Protecting Progressive Adventists from truth

 

 

Adventist Today Sabbath School Class has taken its attack on truth to a new level this week. ATSS: “A New Reformation”: Adventist Fundamentalism and the Ku Klux Klan presented by Michael W. Campbell. I zoom attended this program which was going along normally, Campbell had begun with a review of Fundamentalism and had moved on to the KKK. He had actually just commented on the movie “Birth of a Nation” and he had still not acknowledged the fact that the KKK was acting in conjunction with the Democrat party. So I thought that would be a very good time to mention that I thought it should be acknowledged that the KKK was the militant arm of the Democrat Party. I thought this was a point that it should really be noted since the movie Birth of a Nation was: “It was the first motion picture to be screened in the White House, viewed there by President Woodrow Wilson, his family, and members of his cabinet.”

That movie was a technical breakthrough for movies but it was also a major turning point for the reinvigoration of the KKK.

After I made my comment in the zoom comment section I received a private message from Loren Seibold with the comment. “Quit making it political, or leave”. Of course, mine was not the first political comment in the chat section. At one point I read one comment that said something to the effect that Trump and the Republicans were doing the same things as the KKK. Someone then directed a question at me, but since I had been messaged by Seibold I told the person No I can’t answer and quoted what Seibold had said to me. I also said I honestly did not know how anyone can talk about the KKK without dealing with the politics of it. Then someone commented that it was a fair point but there had been a flip at some time between the Democrat and Republican positions. I put in my last comment which was that the flip was a myth.

Then I was dumped from the zoom meeting! Not because I continued to talk about the political realities of the KKK era because I did not say anything else about it. I am guessing I was kicked out because I quoted what Seibold had said to me. It is interesting that he did not just say something in the comments to everyone if he was afraid of political comments. If anyone has attended this zoom programs the comments can be pretty wide-ranging and they occur simultaneously with the speaker's presentation, They in no way interfere with the presentation.

I suspect that he did not address his comment to the total group in the chat room because the major emphasis at Adventist Today is Progressive politics. To carry that idea forward he has to attempt to cover up the history of Progressivism. That period of time that Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of a nation was also the time of the beginning of Progressivism (The Progressive Era). As Hillary Clinton once said in 2007: “... I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century…”

I have no idea where the connection of Adventism to the KKK was, one could go look up the presentation on the Atoday YouTube account though. I likely will not as if the presenter is not able to acknowledge the actual history of the KKK and the Democrat party how well is anything going to be.

But if you ever wonder why there is so much wrong information on the Adventist Today articles. I think it is all related to the idea that their new Woke Theology is actual Woke Democrat politics. When politics define your religion then your religion is politics. That is why the website no longer has conservative political or religiously conservative authors anymore and since the tendency is to restrict people’s comments even conservative comments in the Facebook section are few and far between. There is actually a fairly humorous article on Fulcrum7.com How Your Church Can Be More Woke

 

When truth is the last thing you want to report

 It seems every time I read an article from Adventist Today I read false information. It seems as if they have no filter at all by which they can test the truth of their articles. It seems to me it is really now all about pushing a political leftist view upon the readers of AToday.

 

Take this recent article. Abortion Is Terrible, but Abortion Laws Are Worse by Lindsey Abston Painter  14 September 2021 

“Only if you have been living under a rock would you not have heard that at the beginning of September the state legislators in Texas passed a draconian law criminalizing abortions past six weeks of pregnancy. Not only the woman who has an abortion will be treated as a criminal, but anyone involved in any way, including any doctor or medical personnel involved—and even a person who drove her to the clinic or offered her shelter. Women who leave the state to have an abortion are to be immediately prosecuted when they return.” 

Is that paragraph true? Does the Texas law criminalize abortions past 6 weeks? Are the women treated as a criminal, is everyone peripherally involved treated as criminals? Are women who leave the state for an abortion immediately prosecuted when they return?

The answer is no to all of those assertions. No one has to look too hard to see that those statements are all untrue. Pretty much a few paragraphs from an NPR article can show just how wrong the Lindsey Abston Painter’s article is.

