present Truth appears to have gotten permission to publish the article, The Shack-What Lessons Can We Learn?

Here is the list of the 17 points the article uses. For many of you this will be completely useless as the page number of different editions varies and like any amateur review this one can’t manage to quote from the book but simply sums up her own often erroneous view of what the book is saying. The Present Truth posting has the numbers wrong on the list. I will take the liberty of renumbering the list so that I can respond with the books actual quotes, most need no further explanation.

Unfortunately, the god of the Shack and the God of the Bible are vastly dissimilar. Let’s consider seventeen of the myriad differences.

1. The god of the Shack espouses universal reconciliation, that is, everyone will be saved. (164, 217,227)
2. The god of the Shack describes a second chance to confess [sin] after death. (217)
3. The god of the Shack has no desire that non Christians become Christian. (184)
4. The god of the Shack calls religion man-created terror that causes mental turmoil and anxiety ( 181).
5. The god of the Shack does not want sorrow for sin. (186)
6. The god of the Shack attributes evil and pain to humanity’s independence and never to Lucifer. (133,134, 138,192)
7. The god of the Shack repeatedly elevates experience or subjective revelation over the Scriptures. (67,68, 206)
8. The god of the Shack denigrates absolute truth or theological certainty (205)
9. The god of the Shack suggests that submission, even mutual submission, is inherently evil. (124-125)
10. The god of the Shack promotes modalism—the non-biblical teaching that God the Father became flesh and died as well as the Son. (97,105)
11. The triune god of the Shack spoke themselves into human existence. (101)
12. The god of the Shack follows Unitarian-Universalist teaching that God is a verb, or by implication, a force. (206)
13. The god of the Shack enjoys funky music, uses vulgar and mocking expressions, and tolerates profanity in his/her presence. (90, 92, 107, 226)
14. The god of the Shack repeatedly devalues and contradicts Scripture. (68,169, 225)
15. The god of the Shack has no expectations or rules. (91, 205,208)
16. The god of the Shack allows defiant communication with the Father without the mediation of Christ Jesus. (121)
17. The god of the Shack has virtually nothing to say of sin, how to escape it, or the reality of judgment.

Lets go over some of these:

1 The god of the Shack espouses universal reconciliation; Yes I think that can be fairly drawn from the book, I grant also that it may also be fairly drawn from some Bible texts. Some other Bible texts would preclude universalism that has been a debate since the days of Origen, it seems to me there are good arguments on both sides.

2. The god of the Shack describes a second chance to confess [sin] after death:Yes in the book Mack sees a vision of reconciliation in which his abusive father is reunited with Mack. I don’t know that is really to far from reality what will Paul say to Stephen I wonder or David to Uriah?

“Daddy!” yelled Mack, and threw himself onto the man who could not even look at his son. In the howl of wind and flame, Mack took his father’s face in his two hands, forcing his dad to look him in the face so he could stammer the words he had always wanted to say: “Daddy, I’m so sorry! Daddy, I love you!” The light of his words seemed to blast darkness out of his father’s colors, turning them blood red. They exchanged sobbing words of confession and forgiveness, as a love greater than either one healed them. (Ch. 15 A FESTIVAL OF FRIENDS)

3. The god of the Shack has no desire that non Christians become Christian; “Mack, I love them. And you wrongly judge many of them. For those who are both in it and of it, we must find ways to love and serve them, don’t you think?” asked Jesus. “Remember, the people who know me are the ones who are free to live and love without any agenda.” “Is that what it means to be a Christian?” It sounded kind of stupid as Mack said it, but it was how he was trying to sum everything up in his mind. “Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian.” The idea struck Mack as odd and unexpected and he couldn’t keep himself from grinning. “No, I suppose you aren’t.”

