GYC2009 Hope for Traditionals Dispair to Progressives as we watch reason die

If you are wondering what the future of is for Progressive Seventh-day Adventists is consider the recent Generation of Youth for Christ (GYC), formerly General Youth Conference 2009. When you first click on the following link to the video you will be treated to a song service out of yesterday. Possibly pre 1970’s considering even my Academy Worship programs were a bit more modern than this song service. In any case it is the Seventh-day Adventist traditionalists youth that make up this organization. At the question and answer session a who’s who of Adventist leadership were empanelled. Many General Conference Vice Presidents,two Division Presidents as well as Bill Knott the editor of the Adventist Review. Dr. Mike Ryan, Ted Wilson, Mark Finley, Dr. Ella Simmons, Don Schneider, Paul Ratsara,

GYC 2009 Questions and answers session beginning at 52 minutes (after a period of blank video). Here are a few excerpts that I transcribed from the video. To keep the flow of the event I have footnoted my comments at the end

The first question:

As leaders of the General Conference would you speak to the commitment level of the GC leadership as well as the global leadership to the authority of Scripture even when it cuts across cultural practices?

Mark Finley replies: Culture should never dictate scripture. John 17 verse 17 Jesus said they word is truth the general conference of seventh-day Adventists is clear on the authority of scripture. Scripture always transcends culture. Now there can be cultural aspects in which Paul says I become all things to all men so the methods can be adapted but not theology.

[1]

The Second question dealt with net evangelism. Mark Finley defended Net Evangelism by asking how many had attended and by saying that for those who were baptized through the Net Evangelism how much was it worth to them.

The Third question (1:01 min.) dealt with explaining the organization of the Adventist church. I won’t bother with transcribing the question and answer except to note that the explanation by Paul Ratsara President SID began with this statement:

“Our God is a God of order and He has given us a wonderful structure to support the mission of the church.”

He then goes on to explain the levels of the church organization. Concluding with:

“This is a wonderful structure that the Lord has given us.”

[2]

Fourth question: (1:03) We understand that the church exists to protect our fundamental beliefs…Some not all of our colleges and Universities continue to hire and protect professors who do not believe in our core beliefs such as creation, many youth have lost their faith under such teachers how can this be stopped?

Dr. Ella Simmons responds:

…[F]irst of all my personal stand and the stand of the church is that Seventh-day Adventist schools at all levels including colleges and universities exist for one purpose. In most countries of the world today there are excellent systems of education but we operate Seventh-day Adventist education institutions to pass on to teach Seventh-day Adventist world perspective, Spiritual understanding scriptural knowledge and so forth. Ellen White says, that we must hold onto this, that education and redemption are one. If our schools are not thoroughly and uniquely Seventh-day Adventist they should not exist. We have no reason for them other than that they are thoroughly Seventh-day Adventist. Then that indicates that in order to give Seventh-day Adventist education we need, have an imperative for Seventh-day Adventist committed practicing Seventh-day Adventist faculty leadership and staff. We have all been in a position in which individuals have been hired into our schools who have not been Seventh-day Adventist we appreciate our colleagues but either they will betray themselves as Christians by teaching what we believe if they are not Seventh-day Adventist or they betray us by teaching something other than Seventh-day Adventist believe in our schools. It is clear from Genesis to Revelation that Academics and spirituality are one, the divisions that you hear about that we read about are false they are work a tool of the devil, clearly. I could go on and on…

[3]

So what can we do as young people?

Ted Wilson responds (1:07): It is so important to have leadership at colleges and universities who are absolutely committed to the 28 fundamentals of beliefs, to the word of God, to the three angels messages …

[4]

Question 6 (1:08): How do we work through the system what are ways we can stand for truth?

Dr. Ella Simmons responds:

For example I would always say when called upon to answer those questions evolution lets just go right there. I believe that as a scholar I needed to know the theories of evolution but never to accept it as facts. So I would always have to say in class and on my test papers according to you this is what has happened although I still believe that in 6 days God created the heaven and earth and so forth, and there’s a way to do it without creating a problem and people will respect you even while they continue to disagree with you.

[refer to 3]

Mark Finley (1:11) responds:

To follow up on what Ella has said there is a difference between a teacher who makes a comment in class that I may not fully understand and they may have a different perception of truth then I do and a blatant open statement that violates the tenets of scripture and the Adventist church. A comment on Academic freedom. In a sense Academic freedom is a myth and here is why when I agree to teach in an Seventh-day Adventist college by that very agreement I agree to be supported by Seventh-day Adventist tuition dollars from Seventh-day Adventist parents who want a Seventh-day Adventist education so I voluntarily by choice give up freedom to teach contrary to Seventh-day Adventist values and if I can’t do that the thing to do and be intellectually honest is to say I no longer believe that and go teach someplace else where that can be accepted. So Academic freedom there are Catholic universities whose boards meet who dismissed recently teachers because they weren’t teaching Catholic theology in a Catholic university. There are Presbyterian boards and Lutheran boards who meet and so the issue is yes as Adventists you work together we work in harmony and love but the intellectual honest thing to do for somebody who may no longer believe Adventist theology is to find a place where they can teach in harmony with what they believe.