“The law allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone else who helps a woman obtain an abortion — including those who give a woman a ride to a clinic or provide financial assistance to obtain an abortion. Private citizens who bring these suits don't need to show any connection to those they are suing.”

 “Groups who oppose abortion rights have pushed for this Texas law, hoping that it will be harder for federal courts to knock it down. Instead of requiring public officials to enforce the law, this law allows individuals to bring civil lawsuits against abortion providers or anyone else found to "aid or abet" illegal abortions.”

“Anyone who successfully sues an abortion provider under this law could be awarded at least $10,000. And to prepare for that, Texas Right to Life has set up what it calls a "whistleblower" website where people can submit anonymous tips about anyone they believe to be violating the law.”

“"These lawsuits are not against the women," says John Seago with Texas Right to Life. "The lawsuits would be against the individuals making money off of the abortion, the abortion industry itself. So this is not spy on your neighbor and see if they're having an abortion."

As a fact checking website states:

“​​On May 19, Abbott signed a law stating that ‘a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman unless the physician has determined … whether the woman's unborn child has a detectable fetal heartbeat.’ The law creates an exception if the physician determines a medical emergency makes an abortion necessary. Critics have noted that fetal heartbeats can be detected as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, limiting the window in which a woman can legally seek an abortion in Texas.”

“The law allows citizens, rather than the state, to sue anyone who performs or assists in procuring an abortion. Those found to have done so will, thus, be civilly instead of criminally liable, and will be made to pay “statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each abortion.” Notably, SB8 does not allow for suits to be brought against women who recieve abortions after a heartbeat is detected.”

Reading the Facebook comments there are loads of people who praise this AToday article even though it begins with clearly false information. My point is not for or against the Texas law but simply pointing out the lack of factual information in the Adventist Today article. Most of the article is typical of political progressive arguments for abortions. So the article is trying to be a persuasive argument for the leftwing views on the subject. This points out again that the major focus of Adventist Today is the spreading of political progressive, democrat philosophies.

 

 

 

 

Olive Hemmings distortion of the beloved disciple

 

Adventist Today writer Olive Hemmings  Presents a rather peculiar view of the “beloved disciple” here is what she says in the excerpt of her article and presentation

 

Tradition

The idea that John the son of Zebedee is the beloved disciple is based on tradition. The internal Biblical evidence points elsewhere to the “beloved disciple”. The entire investigation about this disciple requires a hermeneutic of suspicion.

This is what we have to show that John is the “beloved disciple”.

In John 21: 20, ff., Peter turns and sees the disciple whom Jesus loves following them. The text says that it is this disciple who reclined next to Jesus and enquired about who would betray him. Peter sees him and continues to interrogate Jesus concerning this disciple. Then the author of the Fourth Gospel says: “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.” The assumption is that John wrote the Fourth Gospel, therefore John is the beloved disciple.

But in fact we do not know who wrote the Fourth Gospel. Even the commentary saying: “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things…” appears as a comment by the actual author about the ‘beloved disciple”. This suggests that the beloved disciple, an eye witness, was the source of the author’s work.

Dr.Olive Hemmings presentation at the zoom Sabbath School took the position That the beloved disciple was Mary Magdalene. Due to the use of some extra-Biblical works namely Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. In order to use those books for her theory (the same theory that you can read about in Dan Brown’s the Da Vinci Code) Ms. Hemmings assumes that we can discount the tradition of the author of the book of John as actually being John. Which in fact may be the case and yet it would not negate the meaning that John was the beloved disciple in any way. So there is very little reason to entertain the idea of Mary Magdalene being the meaning of the beloved disciple in the book of John

 Contrary to Dr. Hemmings statement above, in fact, this is not the only thing we know to give us an idea of who the beloved disciple was. There are 6 references in the book of John:

1.     John 13:23: “One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.”

2.     John 19:26: “When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, ‘Woman, here is your son.’”

3.     John 20:2: “So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!’”

4.     John 21:7: “Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord!’”

5.     John 20:20: “Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them.”

In addition to this, John 21:24 describes the Beloved Disciple as the “disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.” 

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-the-gospel-of-john

By the internal evidence of the book of John we can rule out the beloved disciple as being Mary Magdalene Using John 20: 1-4:

20 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” 3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.