They arrived at the door of the workshop. Again Jesus stopped. “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved.” “Does that mean,” asked Mack, “that all roads will lead to you?” “Not at all,” smiled Jesus as he reached for the door handle to the shop. “Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.” He paused. “Mack, I’ve got some things to finish up in the shop, so I’ll catch up with you later.” (Ch. 12 IN THE BELLY OF THE BEASTS)

4. The god of the Shack calls religion man-created terror that causes mental turmoil and anxiety: “What about the institution of marriage?”

“Marriage is not an institution. It’s a relationship.” Jesus paused, his voice steady and patient. “Like I said, I don’t create institutions; that’s an occupation for those who want to play God. So no, I’m not too big on religion,” Jesus said a little sarcastically, “and not very fond of politics or economics either.” Jesus’ visage darkened noticeably. “And why should I be? They are the man-created trinity of terrors that ravages the earth and deceives those I care about. What mental turmoil and anxiety does any human face that is not related to one of those three?”

Mack hesitated. He wasn’t sure what to say. This all felt a little over his head. Noticing that Mack’s eyes were glazing over, Jesus downshifted. “Put simply, these terrors are tools that many use to prop up their illusions of security and control. People are afraid of uncertainty, afraid of the future. These institutions, these structures and ideologies, are all a vain effort to create some sense of certainty and security where there isn’t any. It’s all false! Systems cannot provide you security, only I can.” .” (Ch. 12 IN THE BELLY OF THE BEASTS)

5. The god of the Shack does not want sorrow for sin: “As Mack ate another scone he groped for the courage to speak his heart. “Papa?” he asked, and for the first time calling God Papa did not seem awkward to him. “Yes, Mack?” she answered as her eyes opened and she smiled with delight. “I’ve been pretty hard on you.” “Hmmmm, Sophia must’a gotten to you.” “Did she ever! I had no idea I had presumed to be your judge. It sounds so horribly arrogant.” “That’s because it was,” Papa responded with a smile.

“I am so sorry. I really had no idea . . .” Mack shook his head sadly.

“But that is in the past now, where it belongs. I don’t even want your sorrow for it, Mack. I just want us to grow on together without it.”

In other words God does not want our sorrow He wants the relationship that moves forward, if sin is the separation from God, He wants the reconciliation not our sorrow, sorrow can lead to reconciliation but from then on it has done its purpose.

6. The god of the Shack attributes evil and pain to humanity’s independence and never to Lucifer. You will not find one place in the Bible that attributes humanities pain and evil to Lucifer either. You won’t even find it attributed to Satan. The Garden of Eden story of the fall says nothing about Satan we all make our decisions we don’t need some evil genius hiding behind the curtains to blame. Interestingly if all evil is really because of Satan (obviously Lucifer is a traditional term for Satan, it is not a Biblical term for Satan see Who is Lucifer (Satan Misidentified) ) how could one not be a universalist?

7. The god of the Shack repeatedly elevates experience or subjective revelation over the Scriptures: Mack allowed his oar to turn in his hands as he let it play in the water’s movements. “It feels like living out of relationship—you know, trusting and talking to you—is a bit more complicated than just following rules.” “What rules are those, Mackenzie?” “You know, all the things the Scriptures tell us we should do.” “Okay . . .” she said with some hesitation. “And what might those be?” “You know,” he answered sarcastically. “About doing good things and avoiding evil, being kind to the poor, reading your Bible, praying, and going to church. Things like that.” “I see. And how is that working for you?”

He laughed. “Well, I’ve never done it very well. I have moments that aren’t too bad, but there’s always something I’m struggling with, or feeling guilty about. I just figured I needed to try harder, but I find it difficult to sustain that motivation.” “Mackenzie!” she chided, her words flowing with affection. “The Bible doesn’t teach you to follow rules. It is a picture of Jesus. While words may tell you what God is like and even what he may want from you, you cannot do any of it on your own. Life and living isin him and in no other. My goodness, you didn’t think you could live the righteousness of God on your own, did you?” “Well, I thought so, sorta . . .” he said sheepishly. “But you gotta admit, rules and principles are simpler than relationships.” “It is true that relationships are a whole lot messier than rules, but rules will never give you answers to the deep questions of the heart and they will never love you.”(Ch. 14 VERBS AND OTHER FREEDOMS)

