Believe Ye Penal Theory or Be Ye Devils

In a recent comment posted on the For The Gospel Blog I saw the following from Stan

In particular this part:

I just read through it, and I agree that Graham Maxwell's theology is very similar in many ways to the New Age course in miracles. I personally believe you are correct, that Maxwellian theology is a doctrine of demons.

He makes of no effect the wrath of God. The crucifixion loses it's meaning and the true gospel is denied.

What he read through is an article whose supposition is that Graham Maxwell’s theology is spiritualism and is similar to the New Age philosophy of a “Course in Miracles”. Which is about as accurate as saying Hitler and Gandhi were vegetarians so their religious philosophies are the same. I am not posting the link to Eugene Shubert’s site or article because I think it is a repulsive site to any Christian. I have had contact with Eugene on various forums and he has even managed to be banned from the most open Adventist forum on the internet Atomorrow.com a site which ranges from ultra traditional SDA’s to Atheists yet all have an Adventist connection. So you have to be really obnoxious to get banned from that forum.

I have many times referenced or linked to For The Gospel Blog and as such I was really disappointed in Stan to see him support Eugene’s position which as he recently posted on an Adventist forum is that Graham “Maxwell’s Demonic theology”. Eugene uses Stan’s comment on the For the Gospel blog to support his presentation that Maxwell is a demon among us and if anyone thinks Maxwell is a “fine Christian gentleman” they are not fit to interpret the Bible.

The trouble is seen so often among the more fundamentalist of Christians that if one differs in an interpretation such as the atonement that difference is enough to declare another Christian as not merely wrong but as an agent of Satan. In this case the latter Middle Ages interpretation known as the Penal/Substitutionary theory of the Atonement. It is assumed to be the only possible view of atonement theories even though the history of the Christian church has gone through many different theories. Today the more fundamentalist minded have determined there is only one view and it is that God poured out His wrath on Jesus Christ (who is God) on the cross. Even though there is not one New Testament verse to indicate that the wrath of God was poured out on Christ and there is also not one New Testament verse to indicate that Jesus paid the penalty for our sin. Tradition has taken the place of Biblical doctrine and when tradition rules it seems to become easier to declare those of different interpretations to be demons. The Roman Catholic Church gave us very dramatic testimony to this type of belief as it killed and tortured those who sought to bring the Bible into the language of the common man or those who disagreed with the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church whether in science or philosophy.

I had a good deal of respect for Stan over at For The Gospel but his comment has no place in the thinking Christians mind. We should not be defining fellow Christians as demoniac. Especially when his basis for the statements are so terrible misinformed. Christians should be free to disagree without the need to call someone so terribly hurtful. Not just personally hurtful but hurtful to the other Christians in the world; Hurtful also to those who know the person, and those who agree with the ideas or even just some of the ideas. As much as I disagree with people such as Neil T. Anderson, or Benny Hinn I do not doubt that they are Christians and they love God. They may hurt the cause of Christ but then I am sure that every one of us has hurt the cause of Christ by what we have done or said at times. That does not make us the servants of Satan. We all still see through the glass darkly we have no business judging other’s Christianity by our dark and distorted view through the glass.

The Penal/Substitutionary theory has internal problems and pleading to tradition does nothing to help solve the problems or grow in our Christian understanding. While I don’t agree with Maxwell’s views on the subject I do agree with his overall conclusion God is not the kind of person who says obey me or I will kill you. As such we can’t simply ignore the Penal view’s problems especially in the postmodern world. It is why I prepared the article entitled “What is Wrong with the Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement.”

If Stan would like to explore his view and my view of the Atonement I would be happy to offer my blog for the discussion. The view one has of the Atonement says a lot about the kind of God they worship. The kind of God one worships says a lot to the people of the world who we are trying to reach.