Thus Mary Magdalene could not be the person referred to in the book of John as the beloved because she in fact speaks to that person. Then after Mary Magdalene having run from the tomb, if she was the beloved she would have had to run back to the tomb beating Peter.

Let’s look at Dr. Olive Hemmings Biography

“Olive Hemmings has been teaching in Seventh-day Adventist higher education since 1982. She began teaching at her Alma Mater West Indies College (now Northern Caribbean University) in 1982, one year before graduating, and continued teaching there until 1998, when she moved to California to further her studies. She earned the M.A. in New Testament and Biblical languages from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University in 1989, and the Ph. D. in Theology, Ethics, and Culture from Claremont Graduate University in 2004. She taught at Northern Caribbean University for 15 years, and has been teaching at Washington Adventist University for the past eleven years in the areas of New Testament Bible and Greek, World Religions, Social, Biblical, and Theological Ethics, and Dogmatic Theology both in graduate and undergraduate programs.”

It might be interesting to know how Dr. Hemmings arrived at this decision to support the idea that Mary Magdalene was the beloved disciple.  Perhaps if a person watches the Adventist Today YouTube presentation when it posts they can see. Check for it in the future.

 On a related note, when people view the presentation they will see that Dr. Hemmings trys to discount the notion that the gospel of Thomas is a gnostic work. But as you can see in my opening quote of Dr. Hemmings she says: 

"The entire investigation about this disciple requires a hermeneutic of suspicion."

Here is the definition of hermeneutic of suspicion which to me sounds like gnostic reasoning. 

"The hermeneutics of suspicion is a style of literary interpretation in which texts are read with skepticism in order to expose their purported repressed or hidden meanings.^[1]

This mode of interpretation, invented by Paul Ricoeur, who was inspired by his interpretation of the works of what he called the three "masters of suspicion"^[2]—Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Friedrich Nietzsche— Ricoeur's term "school of suspicion" (French: école du soupçon) refers to his association of his theory with the writings of the three, who themselves never used this term.^[3] This school is defined by a belief that the straight-forward appearances of texts are deceptive and that explicit content hide deeper meanings or implications.^[1][4] 

 In reference to the last post I made this may reflect what is going on with Dr. Hemmings. 

The Gospel of Thomas has become popular in recent decades in relation to a populist Christian movement known as Liberation Theology, which also teaches self-reflection of each person as the Christ within you. Gustavo Gutierrez coined the term in his 1971 CE book, A Theology of Liberation. He criticized the Catholic Church in Latin America for corrupting the original teachings of Jesus.  Jesus. https://brewminate.com/secret-knowledge-a-history-of-christian-gnosticism-in-the-ancient-world/

 

Let's be real about school closures.

One of the things I really dislike is when a writer asserts an absurdity to try and back up a poor argument. In a recent Adventist Today column the anonymous author of the pseudo help column writes in his or her article entitled: Aunt Sevvy, My Daughter Wants to Homeschool!

If schools open, whether full-time or part-time, for in-person schooling, there is no guarantee they will remain open for the whole school year. Some countries that attempted to open schools closed them again because coronavirus cases skyrocketed. (And no, children are not immune to this infection. While not as susceptible as older people, they can contract it, and some have died.) If schools opened and then had to close again it would create the same panic and disruption to the schedules that happened last school year, and that was a nightmare for everyone! If your daughter is planning ahead to school her children from home it might save them the trauma they had to endure last year. 

First what countries opened schools and closed them? The author simply expects us to believe that schools reopened and then closed because cases skyrocketed. In fact, a number of European countries have opened their schools and not closed them. Such as Germany, France, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Portugal, Greece, Poland, and Sweden which never closed. From the BBC article Coronavirus: How lockdown is being lifted across Europe. No mention of a country that opened up schools and closed them! 

The author then counters the argument that no one makes. "And no, children are not immune to this infection". The only reason someone might say that children are immune to the infection, though I have never heard anyone say that, would be because the infection and more importantly the death rate is so low.