Elsewhere in the chapter:

“Of course. You might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or through people, or in Creation, or in your joy and sorrow. My ability to communicate is limitless, living and transforming, and it will always be tuned to Papa’s goodness and love. And you will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways. Just don’t look for rules and principles; look for relationship—a way of coming to be with us.” (Ch. 14 VERBS AND OTHER FREEDOMS)

8. The god of the Shack denigrates absolute truth or theological certainty (205) : This is why Evangelicals and Fundamentalists hate this book. It does not hold to their truth and their theological certainty. It does not deny that God has truth and certainty but does acknowledge those things come only through a relationship with God, they don’t simply exist because we claim we have the certainty.

The next several all have to do with the relationship in the Godhead and as such are just about traditional understanding rather than any real Biblical disagreement.

9. The god of the Shack suggests that submission, even mutual submission, is inherently evil. (124-125) This is about the Godhead being equal and in unity, It is One God

“And now,” Sarayu interjected, “we have come full circle, back to one of my initial statements: You humans are so lost and damaged that to you it is almost incomprehensible that relationship could exist apart from hierarchy. So you think that God must relate inside a hierarchy like you do. But we do not.” (Ch. 8 A BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS)

“That’s the beauty you see in my relationship with Abba and Sarayu. We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.” Mack was surprised. “How can that be? Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?” “Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don’t want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me.” “And that’s how you want us to love each other, I suppose? I mean between husbands and wives, parents and children. I guess in any relationship?” “Exactly! When I am your life, submission is the most natural expression of my character and nature, and it will be the most natural expression of your new nature within relationships.” (Ch. 10 WADE IN THE WATER)

10. The god of the Shack promotes modalism—the non-biblical teaching that God the Father became flesh and died as well as the Son. (97,105): Again this is traditionalism saying that Jesus Christ is not God, “I and the Father are One”, “if you have seen me you have seen the Father”, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was made Flesh”. Modalism has the advantage of not separating the Godhead so that one part of God is pleading with another part of God. Again it is the fundamentalist complaint because tradition has been embraced rather than a reasoned view of God. One God in three persons does not mean the three persons are separate from each other. They are they ways the One God relates to us.

11.The triune god of the Shack spoke themselves into human existence. (101): This is a reference to the incarnation of Jesus. Who knows why Cindy Tutsch complains about that?

12. The god of the Shack follows Unitarian-Universalist teaching that God is a verb, or by implication, a force: Is it a problem that God is active and does things rather than just exists?

“I,” she opened her hands to include Jesus and Papa, “I am a verb. I am that I am. I will be who I will be. I am a verb! I am alive, dynamic, ever active, and moving. I am a being verb.” (Ch. 14 VERBS AND OTHER FREEDOMS )

13. The god of the Shack enjoys funky music, uses vulgar and mocking expressions, and tolerates profanity in his/her presence. (90, 92, 107, 226): It is always hard to write a conversation with God in it because of the preconceptions each of us has about God. Funky music and vulgar and mocking expressions are often in the mind of the reader whether they exist in the work or not. I mean I am not too happy that Jesus said of some people they were dogs. (Mat 15:26-28 NIV) He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour. I unlike some would not call Jesus vulgar or mocking for such an expression. Some however are always limiting God to fit in his proper box in their mind.

14. The god of the Shack repeatedly devalues and contradicts Scripture: Or at least Cindy Tutsch’s version of scripture. Because to write a fictional story about meeting God who should burn you up if you look at Him devalues and contradicts Scripture. No such thing as literary license and suspending disbelief in the world of literature. Not for Good Adventists it appears.

15. The god of the Shack has no expectations or rules. This one is kind of funny and is well answered in the book. After all if God knows all; how could He have expectations for you to live up to? He knows what you will do before you know what you will do.