[5]

Question: for Don Schneider (1:14)...A question that is for those professors who may not take that integrity position and remove themselves from that…I think this question is directed that way. Recently there has been an online petition asking the General Conference to tolerate monogamous homosexual relationships some of the signers are ministers and professors of our schools some sit on boards of organizations that teach very divergent doctrines, what should be done when church employees receiving a check from the church openly seeks to undermine the very teachings they endorse?

Don Schneider after saying he would sit down and talk and not act as if it were a trial says:

It has been my job to deal with people some of them I have asked to quit. Very rarely almost always as we visit I can find the time to ask a question are you having a lot of fun doing what you are doing. People who are not supportive of this church are by and large not having fun either. And people who are not enjoying what they are doing are not the doing the good job supporting this church often. And that leads me to another point then, hey if your not having fun and your not really into the mission of this church would you want me to help you find something else? Almost always that has taken care of the issue for me. Almost never have I said okay next Tuesday we go to trial be ready cause we’re coming at ya. That just hasn’t been necessary in my experience.

[6]

1. It is hard to believe he really believes this answer. Culture even during the Biblical times changed and theology changed as well. If not then we would still be stoning to death Sabbath breakers adulterers and rebellious children. We would not allow any women to even speak in our congregational assemblies per some of Paul’s comments even though earlier in Old Testament times there was a female judge, Deborah. Finley’s answer certainly indicates that he would in no way allow a woman to serve as a Pastor in the Adventist church.

Ultimately if you do not consider culture Scripture would be incredibly hard to interpret. So culture actually helps define scripture and our culture also redefines scripture. For example our culture through the aid of Western culture and scripture has grown to see slavery as an evil. Yet much of scripture allows for slavery. We can find racist ideas in scripture but our culture has shown us the problems of racism. In fact throughout Christian history as culture became more enlightened our theology of God also became more enlightened, we moved from the God of wrath and retribution to a God of love. Culture and Scriptural understanding grow, they play off of each other, one does not transcend the other, they are both components of our understanding. Truth may transcend culture but we are still on the road to truth, what we say is truth even as Christians has changed as history has noted. Even in Adventism short history truth has changed, such as the shut door concept of the 1800’s. Saying we have the truth or something is the truth is far different from really having the truth.

2. I don’t think it is wise to tell such untruths to impressionable youth. I am assuming that he actually knows that God did not give the Adventist church instructions upon how it should be organized. The organization is similar in structure to the Methodists system from which many of Adventist founders came. Since he did not offer to explain where God informed the Adventists of their church organizations structure I can assume that he does know that God really did not give us the organizational structure we employ. The only way to make his statement work is to assume that if the structure was decided by Adventists at some conference to frame the Adventist constitution that action is the same as God giving us the structure. Which really gets us into logical trouble when whatever we decide to do becomes the instruction of God…the Reformation was largely fought to get away from such hubris.

3. The Ellen White quote is: “In the highest sense the work of education and the work of redemption are one, for in education, as in redemption, "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." "It was the good pleasure of the Father that in Him should all the fullness dwell." 1 Corinthians 3:11; Colossians 1:19, R.V (Education page 30, 1903)

Of course this is the highest sense and it is expanded upon when she earlier stated: “Love, the basis of creation and of redemption, is the basis of true education.” (Education page 16, 1903) Love as Paul famously said does not always try to get its own way, so education needs to be based upon love rather than traditions or church dictates.

What “thoroughly Seventh-day Adventist” means I don’t really know. Apparently it means that only Adventists can be hired to work at our schools as faculty and staff. Of course the controversy is not about non Adventist faculty teaching evolution it is about Adventists who teach evolution. Because frankly you can’t get anywhere in Science without acknowledging evolution, you can say it is not a fact but for all practical purposes it is a fact. Of course evolution or Darwinism as some critics mistakenly refer to things is not about the first origin it is about change. Those changes are seen, the theory of evolution explains what we see. Saying as Ella Simmons does later that she simply does not believe it because she believes the heavens and earth were created in 6 days is not science, it is not even reasonable it ignores the reality, the evidence, that the theory of evolution is explaining.

She concludes with: “It is clear from Genesis to Revelation that Academics and spirituality are one, the divisions that you hear about that we read about are false they are work a tool of the devil, clearly.” I am reminded of something I learned in College, if someone begins with “it is clear” or “clearly” you are about to hear something that is not clear and is often untrue. You don’t have to say it is clear when something is clear. It is a rhetorical device to try and prop up a weak argument. In this case a gratuitous assertion which is a logical fallacy and really a silly statement as we have great academics who are spiritually not inclined at all.