Sinless Perfectionism Introduction to a False Doctrine

I had never really noticed just how destructive certain Christians doctrines are. I recently have been involved with discussions with people who are proponents of “sinless perfection”. In the Adventist church this reveals itself in what is called last generation sinless perfection. It is very likely that with this quarters lesson study on The Refiners fire that the sinless perfection concept will be introduced into many Sabbath School Classes. The belief that someday there will be people on earth who no longer are tempted to or desire anything that would be termed sinful. Unfortunately in trying to defend this supposition of last generation perfection these people are destroying the Gospel. It is not simply the legalism which George Knight dealt with in his book I Used to Be Perfect: A Study of Sin and Salvation. In many ways these people take the focus off of the gift of God and place the emphasis upon man’s ability to give his or her will over to God.
Here are a few quotes from some of the sinless perfection proponents, all of whom are SDA:

“2) Perfection is when Man (sinful humans) has with the power of the divine, overcome sin to the state of Adam before the fall.

3) Adam before the fall had freewill and could sin, but when Man (sinful humans) overcomes sin, he no longer has any desire to sin.

4)Man (sinful humans) cannot go to heaven before God with any sin, as God requires holiness and perfection.”

--

(If we truly love God with all our strength and all our might, all else will fade and the Spirit will transform and put the law in our hearts and minds, and we are no longer under the dominion of sin or desire to sin.)

--

But he understands that "Christ lives in me" has transformed him as sin cannot hold sway over a person in which "Christ lives in". Then you cannot disregard the work of the Holy Spirit so that the hearts and minds are cleansed of sin. My feeling is that "sinless perfection" is kind of like the belief in the Trinity, we know its there but cannot define the divine in its completeness.

--

Christ is our creator and gave us an intelligence and free will to choose life or death. We can focus on Him to the point that we allow Him to run our lives and sanctify our characters ( which eventually will lead to sinless perfection ). However, that will never go to the extent that allows us to sin with impunity without confession or repentence.

--

I think we have to go with what the Bible says about the sanctified life in that when we abide in Christ we get to take part in the divine nature of Christ which should be the essence of what Christianity is all about anyway. So to me what sinless perfection offers to any Christian this side of the second coming is a sanctified life that gets to take part in the divine nature. Not that we can accomplish this on our own but it is the ultimate goal of Christian living and the miraculous change that can occur if we allow it too.

--

The thief on the cross will be able to enter into heaven because God knows man's heart. Had he (the thief) been given a chance, he would have cooperated with God and completed his walk to persevere and to overcome all sins.

--

If you are 'walking with God now' like Enoch, how can you still sin and be with Him. That cannot be, nowhere in the scripture does it say you can hold onto to sin and be together with God.

--

As I said in another thread, the bible tells us that we can be 'partakers of the DIVINE nature"! It's a PROMISE from the Father. So is God not good to His word? Are His promises not reliable for us here and now? Are we so blinded by self that we cannot see how sin wounds the Father and Jesus. He saves us FROM our sins, not IN our sins.

--

You cannot follow evil and hold onto and be under the dominion of sin and hold on and have a intimate relationship with Christ with his righteousness at the same time. No man can have two masters, he has to let go of one and grab the other, so when you decide to grab on to Christ and accept his righteousness, and be sanctified in/by Christ, you have to choose.

--

I have italicized the last statement because it is the crux of the problem. It is a true statement but it has nothing to do with sinless perfection. But if sinless perfection is introduced into this then people are forced to say that they do sin therefore they must not be serving God in their lives and they must be serving Satan. As one of the quotes above says how can you still sin and be with God.

