Misquoting Voltaire

The internet is an amazing thing. Why don't Adventist leaders use it? It is not hard to use if you pay attention you can easily tell who has substantiated facts from the drivel. Take the following column from AToday.com:

A Tale—or Two—For Our Time Aug 27, 2012 by Cindy Tutsch. She writes after asserting that a particular sermon she gave was all true she just might not have expressed herself better she writes:

Maybe the skeptic Voltaire is the “stones crying out” to us today when he wrote, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

A brief internet search would have shown that the quote as she expressed it within the quotation marks is not from Voltaire and not even from the person who recorded her interpretation of what Voltaire believed. The following is from http://www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk/www_vf/about_voltaire/didnt_say.pdf

A column in the Daily Telegraph of February 2006 on freedom of speech referred
to ‘Voltaire’s famous maxim – “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it.” ’

In De l’esprit [‘On the Mind’], published in 1758, the French philosopher
Helvétius put forward the view that human motivation derives from sensation:
a course of action is chosen because of the pleasure or pain which will result.
The book was seen by many as an attack on religion and morality, and was
condemned by the French parliament to be publicly burned. Voltaire is supposed
to have supported Helvétius with these words. In fact, they are a later summary
of Voltaire’s attitude to the affair, as given in S. G. Tallentyre’s The Friends of
Voltaire (1907). What Tallentyre wrote was:

What the book could never have done for itself, or for its author, persecution did for
them both. ‘On the Mind’ became not the success of a season, but one of the most
famous books of the century. The men who had hated it, and had not particularly loved
Helvétius, flocked round him now. Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or
unintentional. ‘What a fuss about an omelette!’ he had exclaimed when he heard of the
burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! ‘I
disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ was his
attitude now.

(The comment ‘What a fuss about an omelette!’ had been recorded earlier, in
James Parton’s 1881 Life of Voltaire.)

Reprinted from What they Didn’t Say – A Book of Misquotations,
edited by Elizabeth Knowles (Oxford University Press, 2006), p.55.
By permission of Oxford University Press (www.oup.com)

Now I am used to journalists being lazy today and just asserting things that aren't true but at least the Daily Telegraph got the actual words of the book for the quotation right. Though not necessarily a provable statement by Voltaire, it is not even written as a quote of Voltaire but of his attitude.

Why does this matter. I think it reflects a common religious narrowness where people don't really analyze what they are saying. They don't check their sources and they are certain they are right even when wrong. Then they assume the truth of what they deliver in sermons as all true. I having read many of the above AToday's authors columns, am pretty sure that she has never given even one sermon that is all true.

Religion in general and  Adventism really needs to re-examine itself and its writers and leaders. You won't see the comments on the column pointing out this error because errors have become so common that the readers only look at the general tone or position and agree or disagree but rarely get involved in the details. This allows poor research and reasoning to continue and that ultimately harms us all.

Women's Ordination and the quest for power

The Adventist church is currently all abuzz about the subject of women's ordination as Pastor/Ministers. Even if we agree to set aside the man created tradition of ordination and the idea that there should even be a head pastor at a particular church...both of which are concepts taken from the early Roman Catholic church. The question arises for the SDA church what to do when Conferences vote to ordain women as Pastors. At first some in the SDA church felt that playing word games would do as they “commissioned” instead of “ordaining” women. A semantic peculiarity which seems to have stalled the actual showdown for several years. But the showdown is now here as another Conference prepares to vote on the subject and like the previous Conference it will probably pass.

In an attempt to end this uprising of SDA church divisions (the SDA church has Conferences, Unions and Divisions for more details see this) The President of the SDA church who is elected by a popular vote of delegates at the convention but is assumed to be chosen by God because he was elected (sort of a divine right of kings concept) which again is based upon human traditions. As set forth his opposition to the ordination of women. His plea is to unity. Unity defined as submission to previous General Conference decisions.

[President Ted]Wilson quoted White’s statement in Testimonies to the Church, Volume 9, pages 260-261: “But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered.”
He added that submission to the collective decisions of the world Church is an essential part of living in unity: “We have a worldwide administration; we have working policies – agreements we abide by collectively to provide for a strong push for the mission of the church. When we don’t see unity in what we are doing, then we see a fractious and divided spirit,” Wilson said.

The desire to control is pretty clear from Ted Wilson's comments here. He wants the Conferences to surrender to the will of the General Conference and somehow equates the community decision of the Conference vote as private independence and private judgment. Of course if Wilson had actually used the full quote his attempt at equating the Conference vote with private independence would be shown to be at odds with what Ellen White was actually saying.

“I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what plans shall be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body.

At times, when a small group of men entrusted with the general management of the work have, in the name of the General Conference, sought to carry out unwise plans and to restrict God’s work, I have said that I could no longer regard the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few men, as the voice of God. But this is not saying that the decisions of a General Conference composed of an assembly of duly appointed, representative men from all parts of the field should not be respected. God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work.”

Ellen White's objection is to one man or small group of people acting as the General Conference or going against the General Conference. So it does not really fit any situation here as these Conferences are not really small groups of people. What it does try to do through manipulation of the Ellen White quotes is to assert supreme power in the General Conference and sadly the small group of people at it's head. So in simple terms he has turned the quote on its head to further his goals. What I have found is that people who misuse information in this way are; first not honest and second using the power of selective information as a tool of manipulation. It is often called propaganda today and since the first half of the twentieth century we have seen the devastating effect of propaganda, even so it has become common place in politics, church politics not being an exception. Though if people took Paul's advice to study things out like the Bereans propaganda would have only a negative effect upon them, which is how it should be, we should deal with factual information and reject those who twist information.

The question of Women's ordination will ultimately come down to two things. First are women due equal pay for equal work. Second can such work as women Pastors be Biblically acceptable. In many places around the world the answer to the first is no they won't pay women equally and the answer to the second is no women must not be Pastors because they must be submissive to men or a man. This is generally the view of the third world countries. In other parts of the world First and Second world equal pay is expected and women can be Pastors as the cultural attitudes of the first century is not expected to have been forever enthroned because it is mentioned in the Bible. (for those who don't know First world is defined as the Western World, it is of cold war era where first world is US aligned and Second world is Soviet aligned and Third world are the none aligned countries, but today is still has some geographical meaning see this.)

The issue is not unity as in a culturally divergent world there really is no unity. Unity in the cause of Christ is noble but unity to traditions and cultures which are foreign to us can not possibly by called unity. It is sadly an argument of power based upon misinformation. From my perspective those who traffic in misinformation are usually on the wrong side of truth, and thus on the wrong side of right doing.