4. There were several mentions of the desire to have our teachers committed to the 28

Fundamental beliefs during the question and answer period. It appears that contrary to the desires of our church founders and the preamble of the 27/28 fundamentals of belief, Traditional Adventists have taken the fundamental statement as a creed. Wilson also includes the three angels messages which is done with the statement meant as a code word for the doctrines of the Adventist church. Again a very common practice among the Adventist traditionals. (simplified we say the 3 angels message is Present Truth which includes the unique Adventist interpretations of Daniel and Revelation; It encompasses 7^th day Sabbath commandment keeping Sunday worship to be the mark of the Beast, Investigative Judgment, Adventist church as the Remnant called out from Babylon the apostate Christian churches, and Ellen White as the Spirit of Prophecy) The goal of all this is to have only church leadership and teachers and staff who are Traditional Adventists. These statements seemed to be met with hardy agreement from the Traditional Adventist young people at the conference.

5. Academic freedom is a myth if the institution does not hold to such freedom. Not because of the reason Finley gives, a science teacher is not hired to teach the literal 6 days of creation because it is the fundamental belief of the Adventist church, they are hired to teach science. Vague statements like “Adventist values” does not discount the scientific validity of evidence and scientific philosophy to be taught in a Adventist classrooms. In fact one of the biggest Adventist values should be the search for truth and it should demand investigation, including things that may go against the popular beliefs of the Adventist churches leadership or traditions.

I did not find the accounts of Catholic Professors fired for not teaching Catholic theology. I did find some interesting accounts of the misuse of power by Catholic University administrators which amounted to retribution of whistle blowers.

http://www.counterpunch.org/yates12252009.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2297067/posts

6. Don Schneider presents us with the typical way that happens to whistle blowers or those who go against the power of the leadership elite. That is the retribution that makes their work environment so uncomfortable that they no longer seek to remain employed at their job. Here Schneider attempts to make such things appear as compassionate. When support the church means; do what we say, believe what we say to believe, than indeed who would want to support that church. The church is not God. When it seeks to think of itself as God, as doing what it is doing as being what God wants then the church has sunk to a low from which it will never rise. Well maybe I should not say never. As at one time the Roman Catholic Church behaved that way, it took hundreds of years to correct it’s over reaching dogma and still has a ways to go. But when a church that sees itself as carrying on the Reformation starts acting like the all knowing authority that forced the Reformation rebellion against her abuses; then we have serious problems in the Seventh-day Adventist church.

GC Session Delgates do you know any not employed by the church?

I was listening to and then reading some material today about the upcoming General Conference session coming up this year in Atlanta. I wanted to see what the percentage or number of delegates were that were not employees of the denomination. I could not find any numbers from either this or previous conferences. My guess is that it is very very small. The language in the General Conference Constitution at first glance makes it appear much larger than the reality.

Sec. 9. Division administrations shall consult with unions to ensure that the entire division delegation shall be comprised of Seventh-day Adventists in regular standing, at least 50 percent of whom shall be laypersons, pastors, teachers, and nonadministrative employees, of both genders, and representing a range of age groups and nationalities. The majority of the above 50 percent shall be laypersons. Delegate selections from General Conference and division institutions, and those selected under Sec. 8.d. above, shall not be required to satisfy the quota for laity.

Notice in that list only one is truly a layperson. Pastors and teachers and nonadministrative employees are all employees of the denomination. So If I assumed that each of those 4 categories equally made up the 50% of the session delegates that would give us 301 laypersons to 2108 denominational employee delegates. Even of those 2108 employees 1054 would be administrative denominational employees.

Something to consider when you hear that our church has a representative form of governance. Or as I heard to today the church is seeking to give even more delegates to young people. As the ANN second line in their report said:

More than 2,400 voting members expected to gather in Atlanta in 2010; push for younger delegates

Thus it appears the denomination has succeeded in creating a form of government which is functionally set up to serve the churches hierarchy or better said a bureaucracy which serves to continue the bureaucracy. As Ronald Lawson is professor of sociology in the urban studies department at Queens College, the City University of New York. wrote in 1990:

The General Conference’s structure is arranged in geographically based administrative layers, with churches grouped in conferences, the conferences in unions (which comprise several states or a smaller nation) , and the unions in 11 divisions (the North American Division includes the U.S., Canada and Bermuda) These administrative units, together with the medical, educational, publishing and food-processing institutions whose boards they control, employ more than 111,000 people. Tithes are not retained at the congregational level, but are passed up the structure, giving the hierarchy considerable flexibility to redistribute funds from wealthier parts of the world church to newer and poorer segments, and thus to orchestrate expansion. The hierarchy’s control over finances and its voice in the choice of leaders at lower levels also enables it to exercise considerable influence over the whole church. This is so in spite of a system of representation, in which delegates from the constituent bodies choose the committee members who select the officers and department heads at each level. However, constituency meetings, especially those at the higher levels of the organizational pyramid, have proved unlikely to act independently because the system for choosing delegates (who are appointed rather than elected) has ensured that the vast majority hold leadership positions in the church or other church-paid positions.

No Theocracy

Driving home yesterday I saw a bumper sticker that said “No Theocracy”. It is kind of interesting to consider that idea. After all the two main religions that might have had Theocracies are Christianity and Islam. Both of those religions hold that their God is loving, in Christianity “God is love” in Islam “Allah is merciful” both are said to be merciful and forgiving and seeking repentance from humans. So why is the idea of no theocracy so popular?