The sinless perfection people have assumed that because Christians look at the reality of their lives that even though we love God and seek to follow Him we still sin, our attitude is in the main that we desire the things that God wants for us but the reality is that we are weak and fail constantly. It is very much like Paul said:

(Rom 7:22-24 NIV) For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

Christians do not become sinlessly perfect because they accept and follow God. We have ample evidence of powerful Christians who none the less still sinned, still lacked love for others at times. Martin Luther is a prime example but think of all the Christians you know there is very likely not a single one that you would say is sinless. Yet we have those in our midst telling us that if one does not accept the idea of sinless perfection then they are denying the power of God and that they are merely seeking to continue sinning. How can one be denying the power of God when God very clearly does not produce sinless perfection in His followers. We look around and don’t see it and when we look at ourselves we don’t see it. Do we deny sinless perfection because we want to keep sinning? Possibly because if we are honest with ourselves we realize that we still sin both in thought and action. If sinless perfection was the reality and yet we could not see it ever then we would have to say Christianity is false

What is funny is that according to many theologians the closer one gets to God the more of a sinner they appear to be themselves. So no one will ever come to the point that they see themselves as sinlessly perfect. Compared to God their best works are filthy rags and like Paul we have to admit that we are the worst of sinners. So the whole concept of sinless perfection this side of heaven serves nobody. If it was true none of us would ever recognize it as occurring and if it is not true then it acts as a wedge which makes the Christian feel inadequate in his or her relationship with God. It serves only the purpose of defeating the victorious life of those who accept the love and promises of God. As my favorite Bible verse says:

(1 John 3:2-3 NIV) Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.

Amalgamation and Ellen White

For The Gospel Blog as presented an interesting discussion on a recent AAF by Joe T. Wiley.

His Forum subject was Amalgamation of Man and Beast: An Adventist Blemish
The above link is a PDF file for the slides of the presentation and they contain a good deal of interesting information. Most Adventists merely ignore this issue but it does have some serious consequences upon the inspiration of Ellen White. His presentation also goes over some of the aspects of what Ellen White believed about the people before the flood. Even, he seems to have covered the view that some defenders of Ellen White proposed that those people were so scientifically advanced that they were genetically manipulating as in gene splicing technology of today. Which when you think about it without the sophistication of electrical devices and chemical and material processing would have to be so advanced as to resemble more psychic surgery then any science we know of today.

Andreasen and the Questions on Doctrines Controversy

ProgressiveAdventists.com has an interesting article on the background of M.L. Andreasen and his fight against the book Questions on Doctrines.

“Questions on Doctrine” and M. L. Andreasen: The Behind-the-Scenes Interactions

I presented the following paper at the Association of Seventh-day Adventist Historians meeting at Oakwood College on April 20, 2007. It comes from the section in chapter 4 of my doctoral dissertation where I discuss the reactions by Adventists to the book, “Questions on Doctrine.” My dissertation is entitled “Reactions to Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences and Questions on Doctrine, 1955-1971″ (Andrews University, 2005).

Perhaps no other book has aroused so much controversy in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as the 1957 publication of Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine. The book was published as both a direct result of and a representative response to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956, involving Walter Martin and Donald Grey Barnhouse on the evangelical side and a number of General Conference leaders on the Adventist side. Questions on Doctrine was to be the apology par excellence of Adventism.

It is interesting for a couple of reasons. One is that Andreasen whose theology is strikingly bad on this issue became the forerunner of a growing movement in the SDA church. Adventists who hold to last generation sinless perfection and those who hold to Christ having a sinful human nature; (AKA Postlapsarian nature yet never sinning though having the same propensities to sin as all mankind after the fall). A largely untenable position if one takes seriously that Jesus Christ was and is God.

Even though I can’t help but strongly disagree with Andreasen’s theology I find myself sympathizing with his struggle with the Adventist church leadership. As the leadership used threats and coercion and failed to really hold a dialog with him. As I look at the history from our perspective today I can’t help but think that relating to him in a more straight forward manner could have greatly helped the church from diverging into problematic theology as well as even greater problems when it comes to the use of Ellen White’s writings. If you care about Adventist history this is important reading.

Julius is also offering for sale copies of his dissertation, as he writes:

If you’re interested in purchasing a copy of my dissertation, email me at: jjnam@llu.edu. In response to inquires about my dissertation, I’m getting 150 copies printed for the upcoming QOD 50th Anniversary Conference.

Although, I like many cheapskates, often go by the expression if you have to ask then you can’t afford it. Hopefully that is not the case however.