The Future of Liberalism/Progressivism

The recent weeks have given us a frightening look at what the future of this nation will be like under liberal/progressivism. It is a world defined by prejudice and intolerance clothed in the guise of tolerance and progressive understanding.  In all comes from the strange reaction to the following quote of Dan Cathy COO of Chick-fil-A on the Ken Coleman show, as Ken Colman writes:

While discussing fatherhood with me, Dan Cathy expressed the following thoughts that have contributed to the media firestorm:

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "And I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

In modern liberal/progressive political circles this rather traditional support of traditional marriage definition became a rallying cry of hate. Somehow this religious statement is hate filled. But of course there is nothing hateful about it. He did not condemn Homosexuals or say anything against them or indicate that he discriminates against them. No those things are read into his statements.
To get to these extreme views the liberal/progressives have worked hard to redefine the language. Not simply trying to make the word marriage fit same sexes but by making hate groups out of normally mainstream religious groups. Thus Since Cathy supports certain religious groups those groups become known as hate groups. For example here is a comment from a recent article on Spectrum magazine website:

Keith doesn't mention that this business owner contributes huge amounts to anti-gay groups that spew hatred, prejudice, and lies about gays and lesbians.

Of course to actually name these anti-gay groups would show that they are not in fact anti-gay groups but religious groups holding traditional religious beliefs. The liberal/progressives get here by…well you guessed it lying. People like the writer of the comment simply believe the lies and then repeat them. One of the chief liars in all of this is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The Chick-fil-A corporation gives to the Family Research Council. SPLC names David Barton as anti-gay as well. Of course if they wanted they could put most any traditional religious group as anti-gay. They could have even put President Obama as anti-gay as just over 3 years ago he also opposed gay marriage. But of course opposing gay marriage is not being anti-gay. There are even gays against gay marriage. 

But why is an individual’s freedom of speech when expressing traditional marriage and traditional religious values hate speech? The answer is that in the new future delivered by the liberal/progressive movement their views are the correct views and anything opposed to or not in alignment with their view has to be hate. They are unable to make the case so they rely upon false generalizations against those who don’t think like them.

This is because these political movements do not respect freedom they desire power and control and their chosen method is through the government.  “Liberal” no longer even mean classical liberalism, which is more akin to what we call libertarianism and Progressive does not mean moving forward toward more freedom and individual responsibility but Progressive in terms of more centralized governmental control and decreased freedom of thought. Propaganda is the method they chose to employ and propaganda is frequently composed of lies and misinformation.

This is a future that we cannot afford to allow. Fortunately Millions of Americans still see the foolishness of the liberal/progressive movement and as we saw last week they took much time out of their busy lives to show their support for the Chick-fil-A even when numerous political figures like the Mayor of Chicago the protégé of President Obama Rahm Emanuel declared that “They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.” It may well be that the Chicago way has no place for traditional Christians. 

This blog often takes on traditional Christianity but we must fight for their freedom of expression and belief; because their freedom is our freedom. The biggest disrespect comes from those who refuse to give others the respect of their beliefs and ideas.

Adventist Codes and Primative Godliness

The Adventist church has it own code words and like most code words you need to be in the know to understand what is being said. It is rather sad because when you use code words you are using words that are meant to exclude the real meaning of what you are saying. Instead the code is given and as a replacement or place holder for a particular thought. Sometimes there is general agreement about what the code word is and sometimes there are varying views. Variations of course destroy the whole attempt at using a code word because it then becomes whatever anyone wants the code to mean. This is why code words are such a foolish idea in any open conversation.

Yet Adventism fills it's literature and conversations with code words. For example some Adventists code words are: Present Truth, Spirit of Prophecy, Pen of Inspiration, Three Angels Messages, Third Angel's Message, the Truth, the Investigative Judgment, Judgment Hour, the Remnant, the Great Controversy, and the one I am going to talk about today: Primitive Godliness.

I don't mean to be too hard on Adventism for the use of code words, it is likely all religions use them. The short hand to imply broader messages in a limited use of words. As religion in general has become more and more confused it needs more and more code words to attempt to make sense of its beliefs. This then presents us with the oxymoron of Primitive Godliness. Primitives really never had a good conception of God...any God. Nor did they really follow after their gods in any particular way. What we know about their practices especially in Christianity is found mainly in references made in the Bible. When people don't have a lot of data it is easy to adjust the data to fit their own assumptions.

A few days ago over on the Spectrum website the following comment was made when someone was asked to explain what Primitive Godliness would look like today:

Read in "Great Controversy" her description of the revival and reformation that took place among believers just before the Great Disappointment in 1844. That should give you some idea of what is meant by "primitive godliness." Or read about the early church in the book of Acts. Better pass over the part about Ananias and Sapphira. "Progressives" might consider that incident to have been extremely judgmental on the part of Peter.

These people were focused on Jesus as the center of everything. and they were consumed with spreading the gospel. They weren't hung up on petty things like WO.[Women's Ordination] They weren't trying to tear apart the Scriptures, like so many "progressives" are today.

The question could be asked where these people really focused on Jesus as the center of everything? Most of those people in 1844 had a pretty limited idea about who Jesus was. As the later controversy between the Semi Arians and the Trinitarians played out in the Adventist church it is hard to see them being centered on Jesus. But many did stop their farm work to tell people that Christ was returning on a particular year and then even a particular day and then many set another day a year later to try again.

The New Testament writers like Paul and Peter clearly thought the second coming was going to be in their lifetimes as well. Perhaps that should be the hallmark of Primitive Godliness? Adventists get the term Primitive Godliness from Ellen G. White and she never bothered to define her meaning. As with many who claim prophetic ability vagueness is often their best friend. So the term has been defined by her followers. As the above comment writer may think that the people before 1844 were good Bible students, most today would say they used proof text methods and verses taken out of context. But then maybe that is the hallmark of Primitive Godliness? Anyway they were proven to be wrong just as the New Testament writers were proven wrong in their expectations. But at least they were not given their expectations as prophecies or truth. Though I suppose some might disagree with me on that and say that since the whole Bible is the Word of God it is all prophecy and all truth and no human feeling and expectations enter in to it. Though if they did that then they would have signaled the death knell of Christianity as one could say their prophecies were proven false already why accept anything in the book at all. That might be another hallmark of Primitive Godliness, people who don't think about what they are saying by making claims that are proven false.

One writer on Adventist Online tells us his view of Primitive Godliness after quoting Ellen White he writes:

This primitive godliness includes the reversal of many of the trends in the social structure where roles have been confused and changed from the way God established them.

Men need to take up their God given responsibilities to be the spiritual leader in the home, both by precept and example and women must allow this to happen and not usurp their position.