Papa now spoke up. “Honey, I’ve never placed an expectation on you or anyone else. The idea behind expectations requires that someone does not know the future or outcome and is trying to control behavior to get the desired result. Humans try to control behavior largely through expectations. I know you and everything about you. Why would I have an expectation other than what I already know? That would be foolish. And beyond that, because I have no expectations, you never disappoint me.”

“What? You’ve never been disappointed in me?” Mack was trying hard to digest this.

“Never!” Papa stated emphatically. “What I do have is a constant and living expectancy in our relationship, and I give you an ability to respond to any situation and circumstance in which you find yourself. To the degree that you resort to expectations and responsibilities, to that degree you neither know me nor trust me.” (Ch.14 VERBS AND OTHER FREEDOMS)

The rules part of this was addressed in my previous blog article on the The Shack and the Adventist Review letter

16.The god of the Shack allows defiant communication with the Father without the mediation of Christ Jesus. (121) Is that something like Job and David may have done, or perhaps Moses when he said if you are going to kill Israel kill me too. What does Cindy Tutsch, someone who holds masters of Divinity think the purpose of Jesus as mediator is? Is Jesus someone to keep us from talking directly with God or someone who came from God to live with us and reveal God to us? You can see why she has such trouble with those other areas dealing with the Godhead.

17. The god of the Shack has virtually nothing to say of sin, how to escape it, or the reality of judgment: I am sure many people will cry reading this book, the tragedy of a child stolen away and killed, a father’s anguish and guilt along with their own childhood history. To say it says nothing of sin is to say that “sin” as a theological term is not used. To say it says nothing about sin and how to escape it is frankly too foolish to be believed. If you goal in having a relationship with God is based upon some view of a reality of judgment it is hard to believe that you have any desire for a relationship with God. If your goal is to see the wicked toasted and destroyed than you have no conception of the love of God. Which is why in my review of this book earlier I said it defines the difference between traditional Christianity and emergent Christianity?

I have to thank Cindy Tutsch for so vividly if not articulately expressing that difference. I do feel so sorry for my Adventist church however as they again and again prove that their Christianity is something that I don’t want much to do with. This may explain to some why I don’t subscribe to the Adventist Review.

The Shack and the Adventist Review letter

Apparently I missed the Adventist Review article on "The Shack" on August 30. I may get back to that after I scrounge up the August 09 issues, but for now I will deal with one of the letters to the Review about The Shack:

Dismantling The Shack

Thank you so much for publishing such a fine and concise review of the book The Shack (Aug. 30, 2009). This dangerously popular book needed to be unmasked, and the Adventist Review has certainly come through. Cindy Tutsch has done a great job in summarizing its content. Thank you so much.

Having recently analyzed this book (the one I read said there are 3 million in print, and, yes, the paging seems to be different from the one Tutsch read), I found that beneath the layers of philosophy and tragedy lay a definite aversion and abhorrence to the law of God that The Shack attacks behind a mask and in the name of “relationship.”

This book brings up the Ten Commandments and portrays “god” saying, “Jesus laid the demand of the law to rest; it no longer has any power to accuse or command” (p. 203). To the direct question: “Are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules?” the answer from this “voice” is also direct and unambiguous: “Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful” (p. 203). It adds, “Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to light and good; they do not have any actual existence” (p. 136). It is truly amazing how these statements fulfill prophecy to the letter (see The Great Controversy, p. 558).

Olga, San Diego

What is most interesting is that last paragraph. The abhorrence at the thought that we are not under law, that “all things are lawful”. First let us look at what the Shack is saying in context, Mack is the human with the questions, God is in the persona of a woman in this interchange:

“But as I’m sure you know there are many,” responded Mack, “who think they are made righteous by following the rules.”