Update: I received the following information from Julius :

It's $24, including postage.  It's 440 pp. from cover
to cover. I'm basically trying recoup the cost  of
the printing. Because it's a short run, the per-copy
cost is higher than I'd like it to be.

The book is the dissertation entitled “Reactions to
Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences and
Questions on Doctrine, 1955-1971″
(Andrews University, 2005).

Kevin Paulson Reponds

I recently received an e-mail from Kevin Paulson in
regards to an earlier blog article I wrote during
the 1844 Investigative Judgment Lesson Study guide
presentation and the excellent coverage offered by
Adventist Today. In reference to his article on
the Adventist Today website
1844; Embattled Yet Enduring Unfortunately the old
link on my blog does not point to the correct location
and the article on the AToday website (link above)
has a good many scripterrors but it is still readable.
I will place Paulson’s e-mail in purple
and intersperse my comments between his statements.

Dear Ron:

     Today I was referred to your blogspot by one
who cited your reference to the recent address by
Dave Thomas at the Adventist Forum.  I  noted, on
your site, that you also commented--albeit a year
ago--on my article, "1844; Embatttled Yet Enduring."  

 Allow me, if I may, to offer some thoughts in reply:

     1.  I was curious that your comments focused
almost entirely on  the issue of Ellen White's
authority, whereas my article focused but briefly
on that issue. Most of the article demonstrated
how the arguments  leveled by critics against
the Biblical foundation of the 1844 doctrine 
are not sound, and that the classic Adventist
position is in fact based on the Biblical consensus.  

I did focus upon the issue of Ellen White
and doctrinal authority because I think it
underlies most of the problems current in
the SDA church. I thought Desmond Ford did
a very good job of dealing with Paulson’s
Investigative Judgment issues so I chose
to deal with what I thought was most important
and not dealt with in other articles. At
first glance many people don’t really realize
just how influential EGW is on doctrinal issues.
But this was starkly brought into focus during
the Lesson Study quarter on 1844 the
Investigative Judgment and Gospel. By my
estimation the only reason the 1844 and IJ
doctrine remain is because of the support
supplied to them by Ellen White. How can
an Adventist who claims EGW has authority
disregard a whole chapter in the Great Controversy.
In the 1888 edition the chapter was titled 
“Investigative Judgment” in subsequent editions
the chapter is called Facing Life’s Record”.
Ellen White’s writings have institutionalized
the Investigative Judgment in the SDA church.

     2.  You seem to say that because other
Christians do not accept Ellen White's
prophetic authority, that in fact she cannot
possess such authority.  I fail to follow your
reasoning here.  Should Seventh-day Adventiss,
or indeed any faithful Christians, choose their
beliefs based on majority opinion?  
What would Adventists do with the Sabbath, with
our understanding of death and the afterlife,
or with any number of our beliefs, if they
followed your logic? 

     Are you in fact an advocate of sola scriptura,
or do you temper your convictions based on what the
majority of professed Christians are ready to accept?  

This is no doubt in reference to my comment here:
Paulsen, 1844, Ellen White and Authority

If we let Paulsen’s language pass for the moment and assume that what he means is that “if” Ellen White held the position of a prophet then she should have doctrinal authority. That is a huge “if”, one does not have to be too familiar with the SDA church before they become aware that there are many in and outside of the SDA church who indeed question Ellen White’s role as a prophet. In reference to prophets Paulsen writes:

…yet we find that outside the SDA church there are few who hold to Ellen White as authoritative, which naturally means that she is definitely not viewed as canonical. One thing that is certainly true is that the broader Christian spectrum who have no hesitation in accepting the canonical authority of the prophets recorded in the Bible, do not accept Ellen White as authoritative.