Women need to learn to submit to their husbands in the Lord.  They need to be a “helpmate,” one who stands beside their husband, not attempting to compete or be a back seat driver.

Children need to learn to be obedient to their God fearing parents.  Children are to learn from their parents and not attempt to rule the home.  Yes, parents need to listen, but always remember that they are accountable for their opportunities to learn from experience and to guide the inexperienced feet on that pathway of life.

All this is part of the “primitive Godliness” that we must posses to be ready for Jesus to come.  Does it go contrary to popular and cultural ways?  Yes, many times yes.

Even with his usage of Primitive Godliness he only says that his list is part of the things that make up Primitive Godliness. A person is usually pretty safe in defining things with only parts of the definition, the person is rarely really wrong that way. I can say that part of the definition of the United States is that the people speak English. I could also say they speak Spanish or most any other language because there is probably some person in the U.S. that speaks that other language. Being a part of a list is really not a good form of definition. But if you can connect to something with your particular emphasis, well that is the ultimate use of code words.

That is really what this is all about, making your ideas sound authoritative because they are connected to an authority, the Bible, in Adventism Ellen White, or simply to the common terms of your chosen religion. Even if the person using the term can't really define it there is power in the term. In fact why not test my opinion on this by simply going to the Adventist church and asking them to define Present Truth or Primitive Godliness, see what kind of answers you get. Or my personal favorite which was to ask someone the definition of the Great Controversy to which I was once answered read the first three chapters of Ellen White's book Patriarchs and Prophets. Which I encourage anyone to do if they think that Ellen White does not contradict the Bible, well not contradict as adding all kinds of things to the story is not a contradiction unless you take the Bible story as a complete story with all things necessary for ones salvation, then contradiction works well.

More biased reporting from Atoday

It is no secret to any of the readers of this blog that I have had significant differences with the folks who run the website Atoday.com. As a column writer I found the editor to have nothing of value to say and was pretty poor at making decisions. Their news is significantly biased and often poorly reported. Something that I think should not be allowed by any consumers of news. The people have to stand up against biased and distorted news not just in the main stream press but within our own church organizations. It should not be too hard to work at being objective, the news is not the place for commentary, opinions or speculation.

Consider this from the Atoday newsletter mailing from Atoday.com:

Leader Jailed for Use of Church Name – Breaking News on Ordination of Women Pastors

On the website they are a little more accurate and entitle the news article:

Tennessee Man Jailed for Insisting on Using the Name “Seventh-day Adventist” Despite Court Order

At least on the news article the title hints at the actual reason the man was jailed...violating a court order.

All this leads me to ask the question: Who is in charge of the news at Atoday and  what procedures do they use to monitor their quality. Are they trying to be objective?

In the above article we read this:

" Seventh-day Adventists are generally not aware that there are a number of small denominations that use a version of the same name. This is much more common to Baptists, for example. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of different denominations with some variation of “Baptist” in their name."

What part of the news is that from? Does it have any significance to the court's decision? It is not as if Adventists arrested the man! 

The article also states:

"The GC did not take any specific action to have McGill jailed, but it could ask the judge to have him freed. McGill was jailed because of contempt of court due to his refusal to follow a court order. The court order came as a result of a lawsuit filed by the GC to enforce its trademark and after a Federal judge examined the facts in the case."

Yes they could ask whatever they like but that does not mean the court will or wants to hear from them or they have any standing to request anything. But this leads to the assumption that the arrest is done because of the Adventists rather then because of contempt of court by the man who refuses to follow the court order. This is simply bad and biased reporting.

If Adventist Today wants to make a difference in the Adventist church they can't do this kind of poor reporting and editing. Of course this leaves them open the rejection as simply biased by Traditional Adventists which makes the site pretty useless as a voice for change. 

But don't hold your breath as those who work behind the scenes in anonymity have little call for accountability.

 

Concerns over Alex Bryan Email posted for the curious

 I debated with myself whether to post the internet email that went out entitled Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU. The blog that I had linked to in my previous article to the pdf file of the email removed the file The letter is unsigned and thus of little real value for any substantive meaning. When it was attached to the blog I figured it had that blog"'s support so it seemed of some importance. But if we have no one standing behind the email anymore it of little use other then a curiosity of what some anonymous people think. Who really cares what people who don't even stand behind their beliefs of opinions say? But then I saw a recent news article on the AToday.com website where they reported what people who had seen the email said. From the Atoday article: "Sources who have seen the email have told Adventist Today that it contained dishonest and unethical allegations." Which I thought was kind of sad that their news team had not even seen the email even though I had posted the link and it had been circulating around the internet. So I decided I would post it as plain text taken from the PDF email except this does not have the pictures or the names and addresses the email included. I have not taken the time to fix the formatting since as I say it appears no one stands behind it so it is now a curiosity. But since the news continues on the issue here it is [though just because I am posting it does not mean I stand behind it in anyway, this for informational purposes only]:

Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 1 of 8
Walla Walla University (WWU) is a Seventh-day Adventist University located in Washington State. The board that controls WWU is chaired by the President of the North Pacific Union Conference - Max C. Torkelsen II. John McVay, the 23rd WWU president and former Dean of the Seminary at Andrews University has chosen to step down from his position and return to teaching.
The presidential search committee1 announced an opening2 and is recommending3 Alex Bryan to serve as president of Walla Walla University. Alex Bryan is currently the senior pastor of the Walla Walla University Church and has affirmed his willingness to serve as president. The committee will formally present this recommendation to the university's Board of Trustees at a special meeting that has been called for Sunday, July 1, 2012, at the offices of the North Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in Ridgefield, Wash., at 10 a.m.
As a group of constituents, alumni, educators, pastors, church members, medical professionals, students and parents, we feel that Alex Bryan, at this point in time, is not a good candidate for the next WWU president as evidenced by the concerns expressed in this document.
Out of multiple areas of concern, three follow as to why Alex Bryan, at this point in time, should not be appointed as WWU’s next president: 1) his background, 2) his educational experience, and 3) his views and relationships with spiritual formation.
1) Alex Bryan’s Background
a. Created a “Sunday service” church and left Seventh-day Adventist employment. Alex Bryan began his ministry at the New Community Fellowship in Atlanta in 1996 under the blessing of conference administration. However, the methods used to reach secular young adults resulted in the creation of a “Sunday service” and, as the conference administration was considering his termination, Alex Bryan resigned his denominational employment in 2002 and remained independent for the next five years. The resulting Sunday observing church still meets and its web site is here. The church meets Sunday from 10:30 AM to 12:05 PM. The current pastor is Alex’s brother, David Bryan.
Note: Alex is not currently affiliated with the church he helped start, even though current websites, e.g. corporationwiki and Manta list either Alex Bryan and David Bryan or just Alex Bryan as the current pastor.
Documentation shows how the church Alex Bryan started described itself in 2004, while Alex Bryan was the pastor:
“We are an independent, interdenominational, evangelical church. ‘Independent’ means we are our own organization, not legally connected to any other church. ‘Interdenominational’ means we welcome people of all faith traditions. ‘Evangelical’ means we emphasize the gospel of forgiveness and life transformation through personal faith in Jesus Christ, and we affirm orthodox Bible doctrines. See our ‘Statement of Faith’ for further details.”
1 The search committee members were: Max Torkelsen, John Loor, Lanny Hurlbert, Bob Folkenburg, David Prest, Bruce Thorn, and Barbara Prowant, and WWU VPs Ginger Ketting-Weller and Steve Rose, two faculty, one staff, and one student.
2 The announcement for the presidential search and job position is located here.
3 On 6/15/2012 the committee recommended Alex Bryan to be the next president: Link to WWU Recommendation.
Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 2 of 8
(http://www.thenewcommunitychurch.com/phpBB2/faq.php#23 accessed September 24, 2004. 3:42 PDT).
In 2004, meetings at this church occurred on both Saturdays and Sundays; today the web site shows only Sunday services.
For a detailed study of the failures of these types of break-away churches, see the following study.
b. Professional degree in emergent church spiritual formation. Received his Doctor of Ministry4 degree from George Fox University, under the direction of the spiritualist and Emerging Church leader Leonard Sweet.
c. Invited his mentor, a self-admitted spiritualist and leader of the emerging church movement, Leonard Sweet, to Southern Adventist University, to speak for Vespers Jan '09 and attempted to indoctrinate the Southern University Theology faculty by bringing Sweet to speak with them specifically.
d. Opening his pulpit (April 2012, both services) at Walla Walla University Church to emerging church leader Shane Claiborne, a proponent of the “Kingdom Now” theology embraced by the emerging church movement and a teacher of universalism, and founder of the New Monasticism movement. Claiborne’s staff admitted one of their objectives, while at WWU, was to recruit WWU students to join them in the work of their ministry.
e. Alex Bryan has called Ellen G. White a 19th century mystic. He has stated this from the pulpit and included references to this in his book5, page 22, “In 1842, during this era of Advent hope, fifteen-year-old Ellen White6 had a mystical experience.”
f. Openly promoted Roman Catholic Mystics and Contemplative authors at the Adventist Forum on Spiritual Formation, October 2011. These authors included: Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, Brennan Manning, and Henri Nouwen. See the last page for a photo and comment on his book promotion.
g. During his sermons he often quotes from leading emergent church leaders, such as Leonard Sweet and Catholic contemplative authors such as Brennan Manning, and many more.
Note that these authors are also listed as “My Favorites” on his brother’s blog, the current pastor of the Sunday church Alex helped to start. Also, these authors and their books are listed on Alex Bryan’s blog as “Must Reads,” shown on the last page of this document.
h. Belittling Adventist doctrines in favor of mystical experiences during his One project sermon February 2012, Seattle Wa. He suggested that our fixation on doctrine and identity as Seventh-day Adventists has kept us from becoming a great religion.
4 The Role of Human Emotion in Christian Discipleship, dissertation by Alex Bryan, March 2009.
5 The Green Cord Dream by Alex Bryan, 2012. Pacific Press Publishing Association.
6 Note that Alex Bryan uses the name “Ellen White,” but at 15 years old, her name would still be Ellen Harmon, she married at 19 years of age.
Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 3 of 8
Summary of Alex Bryan’s Background
Alex Bryan’s background shows that he is capable, while having good intentions, of leading those under his charge in the wrong direction. He can get in trouble. He desires to be a soul-winner. We commend this. Still, results have been problematic. In Georgia-Cumberland, the price was alienation from the Seventh-day Adventist church, and a decision by the conference to terminate Bryan from employment. (He resigned before being terminated.) This resulted in a separation of the Congregation from the Seventh-day Adventist church. Most of the group became a Sunday observing church under Bryan’s leadership.
With Bryan’s history of resigning from Seventh-day Adventist pastoral ministry before the conference could fire him, pastoring a church on Sunday, leading what became a congregational church, one asks, how is it that he is under consideration for the presidency of one of our Universities? He states that he has learned from his mistakes, and the Georgia-Cumberland conference rehired him and placed him as an associate pastor for Mission and Ministry on the staff of the Collegedale Church, to be mentored by the Senior Pastor, in December 2007.
Bryan’s inexperience contributed to the loss of the church plant entrusted to him. Georgia-Cumberland conference leadership sought to implement a plan for corrective ministry action by placing him with a strong pastoral team. This plan was not carried to completion because of Bryan’s 2009 call to the WWU church.
Bryan wrote in 2009, “We also need, in this local church revolution, a major transfer of funds from the many layers of governance back into local settings.” 7 Such thinking is similar to the ideas which led to Bryan’s resignation from the ministry in 2002.
His failure to properly shepherd his misguided Roswell, Georgia flock is disappointing. Former Seventh-day Adventists today are worshiping in the church he started, now led by his brother.
Less than 5 years ago, Alex Bryan was associated with the leadership of a Sunday observing non-SDA church outside Seventh-day Adventist denominational employment. This experience is not compatible with being appointed the president of a Seventh-day Adventist University.
Bryan continues to promote Spiritual Formation in his church. One assumes, as President, he would continue this injection of Spiritual Formation into the WWU campus. We should “Stay away from non-biblical spiritual disciplines or methods of spiritual formation that are rooted in mysticism such as contemplative prayer, centering prayer, and the emerging church movement in which they are promoted.” Elder Ted Wilson, President of the General Conference, July 3, 2010.
2) Educational Experience
a. The presidential search process started with a document that outlined the job description of the new president. This document concluded with 10 performance expectations, the 10th being:
“Possess significant senior leadership experience, and have an earned doctoral degree and teaching experience at the college or university level.”
There are three “expectations” identified in this single expectation item. Bryan does not “significantly” meet any of the three:
7 Adventist Today, Winter 2009 edition, page 9. “The End of American Adventism?”
Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 4 of 8
Expectation of “Significant senior leadership experience.” The announcement recommending Alex states that this is met by “Bryan leads a pastoral staff of 10.” The ten are actually five associate pastors, an office manager, worship director, treasurer, and two custodians.
Expectation of “Have an earned doctoral degree.” Alex Bryan has a Doctor of Ministry, a professional degree designed by Universities for pastors to obtain for becoming professional ministers. It is not an academic degree like the PhD, which is meant for academic scholars who wish to work as professional researchers or in academics as professors or administrators.
Expectation of “teaching experience at the college or university level.” Bryan has taught classes at the university level, but the experience gained by his teaching would qualify him to be hired as a teacher at the Assistant Professor level, an entry teaching position, requiring nearly six years of successful teaching at this level to obtain the rank of Associate professor. The rank advancement requirement is based on the value of experience. Remember, 5 years ago Bryan was pastoring a Sunday-observing church.
b. Walla Walla University needs a president with a working knowledge of higher education, with demonstrated success as a good teacher practicing sound scholarship and engaged in research -- within a context of being in unambiguous support of the Seventh-day Adventist church, its teachings and its mission. His teaching experience is limited to that of part-time contract teacher while maintaining a full-time pastor’s position.
3) Views and Relationship with Spiritual Formation
a. Introduction of Spiritual Formation. Alex Bryan has indicated that Spiritual Formation shall be incorporated in all venues of the WWU church.
b. Attitude and Communication.
i. Perception of humility issue. Several attending the WWU Adventist Forum of October 2011, dealing with Spiritual Formation, described him as cocky and arrogant. He reported that “he had not lost two minutes sleep” over the concerns expressed by others about his introduction of Spiritual Formation from the leading emergent church authors of the world. Bryan needs to be willing to listen to people having differing opinions from his own concerning Spiritual Formation.
In one case, a long time member of the WWU church was dismissed from volunteer duties by Bryan, when there was a disagreement with him over the introduction of Spiritual Formation in the WWU church.
ii. Your opinion is not of interest: In the same SDA Forum, Alex was asked questions dealing with concerns about Spiritual Formation in the WWU church by several church members. These were either disparaged or ignored. See Figure 1 on the last page.
Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 5 of 8
c. Ecumenical Focus
i. Some constituents were at the One Project gathering February, 2011. Bryan presented a bowl with puzzle pieces that he used to demonstrate that the SDA church, even as we are unique; we are only one of the pieces of the puzzle.
ii. He speaks often of the need to be ecumenical. This emphasized joining with other denominations and leaving behind our Adventist distinctiveness and practice. For example, at the ONE project, Bryan stated that if a Seventh-day Adventist called themselves part of the “remnant church” then they are “arrogant and extremists.”
d. Doctrinal Concerns
i. Seventh-day Adventist beliefs are rarely presented from the pulpit. The Three Angels’ Messages, the Sanctuary message, the Remnant, the distinctive messages of Adventism are not being heard.
ii. Bryan writes (Winter 2009 Adventist Today pg 10) “We need pastorates, pulpits, committees, boards, and initiatives filled with very young adults. Not tokens. Not the one 27-year-old who is really a 77-year-old in a 20-something body.” Bryan should take the opportunity to visit a GYC annual meeting. He would observe over 7,000 young people on fire for the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist church8 which is no small “token.” Statements like these tend to run down the conservative young and old alike and act to disregard the wisdom of elders.
iii. Parents weigh many things as they determine which university they will entrust with their precious financial resources. They send their children to Seventh-day Adventist institutions because they are Seventh-day Adventist institutions.
Bryan’s influence from the pulpit presenting Spiritual Formation principles in place of the distinctive message of the Seventh-day Adventist church should not be propagated throughout a University via the president-level influence.
We believe Alex Bryan should not be WWU president at this time. Please consider choosing an interim president until an academically and spiritually qualified candidate can be chosen.
If you agree that there are concerns with Alex Bryan being appointed president at this time, please call or email the chair of the board of trustees at WWU and express your concern.