For those of us in the Western world if we were asked to name some theocracies from history there are likely only three that we could name. The first because of Islamic turmoil in the world would be Islamic nations that held to or still hold to Sharia Law. The second would be the Roman Catholic Churches dominance in the Middle Ages. A time when such things as church Inquisitions, burning heretics and condemning certain areas of scientific thinking took place. The final and perhaps the first thing some would think of is the theocracy of ancient Israel recounted in the Old Testament Bible.

Merely reflecting on the history of theocracy answers our question pretty well. Theocracy is a word first popularized by Josephus:

“a word first used by Josephus to denote that the Jews were under the direct government of God himself. The nation was in all things subject to the will of their invisible King. All the people were the servants of Jehovah, who ruled over their public and private affairs, communicating to them his will through the medium of the prophets. They were the subjects of a heavenly, not of an earthly, king. They were Jehovah's own subjects, ruled directly by him (comp. 1 Sam. 8:6-9). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theocracy

The word though is more properly understood as:

1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theocracy

The reality it seems, is that the nations were never really run by God, they were run by people who claimed to either speak for God or claimed to receive their instructions from God. Because these nations were never really ruled by God they never really presented an attractive nation or government to the rest of the world. Few modern people who read their history will say, “I sure wish I could have lived then”.

What I often find interesting is how people knowing full well the atrocities that occurred within the theocracy of ancient Israel think that those atrocities were the result of God. Rather than the results of those people speaking for God; or perhaps they were recorded as the people, those religious authorities wanted, attributing to God things that God would actually be very opposed to.

For whatever reasons they assumed that something is what God wanted to happen whether a result of a battle or an earthquake or some other natural occurrence. It is not hard to see such things; certainly other nation’s religious leaders were behaving in similar ways. It has been a trend in all other examples of theocracy we can think of, leaders doing what they want and attributing it to God, so perhaps it is something to consider when we read the stories in the Old Testament. We can still learn lessons from such things and isn’t that what the main functions of the Bible is, to teach us, to lead us to Christ who shows us the character of God. If that character does not match the God of the theocracy…perhaps it is because as is often the case someone was usurping the role of God and not doing too good a job of it.

So I say a hardy amen to “No Theocracy” at least until we see God face to face, because those middle men and women, those prophets, priests and kings have done a terrible job of revealing an accurate picture of God. Maybe for some it is the best they could do, but for many it is simply the corrupting nature of power. We therefore have to be a bit more careful before repeating everything as true just because it was a part of our religious tradition.

For the record I am not a Jesuit!

Imagine my surprise when wandering about on the internet I discovered that I was named as a Jesuit! Just to be clear I am not a Jesuit, have never been anything other than a Seventh-day Adventist and I was raised as a Seventh-day Adventist. Now who knows about the future but the likelihood that I will go through the process of becoming a Jesuit is pretty unlikely. Here are some of the quotes from the website. [I reduced the size of the fonts that he used so that my post looks better]

A JESUIT Speaks:

He is first dividing Seventh-day Adventists into classes. TSDA's = Traditonal Seventh-day Adventists; PSDA's = Progressive Seventh-day Adventists. We have already shown that this treasonous endeavor that has dominated the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not biblical.

Ron Corson: Why I am a "Progressive" Seventh-day Adventist

[PROGRESSIVE ADVENTIST PROPERLY DEFINED: A band of Jesuits determined that the Seventh-day Adventist Church MUST change and become cooperatively ecumenical so that it can join with the rest of the churches to form one big global church. The people pushing it are very patient to confuse their agenda even to conjuring up plans that appear anti-ecumenical, but the object is to lead the church ultimately to that route...

He Then goes on to quote much of my article with his insertions interlined. For example:

They have the tremendous patience and persistence of fascists. They never give up their agenda even if they are expelled. They will bark till the end how everyone must be tolerant. As was shown by the tumult caused during the forceful pushing of the Celebration Worship Style in the Adventist Church, WHEN THEY GET THE UPPER-HAND, THEY WILL NOT THINK TWICE TO EXPEL THOSE WHO EVEN SPEAK AGAINST THEIR IDEAS OR MOVEMENTS.]

---

He writes: Why I am a Progressive Seventh-day Adventist; Am I a Dreamer or just a Fool.

Several years ago I wrote an article for Adventist Today on the differences between Traditional Seventh-day Adventists (TSDA’s) and Progressive Seventh-day Adventists (PSDA’s). The question that is still often asked of me is why, if I don’t agree with the TSDA’s views, I am still an SDA. [He, by the ideas he holds and by his intolerance and insistence that everyone must accept his ideas, never was a Seventh-day Adventist and never will be!] That question is not restricted to being asked by the TSDA’s; it is asked by former Adventists and even other PSDA’s. To most it appears that the default position of Adventism is the TSDA viewpoint. Frankly I ask myself the question far too often.