My statement is not that she cannot possess that authority;
it is that for most Christians and even a good number of
Adventists she does not possess that authority. Authority
is an interesting thing. Latter Day Saints have
their authorities and so do Christian Scientists and
Scientologists but because those people accept certain
people as prophetic authorities does not make them
authorities to anyone else. Authority is only given
to those who the follower accepts as an authority.
Christian beliefs are not based upon majority opinion
or else there would not be multiple thousands of
denominations. Yet of those thousands of denominations
there is wide acceptance of the authority of the Bible
and even there we see certain groups who have more
then the 66 books and even denominations who have
the same 66 books as other Christians but only accept
the King James Version of those 66 books
that make up the Bible.

While majority opinion does not decide what we
should believe neither does a church tradition
define what we should believe. The church should
not believe things that don’t make sense or do
not line up with the overall message of the
Bible’s message about God. With this wide
acceptance of the Biblical message there is
little reason to resort to a particular
denomination’s presumed prophet.

     3.  You seem to believe that if in fact
our beliefs are entirely based on Scripture,
then Ellen White's authoritative clarification
is not needed. I have a hard time following
this reasoning as well, especially when one
looks at the sacred record and how, over and
over again, God has been compelled to repeat
the same message in the ears of His hard-hearted
people.  The reason for repetitive and authoritative
divine revelation through the ages is the
unwillingness of God's professed people ot
accept earlier declarations of truth.  Whether
with the Old Testament, the New Testament,
or any other successive revelation, this principle
seems clear.  

As I recall it was EGW herself who said she was
not needed if people had paid attention to the Bible.
It is interesting to see the idea that God repeated
the same message to people. It is true of Israel in
her nation state, it is not true of the New Testament
writings nor of the period of nearly 2000 years
from the first century till today. So here Paulson
makes the claim about God’s repeated revelations
with only one person in the last 1800 years.
Of course there are hundreds and maybe even
thousands of people in that period of time who
have claimed prophetic abilities. I have a book of a
hundred or so prophets just in the Roman Catholic
Church alone. The mere assertion that God is
repetitive is not persuasive for a claim of the need
for an authoritative prophet, at least when the
earlier declarations of truth are still available.
In fact the Biblical message is more available
today then any time in history.

     4.  Your disregard of Ellen White's interpretation
of Acts 3:19, claiming this as an example of undue
reliance on the King James Version, fails to establish
the point you seek to make.  The bottom line is that
all modern translation speak of the "times of refreshing"
which were YET to come, during which the sins of the
penitent would be blotted out. This is a most incredible
statement in view of the fact that the times
of Pentecostal refreshing had already come.
Obviously this is, therefore,talking about a future time.  

     If you read the third installment of the
three-part reply to Dale Ratzlaff on the investigative
judgment, to which I refer the reader of my 1844 article,
I address this point in depth.  

This is a completely wrong headed view. It calls
for the future fulfillment when the context clearly
explains what it is future to. It is future to the
act of repentance.

(Acts 3:19-20 NIV)  Repent, then, and turn to God,
so that your sins may be wiped out, that times
of refreshing may come from the Lord,and that he may
send the Christ, who has been appointed for you
--even Jesus.

Both historically and contextually this is not
a verse about sins being blotted out at some future
investigative judgment. That is the important
part. It is true that in Christianity many people
take statements which are somewhat vague and make
the pretexts for a particular view (baptism
for the dead, spirits in prison etc.) but when
viewed in the context of the words it is hard to
make the Investigative judgment claim upon
Peter’s sermon which was focused upon the messiah
who was and is and who forgives and lives inside
the believer. I am sure you do address the point
at length, it is usually necessary to address
something at length when the simple logical
position has to be refuted to maintain a tradition.
You can find examples of this technique in many
religious groups from Roman Catholic to Latter day Saints.

         In sum, you try to depict the entire 1844 issue
as a discussion of Ellen White's authority, when in fact
that is only part of the issue. Your comments about my
article offer a near-exclusive focus on the Ellen White
issue, ignoring all the other Biblical and historical
evidence I present against the critics in favor of our
classic teaching.  Moreover, you seem to take for granted
the popular criticism of Ellen White from both within and
outside Adventism, assuming therefore that her prophetic
voice cannot be trusted.