[Snip names and addresses]

8 Their identity is defined as: “A youth-initiated and-led movement of Seventh-day Adventists from diverse backgrounds, united in a common commitment to serious Bible study, intense prayer, uncompromising lifestyle, and boldness in sharing Christ with others.”
Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 6 of 8
If you know any of the board members of WWU, please express your concern to them directly, as they will be voting whether to appoint Alex Bryan as the new President on July 1, 2012. Here is a list of the board members that will be voting whether or not to appoint Bryan as the next president of Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 7 of 8
Figure 1. Alex Bryan displays his favorite Spiritual Formation books at the Adventist Forum meeting held at Walla Walla University, October 2011.
He described these books as “the most helpful.” Bryan described how others, with differing views about Spiritual Formation from his have spoken negatively against these “helpful” books. He says his favorite authors have been “lambasted in some very poorly written books that are very popular in Adventism right now by the way, there are three of four of them which I will not name that are doing great destruction and are very poorly put together (he holds up the books shown above and reads the names of his favorite authors) Manning, Foster, Yaconelli, Foster, Willard, Eldredge, Foster, Manning - so yea, I think the comments made about those authors – I would disagree” and then shakes his head and speaks inaudibly.9 At the end of his statement, he is asked why the Seventh-day Adventist church’s president would speak negatively about the content of those books, Alex is silent and does not answer the question and goes to the next question.
9 Adventist Forum DVD, time stamp 1:11:43 to 1:12:12.
Concerns Regarding Alex Bryan as the New President of WWU Page 8 of 8
Figure 2. A screen shot from Alex Bryan’s blog page, showing his “Must Reads” page. Bryan recommends reading Contemplative Pastor Eugene Peterson, Emerging Church leader Brian Mclaren’s Generous Orthodoxy, and Universalist Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis.

Group Opposes Pastor Alex Bryan

There is a new controversy going on from the Adventist Traditionalists. It concerns the Pastor of the Walla Walla University Church; Alex Bryan possible appointment to become the New President of WWU. I personally was a little skeptical of such an appointment since his educational experience seems to be greatly lacking when it comes to being the President of a University, but then Presidents of universities are probably mostly political appointments made up of who you know not what you know, I can't be too upset about it.

The Traditional Adventists seem to object to Bryan based largely upon his use of other Christian thinkers and writers. Under the rubric spiritual formation and the new Adventist fear that is popular in certain articles over on Adventist Today about the emerging church movement. Most specifically see the rantings of Herbert Douglass.

Here is the PDF article currently going around the internet expressing the concerns of some of these Adventist Traditionalists. It only has any power of persuasion if you are already afraid of new ideas of spiritual formation and the emerging church. something of course against any good Traditionalists conceptions as... well tradition is all you need. I find it hard to take this people seriously but I realize that they are on an arc of ascendance in Adventism. My thinking is they will rise and they will drive the rest of the people out of the church, creating their very own self fulfilled prophecy of the shaking (and Ellen White prophecy not a Biblical prophecy).