“But can you clean your face with the same mirror that shows you how dirty you are? There is no mercy or grace in rules, not even for one mistake. That’s why Jesus fulfilled all of it for you—so that it no longer has jurisdiction over you. And the Law that once contained impossible demands—Thou Shall Not . . .—actually becomes a promise we fulfill in you.”

She was on a roll now, her countenance billowing and moving. “But keep in mind that if you live your life alone and independently, the promise is empty. Jesus laid the demand of the law to rest; it no longer has any power to accuse or command. Jesus is both the promise and its fulfillment.”

“Are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules?” Mack had now completely stopped eating and was concentrating on the conversation.

“Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.”

First all things are lawful is a quote from the writings of Paul.

(1 Cor 10:23 KJV) All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

When you read this it is pretty clear the book is getting its idea from the New Testament. “There is no mercy or grace in rules”:

(Acts 13:39 NIV) Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

(Gal 2:21 NIV) I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

(Gal 3:21-25 NIV) Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

So it appears the author of the letter, probably a very good Adventist has no conception of the New Testament Gospel. That we are not under law but under grace, apparently she missed the whole Reformation thing in her Adventist education. A scary thought that for years some one can sit in an Adventist church listening to Adventist sermons and have no conception of what the New Testament teaches.

Now let’s look at her concluding sentence:

It adds, “Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to light and good; they do not have any actual existence” (p. 136). It is truly amazing how these statements fulfill prophecy to the letter (see The Great Controversy, p. 558).

This is not too difficult a concept to see, as evil and darkness our metaphors for actions and attitudes of intelligent beings, they are like light and good metaphors for actions and attitudes but they are opposites, the metaphors “light and good” find their reality in God, the reality is found in the actions and attitude of God and His influence upon intelligent beings. Here is the context, Sarayu is a personification of the Holy Spirit in the book:

Sarayu turned toward Mack; at least that was his impression. “Mackenzie, evil is a word we use to describe the absence of Good, just as we use the word darkness to describe the absence of Light or death to describe the absence of Life. Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and Good; they do not have any actual existence. I am Light and I am Good. I am Love and there is no darkness in me. Light and Good actually exist. So, removing yourself from me will plunge you into darkness. Declaring independence will result in evil because apart from me, you can only draw upon yourself. That is death because you have separated yourself from me: Life.”

If this is what Ellen White was referring too then she was clearly wrong. The Great Controversy page 558 says:

Even in its present form, so far from being more worthy of toleration than formerly, it is really a more dangerous, because a more subtle, deception. While it formerly denounced Christ and the Bible, it now professes to accept both. But the Bible is interpreted in a manner that is pleasing to the unrenewed heart, while its solemn and vital truths are made of no effect. Love is dwelt upon as the chief attribute of God, but it is degraded to a weak sentimentalism, making little distinction between good and evil. God's justice, His denunciations of sin, the requirements of His holy law, are all kept out of sight. The people are taught to regard the Decalogue as a dead letter. Pleasing, bewitching fables captivate the senses and lead men to reject the Bible as the foundation of their faith. Christ is as verily denied as before; but Satan has so blinded the eyes of the people that the deception is not discerned.

The “present form” is spiritualism as the beginning of the next paragraph states:

There are few who have any just conception of the deceptive power of spiritualism and the danger of coming under its influence.

In fact the previous paragraph is pretty clear that it is not even speaking as a prediction of some coming deception but a deception already occurring during Ellen White’s lifetime, as she says:

It is true that spiritualism is now changing its form and, veiling some of its more objectionable features, is assuming (Page 558) a Christian guise. But its utterances from the platform and the press have been before the public for many years, and in these its real character stands revealed. These teachings cannot be denied or hidden.

It is not surprising that someone who does not understand the New Testament Gospel will also not understand Ellen White’s writings. But of course she is not alone, she is after all agreeing with the Adventist Review on the subject. That after all is the bigger problem, that we have a church that does not even know the Gospel. For more on The Shack see my article Review of William Young's The Shack