  In reply, I would urge you to go to
greatcontroversy.org  and read my eight-part response to
he new books by Graeme Bradford which seek to undermine
Ellen White's prophetic authority. I would be curious as
to how you answer the evidence I have assembled in my
reviews of his books.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

P.S.  My last name is spelled with an o, not an e as is
the General Conference president's.     

I can’t agree with your summation as there were also numerous blog posts upon many areas involved in the IJ doctrine. Your response is to only one of the many posts and that post happens to deal with Ellen White. It is true that I do not trust Ellen White’s prophetic voice for a number of good reasons. But then why is it so important to hold to Ellen Whites views anyway if as is often claimed their purpose is to point to the Bible. Aside from Adventists no other Christian groups have found the Investigative Judgment in the Bible and it is based upon a chain of assumptions which has multiple breaks in the chain.

I have not read more then sections of Bradford’s book it seems to me from what I have read to be a far healthier way of looking at her work. I have no problem with those who use her in a pastoral way. The problem comes when people use her unquestioningly as an inspired commentator on the Bible. I can accept her numerous mistakes and misinterpretations the way I can accept them in my local pastor: realizing that my pastor, Martin Luther, Max Lucado and Ellen White can be wrong. Yet still be open to looking for ways to bring meaning from our different perspectives. Indeed I realize that those who have given Ellen White prophetic authority will see anything short of their view of her authority as undermining her work. But for those who have not given her such authority it seems contrary to logic to expect them to grant her such authority merely because there are others who claim such authority. Unfortunately we violated the pioneers ideas and created a creed known as our 28 fundamental beliefs and one of them which is not actually held by many Adventists is that Ellen White is a continuing source of truth. But we do know that she was not speaking truth about volcanoes, vital force, or God destroying San Francisco to close down the saloons and numerous speculative elements which she read into Bible stories. We have a fundamental belief that asserts something that probably most Adventist don’t really believe though they are able to take her in a pastoral way, yet through a method of cognitive dissonance most will still claim to give her prophetic authority. I think Bradford’s book is useful in understanding that process.

Adventism and Fundamentalism Tape Available

The Pacific Northwest Adventist Forum now has the outstanding meeting on September 8 in which Dr. Dave Thomas gave a presentation on Adventism and Fundamentalism. The tape is available for $5 dollars and I highly recommend it.

As Pacific Northwest Adventist Forum does not have their website up and running and I don't want to give out the email for the contact for robots to crawl and send spam I am going to act as the middle man. Simply e-mail me at Progsda@yahoo.com (I am already set up to deal with spam) and I will send you the email and address where you can send for the tape.

They also have the PowerPoint presentation file available.

Here we stand or here we lie

When I get time I am going to post a few articles on Doug Batchelor’s Here We Stand series. It is interesting to see the fundamentalist perspective after listening to Dave Thomas’ Forum lecture. More on that later. For now here is one of the many items that are gross inaccuracies Mr. Batchelor uses. In this case the research has already been done by others so it is easy to show Batchelor’s deception or ignorance.

At about minute 57 in his lecture Messenger for a Movement Doug puts forth a rather old story which just listening to it you sense it is wrong, here is what he says speaking of Ellen White’s book the Desire of Ages:

“Matter of fact the Library of Congress in the United States, where there are probably hundreds of different volumes written on the life of Christ. Stated years ago that of all the this person had read that the Desire of Ages was the most beautiful and most eloquent book and most Biblically accurate demonstration of the life of Christ.”

The way it is presented it has the earmarks of an urban legend, an appeal to authority, the Library of Congress which then degrades into some unknown person. Fortunately there is a website which deals with this Adventist myth. From the website under the heading The Desire of Ages Library of Congress Myth We read the following:

It was often said by SDA pastors, "that the Library of Congress recommended the The Desire of Ages written by Ellen G. White, over other books written on the life of Christ." The conferences had drives for local churches to contact the managers of the major motels in the their city to try to get The Desire of Ages in every motel room. We were to use the Library of Congress statement to promote the book to the motel managers.