Really you think they would be more concerned about Bryan as a Pastor of an influential church rather then being a University President. But I don't pretend to understand their thinking. I am just passing it along.

The Specifics of Sameul K. Pipim's Failure

There has been a lot of discussion on Dr. Pipim's sexual misadventure because of his proposed rebaptism (now canceled). You can read about it at Spectrum and Atoday, click the proceeding links for the articles. The question seems to be was it actually rape. They have a transcript of the telephone conversation which is rather interesting and I assume pretty responsible for Pipim's resignation. Reading it though does not seem to resolve the real question. Rebaptism is not the problem, I don't even think such things are necessary but the question for the denomination is to allow this man to be placed in any type of authority if he is indeed a sexual predator. There really has to be a lot more investigation and openness from those involved, if not then accept him back as a member but invest no authority in him again. We are to forgive but we are also to protect and we as a church must balance those ideas.

Creation 7th day folly

There is an interesting article and conversation on Atoday.com regarding the trademark violations of the self described Creation Seventh day Adventist church (sometimes identified with 7^th instead of seventh, hereafter CSDA). The article's title and opening line reads:

“Should These Men Go To Jail Because of a Church Name?

Submitted: May 16, 2012

By Andrew Hanson
Should the Seventh-day Adventist Church seek to put people in jail because of their non-violent religious beliefs? That is the bottom line to the long story of a little, independent congregation and the General Conference attorneys.”

As a news article it begins somewhat poorly as the SDA church never set out to send anyone to jail as there really is no jail sentence available for trademark violations, they simply sought legal protection from the misuse of their trademark. The whole idea of jail comes from the CSDA members putting back up signs which the court had taken down. Thus the whole affair with jail no longer has anything to do with the SDA church but with violations of court orders. If the CSDA folks want to pretend to be martyrs for violating US and international laws that is their business but it is hardly something that can be blamed upon the SDA denomination.

For a background of the story see the video links on the above Atoday.com article as well as look at the actual findings of the court in 2006 against the CSDA group. Case No. D2006-0642 Here are a the main decision findings from that case:

The Panel does not believe that the freedom to practice religion or the deviation from fundamental doctrine constitute defenses cognizable under the Policy to invalidate the protection afforded Complainant by its registered Marks.

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant, for purposes of this proceeding, has enforceable rights in the Marks.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Marks in which the Complainant has rights pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

The Panel finds that persons interested in finding religious information are Internet users and consumers within the meaning of the Policy. Respondent is using Domain Names which are confusingly similar for purposes of the Policy. Therefore, he is attracting Internet users and misleading consumers searching for Complainant.

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).

An additional factor found to support a finding of bad faith is Respondent’s actual knowledge of the Complainant’s Marks when Respondent registered the Domain Names. When considered with the attraction of Internet users using a likelihood of confusion, the Panel finds this evidence sufficient to support a finding that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).

Respondent advises the Panel that he has been commanded by YAHWEH to employ the name Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church in describing the true religion and fellowship of His spiritual kingdom on Earth. Respondent must obey God rather than men.

The Panel finds that the defense of waiver offered by Respondent is not sufficient to nullify the bad faith of Respondent. 
 

Now it seems from the conversation on the Atoday website from CSDA members that their claim to not follow the judicial decisions of United States courts is because they feel that God has given them the name and they must follow God. The followers also make the point that because the CSDA group does not follow the courts ruling that they be held in contempt of court; they claim to be subject to being jailed because of the SDA church. Of course if there was no governmental action to back up a judicial finding there would be no reason for courts at all. That the government takes these actions is in the courts interest as well as in the plaintiffs interest thus the use of contempt recommendations by SDA Lawyers. I would rather see our courts maintain effectiveness by holding those in contempt when the court's ruling is violated. They can always appeal and when the court asks for simple and reasonable actions there is little excuse for the CSDA to refuse and expect no consequences for their contempt of court.

Here are some of the CSDA comments about why they must refuse to follow the courts ruling:

----

2) We believe that He has given us a name that reflects this faith, and although it was always clear it would cause controversy, we did not shrink from this duty because of the fear of man's judgment.  The idea that Christ still speaks to His people seems to immediately trigger the adrenaline glands of some. --David Aguilar

----

I would be pleased if you are willing to understand what the issue here really is.  We did not and will not just flip a coin and choose a "name for ourselves."  We have not co-opted a corporate name for our own benefit.  Those who make such accusations are deluded liars. (It actually hurts me to speak with such force of words.)

Two believers in Jesus and the Adventist message saw visions from God that commanded us to take the name "Creation Seventh Day Adventist" as the name of our faith and practice of religion. "Let every fact be established by two or more..."

Many believe Moses received tablets of stone on which the commandments of God were engraved with His own finger.  "Creation Seventh Day Adventist" is engraved in every heart of our brethren by the Spirit of YAHWEH.  If this were the case for you, would you give credibility to the advice of other "helpful souls?" -- Pastor Chick

----

If one actually followed this kind of logic then anything regardless of legal finding would have to be accepted as part of religious liberty. “We were told by two of our members who saw visions from God that we should break into the video store to supply our church with audio and video equipment”? This is the real danger of these CSDA folks. They pretend to be standing up for religious liberty when they are not at all standing for it they are destroying it. Their arguments would make all laws useless and all deluded people free from prosecution. They would destroy the entire nation because of their selfishness. This logic is seen by another comment of Pastor Chick who misapplies the Roman/Jewish conspiracy against Christ 2000 years ago with the court case in 21^st century America. He writes:

You posed the following questions for contemplation:--Should the Seventh-day Adventist Church seek to put people in jail because of their non-violent religious beliefs?
I would suggest a parallel question:  Should the Jewish Church have sought to have the Christ arrested because of His religious beliefs that led to His authoritative claims?
 --Is it really necessary for our Church to put these two men in jail?
My parallel question:  Was it really necessary for the Jewish Church leaders to influence Pilate in arresting the Prince of Glory and putting Him to death?
 --Do church members and pastors think that this is an appropriate way for the Church to deal with splinter groups?
My parallel question:  Did the constituency of the Jewish Church think the treatment of Christ by their leaders was appropriate for His dissident doctrine, divisive activities, and authoritative claims?
 --Is there a Bible basis for enforcement efforts that go so far as to put people in jail?
My parallel question:  Was there an Old Testament basis for the efforts put forth by the “leading men” to have Christ arrested, scourged, and eventually killed?

Here again we see the self centered nature of their argument. To disagree with their positions is equivalent to the persecution of Jesus Christ. They assume they are the Christ position, they are the good and true followers. Again Pastor Chick when responding to the religious liberty position of a previous commenter:

Pastor_Chick

If you knew my Father, you would know me.  If you loved my Father, you would love me.  If you did the will of my Father, you would appreciate the works that I do, for they are the works of Him who lives in me.