As you can tell his comments don't really deal with what I said as much as his bias against me. You will notice that before he quotes my article he asserts in red capitals how Progressive Adventists " WILL NOT THINK TWICE TO EXPEL THOSE WHO EVEN SPEAK AGAINST THEIR IDEAS OR MOVEMENTS."

Here are few of the other comments he makes:

[But millions of other and by far the majority of Adventists WOULDN'T! Should loyal Adventist care what the "Progressive Adventists" think when these "Progressive Adventists always show they don't care what anyone else thinks, even starting tumult in the Adventist Church because they can't keep their "dreams" to themselves, nor go away and join others with their same "dreams?"]

[Here it comes! The terrible disease of the "Progressive Adventists!" When anything comes that challenges their Jesuit revolutions that everyone MUST have, they attack it and leave the tolerance and the debating behind. That is why THEY ALWAYS must make reference to the terrible "weaknesses" of Ellen White and then grump because we must find it necessary to point out their weaknesses they are very proud of! First is a put down of Ellen White or anyone else who stands in their way, then they even create "worship styles" and concepts none of even God's prophets ever dared to do! Before they move to commit treason in the church, shouldn't they look in their mirrors and first tell themselves how perfect they are?]

[If we tell the truth, we will warn Adventists that "Progressive Adventists" never were Adventists at all, but are Jesuits!]

Okay I admit it is poorly written and reflects poorly on the author of the website but I had to point it out after all it is not everyday that I learn that there is some Adventist with the secret knowledge that I am a Jesuit.

Law of Love

God is Love, The Law

By Ron Corson

Submitted for your consideration; there is little written about the conditions which produced our world in the state it is in. The following is my theory as to the role played in this story by God’s Law. It is based largely on my understanding of the entire Bible beginning to end, it is likely much different from what most people think about when they think about God's Law.

Sometime ago undoubtedly before the creation of Earth, there existed a Law. A law I will refer to as the Law of God. This law in its basic nature was extremely simply yet profound. The Law is "God is Love". Like the law of gravity this law can’t be broken. It is a fact, it is just the way things are, it exists because that is what the character of God is. Nothing anyone can do can change this law, however someone could distort, or misrepresent the law. To use and old English word, the law can be transgressed. Say I am a cleverly deceptive person and I try to tell you that gravity is not a result of the mass of an object, but the result of a giant gopher who is trapped in the center of the earth and by his animal magnetism he draws all objects toward him. Lets say I got a lot of people to believe my explanation of gravity. In fact in doing all this I have not changed the law of gravity, it still exists as it always did. However I have gone beyond the bounds of the law (transgression). I have violated it by my bizarre reinterpretation of the law of gravity.

Now lets move from earth to heaven in the beginning (whenever that was). There is a law in heaven, not a set of written precepts, but one based on the nature of the author of the universe. That law is "God is Love". Like the law of gravity on earth, this law can’t be broken, it exists and it is true. But this Law of God can be reinterpreted in such a way that it is violated. Say there was a cleverly deceptive person, lets say Satan (the name literally means an adversary). Now if Satan were to say that God is not really loving, that He is hiding important information from us, information that could make us just like Him. And that basically God is not a truthful person, Satan’s reinterpretation of the Law of God would violate the true Law of God. The law that "God is love" still exists and is still true, but Satan’s transgressed against the law, his redefining what God is, has confused other persons.

At this point it is important to note that God has no law that says you must love Him. He wants us to love Him but love can never be forced, in fact to force love would be against God’s Law, i.e. "God is Love". It is His kindness which leads us to repentance, and repentance leads us back to loving God. Do what I say or else, is one of the distortions which try to redefine love. Because of Satan’s distortions of God, Satan is removed from Heaven and God proceeds with His plan to answer Satan’s inaccurate and slanderous view of God. Remember that Satan literally means adversary which indicates that God now has to answer people's misunderstanding of God as well because even with the best of intentions a person could misunderstand God and distort what God is like thus transgressing the Law of Love. This is important to remember as we even as Christians and believers in God have been known to and often continue to distort the law of God, the law of love.

The Law "God is love" is the foundation upon which all other laws dealing with humans is based. It is to what all other laws point. The laws given in the old testament are intended as our school master to point us to the one supreme law of God. This is why on the Sermon on the Mount Jesus points out that even our thoughts quite apart from actions can be counted as sin. Or as Paul tells us even good things done, if done apart from faith in God are sins. We violate the law when we misrepresent, or ignore "God is love". If someone says God loves good little children but He cannot love naughty little children. That is as much a violation of the law of God as to say that we are gods. The law of God stands not on written instructions on how to live and what not to do, but upon the very nature of God Himself.

Many in our churches today will say that the 10 commandments are a transcript of God’s character. I pity anyone who reads the 10 commandments as God’s character. What a distorted view they must have of God. He would be seen as someone demanding human worship, punishing those who reject Him and showing mercy to only those who obey Him. Not a particularly loving God, rather one who loves you only after you first love and obey Him. This is not to disparage the 10 commandments, there is nothing wrong with them, they are good. However they must be viewed in the context derived from the entire Bible, that is that "God is love". They are instructions on how to live toward God and man. They point to the one law, "God is love". They do not provide anyone with salvation, rather they instruct the reader as to how to live in harmony with the supreme law of God. They are as Paul says, our school master teaching us of our need to return to God.