It was after leaving the SDA church that I found that it was not the Library of Congress that promoted Desire of Ages, but a former SDA Pastor who went to work for the Library of Congress. His name is, Wells E. Bement, born February 7, 1891 and died December 26, 1977. He was a 1922 graduate of Washington Missionary College and served briefly in India, was dean and Bible teacher at Atlantic Union College and later worked in educational and MV work as director.

Bement's letter was a personal letter in answer Mr. Nicolas Chaij's questions. The letter was not written on the Library of Congress stationary and was not the opinion of the Library of Congress.

[See the website for a copy of the letter]

It was dishonest for the Seventh-day Adventist Church leaders to mislead its members to believe that the The Desire of Ages was held in such high regard as "one of the best books on the life of Christ" or words to that effect in the Library of Congress and not tell them this glowing report was by a former SDA pastor and that it was his personal opinion.

Mr. Bement was no doubt prejudiced in his selection of The Desire of Ages over other books in the library, being a loyal diehard Ellen G. White fan. Most SDAs would also pick The Desire of Ages as their favorite book.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church should have written to the Library of Congress to get their official opinion. This would have been the honest thing to do and then report their findings to the church members instead of misleading them.

Adventism and Fundamentalism

This last Saturday I attended Pacific Northwest Adventist Forum presented by Dave Thomas, D. Min. Professor of Theology Dean, School of Theology Walla Walla College. This was a very good presentation on a sensitive subject that no doubt would cause Adventist fundamentalist to bristle. Hopefully at some point the forum will have their website up and running and a tape or mp3 of the presentation available. I did offer previously to interview a speaker prior to his presentation but they may do that on their website and so turned down my offer. That was many months ago but as a friend told me maybe I am not safe. Here is some of the information from the Forum presentation.

Fundamentalism definition by Dave Thomas:

Fundamentalism is a reaction against rapid change. It is driven more by fear than it is by faith.

Religious faith provides context for peoples lives. Once you establish a reality of ultimate faith you can’t change it or you rob people of their sense of place and purpose and they won’t abide such changes. Every generation looks at their children and sees them as rapidly declining; it has been the view of the older generation of the younger for thousands of years. Fundamentalism is attempting to prevent change.

Fundamentalists like to carefully define a body of truth. Second they ascribe that body of truth as directly from God. Which is why verbal inspiration is so popular among many fundamentalists. Like the Koran which is only correct when read in Arabic any other language is a lesser word of God. Once they have the body of truth attributed to God they can declare it as orthodoxy. Our understanding came down from heaven it is the way things are, they can’t be changed. Then those not accepting the orthodoxy are shunned or discredited or in extremist cases worse.

As Reinhold Niebuhr wrote: ”Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure. Fundamentalism is, therefore, inevitable in an age which has destroyed so many certainties by which faith once expressed itself and upon which it relied.”

The hope then is by fixing beliefs the fundamentalist can prevent change. It is a poor strategy because all human knowledge is partial at best. Even revelation from God is partial as Paul said “we know in part and we see in part” but he looks to the day when we know and be known completely. Human knowledge is always affected by time and place.

Fundamentalism has three basic flaws

1. Limited knowledge. (we are guaranteed that there are errors in every religious system of belief)
2. Change is ever present and perhaps necessary part of life. (how does one fight a given in life)
3. Truth is often based upon an experience test. (The ultimate truth is revealed by a person’s experience of the transforming power of God. Thus they look inward to judge the viability of their religion. But what happens when the person falls into sin or their conversion experience appears to fail? If they look inward their proof is gone. What happens in many fundamentalists is that they lose their faith in fall into agnosticism or secularism.)

One of the wonders of early Adventism was the idea of Present Truth, knowledge that is current and as time moves on knowledge increases and present truth expands.