'To combat the paucity of evidence around COVID- 19 and pediatric patients, U.K. researchers conducted the largest clinical study on children outside of China to date. The study spanned over 20 European countries and multiple age groups, ultimately including 582 children and adolescents between the ages of 3 days old and 18 years old with confirmed SARS- CoV-2 infection. The study found that the majority of patients under 18 years old experienced a mild disease and less than 1% of them died. COVID-19 in children is usually mild, deaths rare, study says

Some other info:

The CDC researchers found the 2,572 pediatric cases among 149,082 cases in total. That is, pediatric cases made up just 1.7 percent of the cases examined. This is a significant underrepresentation of that age group in the US. Children under 18 make up 22 percent of the country’s population.

Of the 2,572 pediatric cases, nearly 60 percent were in children aged 10 to 17. Youngsters under one year, those aged one to four, and five to nine, made up 15 percent, 11 percent, and 15 percent of the cases, respectively. Among 2,490 cases with sex information, 57 percent were male.

The data also suggested that the cases were largely mild, though they only had data on symptoms from 291 of the 2,572 pediatric cases. Of those 291 cases, 78 (27 percent) did not have fever, cough, or shortness of breath (the most common symptoms in adults). And of those 78 cases, 53 didn’t report any symptoms. That said, researchers could not dub these cases asymptomatic because it was unclear if all of their potential symptoms had been recorded. One case was reported as asymptomatic. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/cdc-reports-data-on-2500-covid-19-cases-in-kids-including-3-deaths/

The article actually never even answers the supposed original letter which is just as well. As the saying goes garbage in, garbage out. The real question is why not give some actual facts. There is a reason people like the author want to give a false impression to the readers. There is a reason with all the evidence that school closures are unnecessary, there are still people pretending it is not safe.

Is there intelligent life at Adventist Today?

I try to resist, but old habits die hard. I read the article on Atoday called: The Non-Normative Jesus, What the Eunuch Passages Say About People on the Margins.  It takes as its Bible reference the following verses from Matthew chapter 19. I quote it below with the section in red being the verse not used in the article.

NIV  

1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 

2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 

5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 

6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” 

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 

12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

The ultimate conclusion seems to be found toward the end of his article. He writes:

My reading suggested to me that our modern understanding of the word “eunuch” does not do full justice to all who could be included within its meaning. I began to feel that in this context, eunuchs represent all sexually non-normative people, including gay men, lesbians, so-called “barren” women, people whose gender identity does not fit the male/female binary, and any other sexually non-normative group excluded from privilege. 

Certainly the eunuchs of old were non-normative but clearly, the verses are talking about those without sexual interest due to being born that way, castration or accident and those who have completely controlled and removed their sexual desires for the Kingdom of heaven. Very likely the last is perhaps a 1 and a million position but certainly like the others not likely anyone you have met. But does Eunuch represent all sexually non-normative people? The pedophile, the person fond of bestiality, the sadist? To the author Andrew Dykstra it appears that those should be included in his "all sexually non-normative people". 

There was once a time that I found interesting theologic material on Adventist Today. Now it seems to be filled with positively infantile and absurd reasoning. Oh and go look at the comments on Facebook, the only way one can comment on Adventist Today. Though they often block people on Facebook as well. No comment about the missing verse 9 which is pretty central to the whole question the disciples ask, the reason for their concern is well stated in the Benson Commentary as:

Matthew 19:10-11. His disciples say, If the case of a man be so with his wife — If the marriage-bond be thus indissoluble, and a man cannot dismiss his wife unless she break that bond by going astray, but must bear with her, whether she be quarrelsome, petulant, prodigal, foolish, barren, given to drinking, or, in a word, troublesome by numberless vices; it is not good to marry — A man had better not marry at all, since by marrying he may entangle himself in an inextricable snare, and involve himself in trials and troubles which may make him miserable all the rest of his days. But he said, All men cannot receive this saying — Namely, that it is not expedient to marry; save they to whom it is given — As a peculiar gift, to conquer those inclinations toward that state which are found in mankind in general, according to the common constitution of human nature.

I also think it is pretty unwise to base concepts to heavily on the words of Jesus when the Pharisees came to test Him, as they were trying to entrap him and Jesus was avoiding their traps. As the famous saying goes, the plain things are the main things. When we try to explain the vague things we usually are just inserting our preconceived ideas and trying to make them work with the text. 

