3ABN fires Ryan Day is it justified?

 I was listening to Advent Media Connect where he went over an interesting case in Adventism. An employee of 3ABN was fired from his job, or as Ryan Day said in his update told it was time to "separate". Listening to Ryan Day was interesting as he described his doctrinal questions and his experience. It is about 2.5 hours but it is well said and not hard to listen to, even if a bit long. Then the following day, Advent Media Connect presented the sermon to Ryan Day's home church in the video titled: "Pr. John Lomacang Warns His Church on Ryan Day's Unbiblical Position." This is where things really get interesting for me.
                                                            Picture below   Ryan Day

John Lomacang begins at 1:17 saying: "And not too long ago at 3ABN um a sad decision was made uh but not on the basis of anything incorrect but there was a decision made that was facilitated by a departure from the doctrinal integrities of our church and our dear brother uh Ryan Day decided that he no longer could be a part of 3ABN.                                    Picture Below  John Lomacang

He continues at 3:01

"And I've said it pains all of us to know that such a young man with grand potential would make a decision that he felt that our doctrines were so out of harmony with the Bible that he could no longer be a part of our church Well let me tell you he was an elder of our church also And nothing is further from the truth The seventh-day adventist church throughout its existence have maintained one standard and one continuous standard is that everything we teach must be based on the unerring word of God. If it is not we don't we don't embrace it "

Notice the cute little switch that makes it appear like Day left 3ABN rather than Day being fired (he did get severance pay). We have learned so far that a decision was made facilitated by a departure from the doctrinal integrities of our church, and that Day felt our doctrines were out of harmony with the Bible. Further that the SDA church is only based upon the Bible, and if not in the Bible, we don't embrace it. 

So Ryan Day, by John Lomacang's own words, feels that there are some doctrines out of harmony with the Bible. So, apparently, if they can both agree that their doctrines should come from the Bible, why would 3ABN feel it necessary to fire a fellow Bible believer? 

It must be something to do with something that is not really from the Bible. Lomacang's warning was that Day's departing from the "doctrinal integrities" of our church. That is interesting, as Lomacang has said that the SDA church only embraces things found in the Bible. But as we will see, that is not even true in Lomacang's own sermon. 

At 7:25 Lomacang says: "Examine our doctrines You know many people just like the fall of Lucifer from heaven Lucifer's fall was not based on the fact that he proved God wrong He made many accusations but because he could not prove God wrong He was expelled And the Bible talks about the influence of anyone who goes and walks away from truth Revelation 12:4 When Lucifer fell his tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth  One third of the angels rebelled with Lucifer And they did not rebel on the basis of the fact that Lucifer was right But they joined with Lucifer on the basis that they sympathized with him When you sympathize your reasoning capacities are shut down When you sympathize God's word is no longer your guide "

I will simply note here that there is no Bible teaching that lucifer is satan, that tradition that misidentifies lucifer as satan is not a biblical doctrine. But Lomacang goes much farther and says that the fallen angels sympathized with satan and their reasoning capacites were shut down. Where does anyone find that in the Bible? If you only embrace things found in the Bible, how can Lomacang make such a statement? 

Lomacang continues: "Every point of rebellion seeks to create new victims on the following points: One; they lack experience on doctrinal points that are being used to deceive them. Two; they fall for the belief that somehow the accusations made have some credible merit without going and asking for counsel from those of experience. And thirdly; they sympathize with the accuser The servant of the Lord wrote in councils for the church He said "Satan hopes to involve the remnant people of God in the general ruin that is coming upon the earth As the coming of Christ draws nigh he will be more determined and decisive in his efforts to overthrow them." Listen to what she says, and by the way, Ellen White's going to be attacked tonight on their broadcast also..."

So we can finally see where the problem lies. It is not a problem of Bible doctrines; there is no Bible doctrine that angels sympathized with Satan, that is, from Ellen White's addition, known in Adventism as the Great Controversy theme. An entirely unbiblical exposition on the happenings in Heaven before the earth was even created. Questioning how Ellen White is a prophetic authority is the "doctrinal integrities of our church". Taking Ellen White as a prophet is not a Biblical doctrine either, so very clearly, Adventist doctrines are in fact not derived from the Bible. Lomacang has very well demonstrated that his presupposition about the Adventist church's doctrines coming from the Bible is not true!

Here is an example of Ryan Day's apparent attack that Lomacang expected, from Ryan Day's Update: 

2:31:36 "Let's get back to the Bible Let's put Christ back in the church back in the center Make him the cornerstone of our existence Not a woman who contradicts scripture not a woman who plagiarizes and tells everyone she got it from Jesus We shouldn't have to say "Well, Ellen White says for every little thing that we we say but my goodness you go on these Adventist forums and I did one a few a few months back where I asked a question and and here we go Here I go." Very few Bible texts a plethora of Ellen White says "Have mercy Have mercy." We cannot call ourselves a people of the book if we're using Ellen White as a crutch to get us through. So that being said, my friends back to the Bible."