There is no confusion in the Church of the Living God.  His people are perfectly untied as one with the Father and His Son.  They do always those things that please Him.  What they hear from the Father, they do. Amen.

Later he writes:

Good point!  After all, God's armies have always been the large ones, right?

Let's consider the days of Noah, for example.  The Messiah said it will be same when He comes back; so, you DO have a good 92% on your side.  But, I will rely on the prophecy of One who said, "Few there be that find it."  I hope you understand -- this is no "riddle."  It is life and death – eternal.

Here is the argument that because they have been ruled against and that most people do not support their position they must be on God's side. The majority is the enemy so if one is on a minority side they are on the side of God.

We need to pray for and if you know any of these people help them learn how to actually think rather then to manipulate information. This does seem to be a true lunatic fringe, and there should be a good deal of concern for mainstream Adventists as well that our denomination seems to breed people that think so strangely. Has the teaching of Adventism over the last 100 plus years created these strange offshoots. Now that is an interesting question.

A Response to When is logic illogical

There is a common problem we see with many Adventists as they talk about Genesis.  They assume if you do not accept the literalistic six days of creation then you don’t believe in God’s involvement at all. One would think that with the theory of Theistic Evolution that would not be a problem (“Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation” Wikipedia). It incorporates the divine supernatural activity of God in the direction of evolution. But most Traditional Adventists find it easier to create the straw man argument. That argument is that of naturalistic evolution where random chance and life from non life is the only explanation offered against their literal view of six day creation. That is why so many of them such as Clifford Goldstein and David Read so commonly present the opposition to their literal creationism as Seventh-day Darwinians or Darwinians respectively.  As this blog has pointed out in a previous article both of those terms are inaccurately used. Seventh-day Darwinians without even having a definition! Even when frequently used by Clifford Goldstein, he can’t be bothered to define his own term, it simply is meant as a slam against his opponents. Not based upon what they believe or espouse but upon his distortion of their beliefs. That is why his opponents are never mentioned by name or their statements are ever quoted.

This atmosphere in the Adventist media has pervaded the dialog so when Bruce Justinen wrote his response to my article “the need for logic” he presents logic as opposed to the supernatural. This technique allows them to buttress their literal creation story as supernatural and if you don’t accept their traditional literal version of the creation story you don’t accept anything supernatural. This is how Bruce expressed it:

For some, this is not good enough, they must know.  So they hypothesize, they imagine, they fill in the blanks, they logic that which it is not subject to logic.  “The fiery furnace, Jonah and the great fish, the sun moving backward, the axe head floating ...”

The Straw man arguments are logical fallacies, but they are a frequent method of manipulation…at least until the fallacy is pointed out and then it is clear that the logic of their position is in fact not logical but a fallacy stated as a fact. The art of propaganda is to keep repeating something long enough that people then accept it. But merely repeating a lie does no one any good. It does not lead to a good discussion and it certainly does not lead to any sort of reasoned argument and will never lead to a satisfactory conclusion.

But the original question is not is there or was there supernatural activities. The very term theistic evolution should disabuse someone of that idea.  That it does not, shows that their position is not based upon logic but upon misinformation. The use of misinformation is contrary to a well reasoned argument (logic). Let us remind ourselves of the definition of logic:

1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.

3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

That the logical principles should be overlooked because one claims supernatural beliefs is perhaps one of the strangest arguments one could make. As Bruce wrote:

“What I think he fails to see is that logic has not been cast aside by.  It is that Adventism has always chosen the logic of the Supernatural over the logic of science.   We simply turn to the Supernatural.  If I may paraphrase Webster “not subject to explanation by Me...or anyone I know.”

“But as Christians we make choices as to what we will believe.  We realize we do not have all of the information – all of the time.  The Bible does not claim to give us all of the information on Creation or a host of other subjects, it gives us what it gives us, there may be more, there probably is – a lot more.  I don’t know.  And there lies the conundrum – I don’t know.”

First there is no logic of the Supernatural. We can’t study the supernatural we study what others have said about the supernatural and with logic we make inferences of possible relationships between the natural and the supernatural. Theistic evolution supposes supernatural activity that correlates with the physical evidence on the planet and the visible universe.  Thus life is still produced by God but the technique used is not that assumed by traditions.  As science learns more we have redefined our interpretations, as we see evidence which makes our previous belief seem less probable.  God is not removed but his methods of activity are interpreted in less traditional ways.

If Christians were more logical they would see that their interpretations of the Bible have indeed changed through time as people learn more. As Bruce says he does not know. When one does not know something the logical thing to do is not to simply stand on the traditions but to acknowledge that there may in fact be other methods of interpretation of the Biblical stories. So as he says the Bible does not claim to give us all the information on Creation so why do so many Christians feel that their traditional interpretation is the only possible solution. If they don’t know, if their answers are clearly inadequate why not allow for the possibility of other methods of interpretation and other theories of origins.

The false logic of only accepting the tradition of a literal 6 day creation or young earth creation and then distorting other Christian theories of origins is the problem.  The discussion gets nowhere because one side is trying to use logic and the other refuses to use logic, pretending that they are, but in fact treating their beliefs and traditions as if those things represent logical arguments. This is not to say that this is the problem of all Christians, for there are people working in Creation Science or Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution, all these can work on understanding the Creation yet none of them have or are likely to present a scientific theory of origins, since each has to use the supernatural and the supernatural is outside of our investigative processes.

We can’t just resort to supernaturalism as a belief on origins because then we have nothing more than a series of religions each with their own supernatural origin beliefs. To make the case that way we would have to prove our particular belief to be the only possible religion and once we have proved our religion alone is right then we would submit that are particular belief is the correct view of supernatural origins. Our logic then will be used to set forth our particular religion or denomination or church as the correct and only true and verifiable belief. That is a losing task, and it deflects from God to a religious tradition which is usually simply a group of narrowly accepted interpretations.

We will ultimately get nowhere if we ignore sound reasoning and following logical explanations for our beliefs. To ignore the scientific evidence is not logical or persuasive, we must do better, and we must, as Bruce said admit we don’t know and if we don’t know we can’t exclude options and possibilities and alternative explanations. Right now our church is at that threshold…will they be humble enough to go forward and seek to progress in understanding or go backward and assume that only our tradition is the acceptable belief for our church and its members.