It is important to actually note the meaning of the word eunuch:

Encyclopedias - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Eunuch

EUNUCH

u'-nuk (caric; spadon; eunouchos):

Primarily and literally, a eunuch is an emasculated man (Deuteronomy 23:1). The Hebrew word caric seems, however, to have acquired a figurative meaning, which is reflected in English Versions of the Bible where "officer" and "chamberlain" are found as renderings (compare Genesis 37:36; 39:1, where caric is applied to married men; Esther 4:4). The barbarous practice of self-mutilation and the mutilation of others in this way was prevalent throughout the Orient. The religious disabilities under which men thus deformed labored under the Mosaic law had the effect of making the practice abominable to the Jews as a people (Deuteronomy 23:1; Leviticus 22:23-25). The law excluded eunuchs from public worship, partly because self- mutilation was often performed in honor of a heathen god, and partly because a maimed creature of any sort was deemed unfit for the service of Yahweh (Leviticus 21:16; 22:24). That ban, however, was later removed (Isaiah 56:4,5). On the other hand, the kings of Israel and Judah followed their royal neighbors in employing eunuchs (1) as guardians of the harem (2 Kings 9:32; Jeremiah 41:16), and (2) in military and other official posts (1 Samuel 8:15 margin; 1 Kings 22:9 margin; 2 Kings 8:6 margin; 2 Kings 23:11 the King James Version margin; 2 Kings 24:12,13 margin; 2 Kings 25:19 margin; 1 Chronicles 28:1 margin; 2 Chronicles 18:8 margin; Jeremiah 29:2; 34:19; 38:7; compare Genesis 37:36; 40:2,7; Acts 8:27). Josephus informs us that eunuchs were a normal feature of the courts of the Herods (Ant., XV, vii, 4; XVI, viii, 1). From the single reference to the practice in the Gospels (Matthew 19:12), we infer that the existence and purpose of eunuchs as a class were known to the Jews of Jesus' time. There is no question with Jesus as to the law of Nature:

the married life is the norm of man's condition, and the union thereby effected transcends every other natural bond, even that of filial affection (Matthew 19:5,6).

But He would have His hearers recognize that there are exceptional cases where the rule does not hold. In speaking of the three classes of eunuchs (Matthew 19:12), He made a distinction which was evidently well known to those whom He addressed, as was the metaphorical use of the word in application to the third class well understood by them (compare Lightfoot, Horae Hebrew et Talmud; Schottgen, Horae Hebrew, in the place cited.).

How Origen misunderstood and abused the teaching of this passage is well known (Euseb., HE, VI, 8), and his own pathetic comment on the passage shows that later he regretted having taken it thus literally and acted on it. His is not the only example of such a perverted interpretation (see Talmud, Shabbath 152a, and compare Midrash on Ecclesiastes 10:7). The Council of Nicea, therefore, felt called on to deal with the danger as did the 2nd Council of Aries and the Apos Canons (circa 21). (Compare Bingham's Ant, IV, 9.)

It is significant that Jesus expresses no condemnation of this horrible practice. It was in keeping with His far-reaching plan of instilling principles rather than dealing in denunciations (John 3:17; 8:11). It was by His positive teaching concerning purity that we are shown the lines along which we must move to reach the goal. There is a more excellent way of achieving mastery of the sexual passion. It is possible for men to attain as complete control of this strong instinct as if they were physically sexless, and the resultant victory is of infinitely more value than the negative, unmoral condition produced by self-emasculation. These "make themselves eunuchs" with a high and holy purpose, "for the kingdom of heaven's sake"; and the interests created by that purpose are so absorbing that neither time nor opportunity is afforded to the "fleshly lusts, which war against the soul" (1 Peter 2:11). They voluntarily forego marriage even, undertake virtual "eunuchism" because they are completely immersed in and engrossed by "the kingdom of heaven" (compare John 17:4; 1 Corinthians 7:29,33; 9:5 and see Bengel, Gnomon Novi Test. in the place cited and Clement of Alexandria., Strom., iii.1).