It is interesting that Ryan explains how he came to the view that we should go back to the Bible:
31:27 "so often early on in a and even as recent as when I was at 3ABN you hear this all the time and that is well there's nothing that the Adventist church teaches that cannot be rooted and grounded in scripture or found in scripture You'll hear people say "We don't need Ellen White to teach any of our doctrines All we need is the Bible." Uh the Bible and the Bible alone you can prove all of our doctrines and everything we believe from the Bible and the Bible alone And and that always stuck with me."

What Adventism claims and what it actually does are two very different things. That is something that a denomination that is proclaiming God to the world cannot do!

Upsetting the Apple Cart

A couple of things I have been reading have led me to wonder just how much the Adventist church cares about meeting people's spiritual needs vs. how much they want to dictate people's beliefs. Most of us by now have heard that about half of the Adventists in North America will leave the Adventist church, some come back most do not. Some estimates I have heard have former Adventists as numbering 3 million and current Adventists in North America at 1 million. Let's be more optimistic and only say the number of former to current Adventists is 2:1. Would not such numbers indicate that we are doing something wrong?

I have never been a big fan of sermons so the church service portion of the Adventist church never really appealed to me. I was usually able to find an interesting and challenging Sabbath School class however. At least until recently when my friend ceased his once a month facilitation of a class at the church I was attending. Though to be fair we were weaned off his class as the more traditional folks began leading more of the sessions until it was just down to once a month. Which is a good cautionary tale that the divided philosophy of a Sabbath School class is not likely to work. Theoretically it might still work if there were two leaders in attendance who agreed to disagree on things and lead together. But that is likely a hard thing to happen.

I think the reason for the demise of the more progressive or open Adventist Sabbath School classes has to do with the Adventist church desire to dictate beliefs vs. providing a place to meet spiritual needs. If you toe the more traditional Adventist line you rise in responsibilities and respect in the local church. If you don't you will become marginalized, and if you want to survive in the church as a progressive Adventist you often learn to sit down and shut up. You can only do that for a while usually and according to the statistics you then leave.

The Adventist Today blog has an article entitled: One Step ahead of Personal and Spiritual Annihilation
By Harry Banks. In the article he writes of someone who started a Saturday, 11 O’clock bible study at the local telephone company education center. He writes:

What? Saturday church? At the phone company? With an IT geek for a leader? Oh, and who also happened to have previously been an atheist, and we are not done yet... The group is purposefully nondenominational to attract persons who feel alienated from religion or formalized religion for whatever reason.
Hmm...
The fist week, Larry, the programmer leader, opened by saying that he felt a need to reach out to the people around him and make a place to engage with them where they are. No pressure to come to a certain position or place of belief, but an exchange of personal spiritual journeys whether in a context of doubt or faith. With Larry's atheist background, the agnostic, Julian Barnes' line, "I don't believe in God, but I miss him," seems to point to a possible point of contact for us all. There is that empty spot in all of us that only God can fill. Regardless of our state of belief or unbelief there is still a place in us only God can fill.

What a concept. Could such a thing happen in an Adventist church? Or would those who were so sure they had the answers...that they were the remnant, end up looking down their noses at such spiritually questioning people. Would they be viewed as wolves in sheep's clothing out to infiltrate and bring uncertainty to the certain? Perhaps they would even think that evolution of life was possible and maybe even a method that God used to create...could that be allowed in the sacred walls of an Adventist church.

I don't know, I suspect the way to find out would be to actually try such an experiment with your local church. I am pretty sure it is not the kind of Revival and Reformation that Ted Wilson (Seventh-day Adventist General Conference President) has envisioned for the Adventist church but maybe it is the kind of Reformation that could lead to a Revival. A Reformation is really about change and perhaps we need a far more radical change then a return to what did not work a hundred years ago. Maybe Ted Wilson's plan to Go Forward by going backwards is not really the answer. The question is it worth upsetting the "frozen chosen". They feel they are spiritually well off...on the right track with the right answers. They don't really want to engage with the questions so that they can maintain their answers but even so that is going to be a comfort to them and they, like the spiritual questing, need comfort in their journey. So the question is can we add more fruit to the apple cart without tipping it over and spilling all the apples. Perhaps the status quo of losing 2 apples for every 1 apple in the cart is the best we can do. It probably is unless one decides to rebuild the cart, and if you do that then you have to transfer the apples from one cart to another.

It does sound like a lot of work!

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.