When is Logic Illogical; guest Comment

                                       WHEN IS LOGIC ILLOGICAL

                            (A response from Bruce Justinen 5/2012)

As we punt, bat and kick around the continuing debate over the validity of the Creation story of Genesis 1 and 2, as literal or not, we should consider the logic of the supernatural.  Is it possible that our purported logical thinking is in fact illogical?

Webster’s Dictionary defines “supernatural” as: “...not subject to explanation according to natural laws;”  “Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature, miraculous.”  In other words, not necessarily subject to logical explanation or analysis.   Stephen J. Gould, the now diseased Harvard biologist was quite comfortable acknowledging that there were things he did not know and in fact were not knowable to him by the science (logic) for which he was so esteemed.   He termed it “non overlapping magisterium.”   He was right in his basic premise, but perhaps naïve in feeling a neat line could be drawn between the realm of faith and that of reason.  And of course, he and others wished to draw that line far into what most Christians would complain was in fact God’s territory!

1 Corinthians 1: 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:  “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”  20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

This verse is only applicable in the context of the “supernatural”.  That is, it would be “foolishness” to label everything we merely disagree with as “foolishness” just because we have these handy-dandy verses available to us as Christians.  It is only when there is a conflict with the Supernatural, the “not being subject to explanation...” that we can lay hold of I Corinthians 1:18-20.  The formula applies only when Science is contrary to the Supernatural.

We do not seek to be silly here.  Science, Physics, Genetics, Paleontology, etc. all have merit. In fact, our standard of living, the comfort of our homes, our jobs and lifestyles are dependent on the sciences.  I am not debating science or even evolution, I do not understand nor do I act as an apologist for God in this debate, He does not need one.  There is simply too much I can say “I don’t know” and “I haven’t heard all God has to say on this yet”.  And I probably won’t hear His side until after Jesus comes.

For some, this is not good enough, they must know.  So they hypothesize, they imagine, they fill in the blanks, they logic that which it is not subject to logic.  “The fiery furnace, Jonah and the great fish, the sun moving backward, the axe head floating ...”

Ron Corson wrote recently “What appears to be happening in Adventism today is that logic has been cast aside. When we lose that we have nothing. We have no reason to exist and we have no reasonable way to fulfill a mission for God and no way to fulfill that mission because we have lost the key elements to communicate.”

What I think he fails to see is that logic has not been cast aside by.  It is that Adventism has always chosen the logic of the Supernatural over the logic of science.   We simply turn to the Supernatural.  If I may paraphrase Webster “not subject to explanation by Me...or anyone I know.”

But as Christians we make choices as to what we will believe.  We realize we do not have all of the information – all of the time.  The Bible does not claim to give us all of the information on Creation or a host of other subjects, it gives us what it gives us, there may be more, there probably is – a lot more.  I don’t know.  And there lies the conundrum – I don’t know.

I will be forced to wait for my explanation.  I willingly suspend judgment or leave in God’s hands those areas I cannot know.

Do I understand the different climates of the Galapagos Islands?  No!  Does the earth seem very old?  Yes!  Do I possess Megaladon teeth both serrated and non-serrated teeth that would suggest that their teeth “evolved” over a long period of time?  Yes!   Do I understand how Jonah could live for three days inside a whale?  No! 

In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences, in answer to the tensions between science and religion, made this statement in a publication it titled “Science and Creationism”.  “Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

Adventism believes that they occupy one realm and that they glorify each other and that where one must make a choice which to believe and this is not often but does happen.  When we have to choose which to go with, where to place one’s faith in, we choose the Supernatural.  We do this, having faith that all of the answers may not be apparent to us but that the answers do exist.

But I know that in the world of the Supernatural, things don’t always seem as they appear.  Even though science is ever before me in all its logical wonder, so is the magic of the Supernatural and it has the greater sway over me.  Not that I mistrust science, I don’t.  It is just that I know the One that invented science controls it and I trust Him more.

However, I do have enough to say to a dying world: “Trust the Supernatural, there is hope there.  The logical world, for all I can see, has not delivered on its promises.”

So am I held up to possible ridicule?  Possibly.  But given a choice of trusting my logic, your logic or anyone else’s logic or trusting God, I choose the Supernatural God.  If that is illogical, so be it.

The need for Logic

Recently I received a comment on this blog from Adventist Today Editor J. David Newman, in part he wrote:

“You write well although you and I will never come to any sort of agreement because your logic is beyond me just as my logic is beyond you. It seems that we are speaking two different languages.”

A couple years ago I had an extended dialog with David Newman on the subject of death before sin and he could not fathom anything other then taking the Genesis chapters 1 and 2 as literal method of interpretation. You know the perfect world with talking snakes thing, with trees given names like the “tree of life” and the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”.

His claim was that we were talking past each other, basically what he is saying in the above comment. I would have liked to have posted those conversations but he did not want me to. I think the reason he did not want them posted is not because we were speaking a different language but because we were speaking with different presuppositions and facts. But his facts were mostly beliefs and when you compare beliefs with actual factual information beliefs don't seem so compelling.

Not long ago there was a news program and Rachel Maddow was making a statement about the supposed wage gap between men and women. To this another panelist Alex Castellanos stepped in to explain some of the reasons for wage differences. Her response was: “Wait wait wait, don't tell me the reasons do women make less then men...” If one rejects reasons to focus upon statistics do the statistics really matter anymore? No in fact they become excuses. We see a lot of this type of miscommunication in the world of politics, but it is also just as frequent in the world of religion.

It is most frequent with the fundamentalist mindset that claims that the Bible is the word of God, so if God wrote the story of Genesis through the hand of some person, God was telling the literal, historical and scientifically accurate truth. That presupposition precludes any logical or reasoned variance with their belief. Their belief is not even accurate as the Bible does not claim to be the word of God (click this link for more) in the first place but that does not really matter as their belief is the primary thing. When people refuse to use logic then logic has no effect on them. When people want you to ignore logic then their arguments have no effect on the person who wants to be logical; who wants to have well thought out reasons for their positions. Thus Newman's statement is somewhat true. “...I will never come to any sort of agreement because your logic is beyond me just as my logic is beyond you.” The problem is that we could communicate if he was using logic. That is the reason for the existence of what we call logic. That way people can get together and discuss and work out ideas and effectively communicate.

What appears to be happening in Adventism today is that logic has been cast aside. When we lose that we have nothing. We have no reason to exist and we have no reasonable way to fulfill a mission for God and no way to fulfill that mission because we have lost the key elements to communicate. For Adventism to progress it must begin to think critically once again. (see the following quote on Critical Thinking):

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following :

• understand the logical connections between ideas
• identify, construct and evaluate arguments
• detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning
• solve problems systematically
• identify the relevance and importance of ideas
• reflect on the justification of one's own beliefs and values