Abraham acting out of a relationship with God, and guided by the Law of God, followed God’s instructions to offer up Isaac. Realizing that God’s actions are out of love, Abraham trusted that whatever was going to happen would be for his own families good. And true to the law of God the ending was good just as he expected. When a person comes to this point in their lives, that is, they know that "God is love" they are meeting all the requirements of Gods law. No other laws are needed in their lives.. Because this one law is the summation of all others. Their faith is counted as righteousness. This is why Paul could say: Col 2:14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. (NIV) Because the Law of God’s love was so completely revealed to us through Christ’s life death and resurrection, the written code is no longer the best method of bring us back to repentance. Gods kindness is shown so perfectly through Jesus Christ that He is now the central point of the gospel message. If there remains any reason to teach the law, let it be the law of Love.

[from http://newprotestants.com/GODSLAW.htm This is posted here to help satisfy those critics of mine who complain that I never offer enough devotional material here. ]

Lessons from Tim Jennings blog

I just read Tim Jennings blog and I wanted to point out the selective nature of people like Dr. Jennings. Their tendency to pull Ellen White quotes to make it appear she thought differently then the reality of what she wrote. He begin well by pointing out the idea that the Lesson study guide promotes as truth some rather nasty ideas about God. Here are some excerpts of his article.

Jesus - Angry Executioner or Baby of Bethlehem?

Friday, December 25 2009 11:25

Last weekend our class started the Lesson Guide for the New Year, The Fruit of the Spirit. I was so shocked by one paragraph from Thursday, December 31 that I had to blog about it. Here is the paragraph: Between 1730 and 1745 the American colonies from Maine to Georgia experienced a religious revival known as the Great Awakening. Jonathan Edwards was a leader in this movement of spiritual renewal. In July of 1741 he preached a sermon entitled, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” which for some has become a symbol of the bleak, cruel, and hell-bent outlook of many Christians. However polemical, this sermon did express the truth about the awful weight of sin, the attitude of an infinitely holy God toward sin, and the surety of the day of judgment. [emphasis mine]. In case you are not familiar with the specific sermon cited above, here is an excerpt from Jonathan Edwards Sermon preached July 8, 1741: [cut some of the Edward's quote] It is everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery. When you look forward, you shall see a long for ever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite. Do you find this sermon presents the “truth about the awful weight of sin, the attitude of an infinitely holy God toward sin, and the surety of a day of judgment”? Let’s consider another Christian writer and speaker who came about 100 years after Jonathan Edwards. Below is Ellen White’s perspective on sin and God and judgment: We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. The sinner brings the punishment upon himself. His own actions start a train of circumstances that bring the sure result. Every act of transgression reacts upon the sinner, works in him a change of character, and makes it more easy for him to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death. {1SM 235.2} [emphasis mine] Does this sound like the same God that Jonathan Edwards was describing? Jonathan Edwards describes a universe in which God is angry, wrathful, without mercy or pity and inflicts pain and immeasurable suffering upon His creatures. It is absolutely mind boggling that our Study Guide would quote such a grossly distorted representation of God as a “source of truth” about Him. The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death and sin, if unremedied results in death (Romans 6:23, James 1:15). But Jonathan Edwards describes an existence in which God is the source of death, the cause of suffering, the inflictor of torment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Satan is the father of lies and his primary lies are about God. If we believe Satan’s lies about God then we distrust God, fear Him and remain separated from Him.

While Jennings is correct in taking to task the lesson study guide he is in error with his use of Ellen White. Ellen White’s quote is not about end time judgment it is in fact talking about the consequences of sin in this life not in the Judgment after life which is what Edwards is talking about. Ellen White is writing about the 10 commandments. In context the Selected Messages quote says:

The law of ten commandments is not to be looked upon as much from the prohibitory side, as from the mercy side. Its prohibitions are the sure guarantee of happiness in obedience. As received in Christ, it works in us the purity of character that will bring joy to us through eternal ages. To the obedient it is a wall of protection. We behold in it the goodness of God, who by revealing to men the immutable principles of righteousness, seeks to shield them from the evils that result from transgression. {1SM 235.1}

We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. The sinner brings the punishment upon himself. His own actions start a train of circumstances that bring the sure result. Every act of transgression reacts upon the sinner, works in him a change of character, and makes it more easy for him to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death. {1SM 235.2}

The law is an expression of God's idea. When we receive it in Christ, it becomes our idea. It lifts us above the power of natural desires and tendencies, above temptations that lead to sin. "Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them" (Ps. 119: 165)-- cause them to stumble. {1SM 235.3}

There is no peace in unrighteousness; the wicked are at war with God. But he who receives the righteousness of the law in Christ is in harmony with heaven. "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other" (Ps. 85: 10).--Letter 96, 1896. {1SM 235.4}

To properly compare Ellen White to Edwards on the subject of torment after judgment Jennings should have used statements which address that subject.