See MARRIAGE.

LITERATURE.

Driver," Deuteronomy," ICC, Deuteronomy 23:1; Commentary on Mt, in the place cited. by Morison and Broadus; Neander, Ch. Hist, II, 493; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, 72; The Expositor, IV, vii (1893), 294; Encyclopedia Brit, article "Eunuch."

George B. Eager

Copyright Statement These files are public domain. Bibliography Information Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Entry for 'EUNUCH'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". 1915.

Adventist Today presents foolish article on separation of church and state

Adventist Today has brought to us a very powerful example of what Pastors should not do. In the article entitled Can a PastorCall Evil by Name—Even If It’s Political? By Reinder Bruinsma.   He begins by asking the question: “…the question of how pastors in their preaching might address some of the moral dilemmas that are currently hotly debated at all levels in the United States. How might they do this in a way that respects the separation between church and state?”  At this point, it should be pointed out that “Reinder Bruinsma lives in the Netherlands”.  So notable he is not any kind of authority on the United States Constitution.  It does appear from his article that he does not know that the term separation of church and state is not found in the US Constitution but it is a term Thomas Jefferson used in a letter in 1802. The websiteUSconstitution.net  states: “ The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

So Pastor Bruinsma begins with a false premise as it matters little how the church respects the separation between church and state. The Establishment Clause found in the Constitution is directed at the government. That is why it says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Amendment 1 

He continues by saying: “Americans will often claim that their country has realized a full separation between church and state, but looking at this as a European I am not so sure. Whenever I visit a church across the big pond, I see, to my amazement, a national flag on the podium. And I wonder why there is no protest when the president ends his speeches with the words: “God bless America!” And how is it that American leaders will host “prayer breakfasts” and that the Senate has a “chaplain”? I could mention many more things that make me wonder…”

He wonders also: “ I have been utterly amazed to find, for example, even among well-informed Adventist friends whom I highly respect, a lot of resistance against a type of universal health care coverage that, for a considerable time, has proven to function quite well in a number of European countries (among those, my own country). When this approach is labeled “socialist” it surely betrays a definition of socialism that differs significantly from that of most people in western Europe.” 

It is termed socialized medicine because the government is the main provider of medical care  In a socialist government the state controls the means of production. In socialized medicine, the state controls the medical care. It fits the definition of socialism quite well when applied to medical care as opposed to general state socialism. But if you incorrectly define something at the beginning it is easy to continue with more errors to prove a point that was never a fact in the first place. But to return to the other incorrect definition, separation of church and state.

The Establishment Clause gives the freedom of churches to have or not have flags on the podium The Federal Government cannot tell a church to put a flag on the podium. The restriction is to be on the government telling churches what they can or can’t do. Though admittedly after years of political Progressive politics we have seen the government interfering much more than ever before with religious freedoms in the US. The Senate does indeed have a chaplain. In Thomas Jefferson’s day they had church services held in the US Capital building and George Washington and a host of other Presidents publically prayed.

Incredibly looking at the comments about this article no one on Facebook has even realized that the author of the article does not even understand the history or application of the United States of America’s constitutional rights.  I don’t expect a guy from the Netherlands to be very conversant with the US Constitution but somehow this kind of foolishness is readily posted on Adventist Today. Possibly with their extreme leftist views, they themselves have no concept of the US Constitution.

But there is an important point to make here Bruinsma says: “My interest here is the prophetic role of the pastor in the pulpit. “ That is my concern as well. What do we do with Pastors from the pulpit who don’t know what they are talking about?  It happens far too often that Pastors think that their limited knowledge is good enough to comment on political issues.  To determine what political issues are good and what is evil.  Bruinsma offers us no real guidance but hopes that Pastors will have courage and wisdom from on high. I, however, would offer a more substantial bit of guidance. I would say that Pastors have a duty to research their subjects thoroughly before they make presentations. That means that they don’t just give one side of a political idea even if it is popular in the Leftist media. Instead be knowledgeable about both sides of the question, problem or solution.  We don’t see this a lot on Adventist Media anymore but it is not too late for local church pastors to actually take some accountability even if the Adventist media refuses to.