“Then I saw thrones, and Jesus and the redeemed saints sat upon them; and the saints reigned as kings [ 291 ] and priests unto God. Christ, in union with His people, judged the wicked dead, comparing their acts with the statute book, the Word of God, and deciding every case according to the deeds done in the body. Then they meted out to the wicked the portion which they must suffer, according to their works; and it was written against their names in the book of death. Satan also and his angels were judged by Jesus and the saints. Satan's punishment was to be far greater than that of those whom he had deceived. His suffering would so far exceed theirs as to bear no comparison with it. After all those whom he had deceived had perished, Satan was still to live and suffer on much longer. {Early Writings 290.3}

“Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {Early Writings 294.1}

There is certainly still a considerable difference between Edwards and White here. A difference in duration of the torture but does either one of them present an intelligent view of God? Edwards make little sense with God tormenting people for all eternity, a truly miraculous event but to what purpose? Then Ellen White presents a view of a shortened torture but again for what purpose? I am going to hurt you and then kill you, will that teach you a lesson or will that act as simple revenge? It won’t teach a lesson because you are going to be dead and if God is in the business of revenge then saying He is love would be false.

A Modern Worship Christmas

I was thinking how we Adventists generally don't do anything for Christmas Eve or Christmas day. So I thought I would propose something. It is probably not too late to try it this Christmas if someone's church feels they would like to try something different or they can take the idea and prepare for next year. Of course most people don't want to have some big program on Christmas Eve so they can spend most of their time with their families. So my idea is to have pretty much an automated program that could be simply run hourly (think how shocked the neighbors would be to see the Adventist church open on Christmas Eve).

So what I did was set modern Worship Music into the Luke nativity account. You can download it here. Use Winrar to uncompress the file you can download it here(though hopefully you all have the program by now.) As it turns out I think the music has a far more important message then the Biblical text but that is because the music can take all kinds of Bible information and but it in the song but the text just has to read in a linear fashion. Ideally I would want to combine the sound with visuals but that would take a lot of time and pictures. A simple decorated church could act nicely with lights and candles.

Now this is not meant to replace the traditional Christmas programs that many  churches present. There will likely be some Christian church in the community that does have a special Christmas eve presentation and many others that have a presentation weeks before Christmas. This idea is more for the neighbors of the church. Possibly those who are going out to look at the lights. Perhaps the church could offer hot chocolate to people outside or inside if they have a fellowship hall before and after each hourly presentation.

Obviously not everyone likes the same kind of music. I chose Modern Worship music because it is similar to what most popular music is like, that is it is comfortable to the majority of people. Other choices could be made, from Country to jazz, the difficult part is finding music that connects somehow to the text in the narration.

Simply stated the idea is to enable your church to be open to your neighborhood on the most Christian of holiday's without the need for a large portion of the church membership to have to sacrifice their family time and without having to tax the most musically talented of the church. No indoctrination, just some simple Christmas joy to share with your community.

Adventism and Social Justice

Today in an article on the Spectrum Website entitled: Theological Harmony in New Orleans By Bonnie Dwyer, she reports on the joint meeting Adventist Theological Society and the Adventist Society for Religious Studies, the article states in the opening paragraph:

Adventism’s two theological society presidents agreed on the biblical call for social justice and the significance of Scripture on people’s lives during a historic session in which the two societies met to not only share a meal but to present ideas for discussion.

She does not define what “social justice” means and that is a problem. Today it is often a code word for redistribution of wealth through the government. As this article The Scandal of Social Work Education NAS Study says:

Use of the term "social justice" today generally equates with the advocacy of more egalitarian access to income through state-sponsored redistribution. The phrase is also frequently used to justify new entitlement rights for individuals and whole categories of people, i.e., legally enforceable claims of individuals or groups against the state itself. ("Economic justice" is even a stronger term, largely confined to populist and radical rhetoric.)

Here is a University of Wisconsin student newspaper’s definition of social justice in response to an article by Dr. Hansen mentioned who asserted social justice is misleading rhetoric.

Dr. Hansen’s article proposes, “until ‘social justice’ can be precisely and understandably defined, programs to promote this goal cannot hope to succeed.” Well, is it really that difficult to define it? Social justice is a system, a process, and an end result where all members of society have equal access to resources and benefit from them equally without regard to their identity, specifically race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, religion, class and age.

You notice that the student newspaper author describes the goal not the system. Socialism and communism are the two most commonly used systems or processes which claim to end with this utopian goal. We know from experience that neither system ends in the utopian goal however. Notice the newspaper author included “ability” in the list, let us assume that the government had a medical school. By the social justice definition above anyone could go and demand equal access to the resources and the benefit of the medical school education whether they had any ability or not. We could hope that the person with no ability would not graduate from the school…but if you can’t differentiate due to ability everyone needs to graduate. Achievement and ability mean nothing under this type of social justice.

As one comment I read says:

From Sharpton to Wright, social justice has come to mean redressing the wrongs of the past in the form of government benefits or reparations. The expression has a hint of retribution as in “you owe us.” In actuality, the words haven’t any real meaning. There are always those who grieve, and as long as the government attempts to satisfy those with a gripe, the plaintive cry for social justice will have irresistible appeal.

There is one other definition which we need to look at, from Business Dictionary.com:

Fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice. See also civil rights.

I guess if that is the definition that the two theological societies are agreeing upon that is good. They are agreeing upon the most basic idea or civil rights found in the latter half of the 20^th century. Hardly a newsworthy proclamation unless one of those groups had been opposing civil rights. I think common sense tells us that that is not really the meaning of social justice that is intended, but we have to hold out that possibility sense those involved seem unable to define what they mean…thought when you can’t define your meaning the chances become much higher that the use is a code word otherwise why not define your terms.

In conclusion there is this comment from a blog article which is Christian related under the title “what do you mean by Social justice” Which pretty much says all I could want to say on the subject.

"Social justice" is a phrase currently often employed by "emergent church" types who, in their reaction to the Church's nonparticipation (actual or perceived) in the world, suddenly believe they're the only ones interested in helping the poor and feeding the hungry.

Apparently among many, these problems -- and the world entirely? -- are viewed to have begun yesterday. There's no perspective of history, the fact that people in both the Church and governments have been aware and trying to alleviate poverty before -- especially when it comes to the failed attempts of federal governments to overextend their constitutional (and worse, Biblical) bounds and take the place of the citizenry and religious institutions in terms of charity.

Among such "social justice" advocates, there's also very little perspective of the actual Scripture in these quasi-utopian visions, which indirectly contradict the Bible's portrayal of the rest of human history.

Christ-followers certainly disagree on what end-times events occur when, but there is (or was) an overall consensus against the notion that people would eradicate poverty, hunger, all that sort of thing, without Christ or at least before He comes back to take a look at our planetary renovations.

But now we're back to the same stuff -- and while it's very, very true that Christ-followers are to be a means of "common grace" toward the poor and abused among nonbelievers, this is not the be-all-and-end-all of the Gospel. "Social justice" is only an outgrowth: at the center should be the actual truths of God as Creator, humans as rebels against Him, and Christ as redeemed. Are these professing evangelicals using "social justice" as a means toward proclaiming the Gospel? Or do they operate completely the opposite?

As it is, many of them are advocating a clone religion of Christianity And, as His Utter Subliminity Screwtape (from C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters) said is such an effective strategy. In this case, the "new" idea is Christianity And Social Justice -- and it's not so new, either; it's a mere strain of "liberation theology" liberalism that's somehow been accepted as legitimately evangelical. (10 Dr. Ransom at 10:52 AM on Jul 22:)

Alarmist Adventist Blogs

Sometimes I stumble upon really foolish Adventist blogs. Today I found a real case for remedial reading. The Blog entitled Theirmanygods which seems to have articles praising David Asscherick and Walter Veith has an article on Southern Adventist University. Here is what they say:

Southern Accent’s” issue for February 12 contained an article titled “Jesus is dead” which claimed to show that the teaching of the physical and tangible resurrection of Jesus was a rather late addition to Christian belief, one which was not shared by the earliest witnesses of Christianity, whose (possibly hallucinatory) belief was only of a spiritual and insubstantial resurrection." (Donn Leatherman School of Religion, Letters To Editor, Southern Accent, http://accent.cs.southern.edu/?p=587)

Wow! The Adventist university's student paper put out a "proclamation" that "Jesus is dead".

When I first read this I thought they were saying that Donn Leatherman of the School of Theology was the one who wrote the article. In fact he wrote the article in response which pointed out several flaws in the Jesus is dead article. When we look at the Jesus is dead article in the online archives we see the following disclaimer.

Jesus is dead

Filed Under Religion

DISCLAIMER: This is not the official view of Southern Adventist University or The Southern Accent.
Look for the School of Religion’s response in next week’s Accent.

Shane Akerman | Contributor

The following submission is simply an expression of my personal views.

The intention is not to offend but to provoke thought and discussion. My hope is that this campus can be a safe place for tough questions and the sharing of ideas.

The link that was included in the Theirmanygods blog is the link to the School of religion’s response to the Shane Akerman article. Yet that somehow to the apparently unbalanced or at least severely prejudiced mind became a proclamation that Jesus is dead by the Adventist University’s student paper.

There is a serious question here besides the obvious one about alarmists blogs and that is how could anyone take Shane Akerman seriously when he spends that much money to go to a private Christian school when he believes Christianity is a based upon a lie (e.g. all the New Testament books hold to the idea of the resurrection and continued life of Christ). It does appear that the article did stimulate some thought which is important because some of these issues don’t get enough attention even at Christian schools and students should know what the arguments and presuppositions of atheist and agnostics are. Having an article written by someone who actually believes what he is saying is often more memorable than just reciting the standard atheist and agnostic objections. I don’t think we have to believe everything the Bible says, but if the religion’s core is false, if there is no resurrection, if there is no Jesus Christ who is God than Christianity has nothing.