Dr. Thomas did remind us of the two major contributions of Fundamentalism which are a high degree of respect for the Bible and a continuing the sense of the supernatural against the modernism of the last centuries.

An interesting article in the recent Atoday News

Adventist Church Relocates to Cut Operating Expenses, Focus on Ministry

June 30, 2007 was a defining moment for one of the largest progressive Adventist churches in North America - CrossWalk in Redlands, California (also the former home of pastor Samir Selmanovic who is now spearheading the Faith House Manhattan project in New York). In a sermon entitled “Difference Makers: Caleb-Finishing Well,” senior pastor Michael Knecht made the official announcement of a major life-change to his congregation: CrossWalk is relocating.

Crosswalk moved the first time because they outgrew their Azure Hills SDA church auditorium and became their own organization. This time, the decision isn’t about space. According to Knecht, Crosswalk’s annual operating/rental expense is $388,000 US (57% of their annual budget). In contrast, only $36,000 per year is spent on ministries for people, or what Knecht coins “producing fruit.” This is the budget especially dedicated to fulfilling the Crosswalk mission of “learning to love well,” which has translated over the years to a church with a passionate commitment to social justice, international involvement, urban mission and community development.

Toward the end of his sermon, Knecht said, “The numbers don’t make sense. We can do so much more in ministry and fruit production.....what if we increased the fruit production and cut down the fixed expenses?”

Knecht added that 98% of the people who come to Crosswalk only show up for 2 1/2 hours one morning per week (Sabbath service), while the rest of the week Crosswalk is a money pit. It will cost Crosswalk “only” $100,000 per year to rent space elsewhere for one morning per week instead of every day of the week at their current campus. If you do the math, they would save $324,000 per year. This is a no-brainer.

But the real inspiration for this cost-effective solution lies at the heart of why Crosswalk’s leadership team chose the move. What does a relocating church do with $324,000 in savings? Knecht committed that money toward fruit production - ministries like the Barnabus Fund to help the financially disadvantaged, Project Comfort, to provide Ethiopian children with clothing, medical care, and education plus many other unmentioned missional projects to serve the needy and marginalized.—Marcel Schwantes

I have often wondered why we do not build our churches as multipurpose building and why our smaller churches would rather build their own church then to rent a church from one of the many churches who hold their main worship on Sunday. When you see a statistic like the one above how 98% only show up to a church service there is really little reason to have a church just for that one day a couple of hours. I think many Adventists tend to see other Christians as the enemies and they don't want to cooperate in ways that would be helpful to all concerned. I would guess that we don't see church as a community, rather as an obligation that is met by attending a sermon once a week. But then with 98% only meeting together for a sermon once a week we must realize that we are not really creating a community.

Unconventional Evangelism

I think most of us have realized, at least over the last twenty years, that our Adventist Evangelistic series have had quite limited success in America and Canada. They seem to be produced at the same rate however probably because the powers that be in the churches have never considered other possibilities. The following is what I think would be a valuable Evangelistic effort. It is not an effort to create Seventh-day Adventists but rather an effort to introduce Christianity to a world that is becoming more and more unsure what Christianity is or they have a picture of Christianity that is related to the religion as a form of political power.

Here is how I would envision the program:

The object is to present Christianity as a thinking religion, (where Faith is built upon evidence and reason is to be used as a God given facility to develop a relationship with God) one that has some answers but not all the answers.

The series is not designed to make people SDA's, it is to introduce Christianity and demonstrate that it is a viable philosophy which supplies the needs of people as well as encouraging those people to ask questions and search for truth. As such it will offer a variety of opinions when necessary. For instance a 6 literal day creation will not be assumed. Various Creationist views will be given. Various views of the Godhead will be offered as well as the various theories of the Atonement. (For example Substitutional atonement would not be treated as if it is the only or best view). Some Christian traditions will be spotlighted for their reasoning and assumptions whether good or ill; it is possible that this would include some held by SDA's.

Using a lecture setting with multimedia aids such as PowerPoint presentation using slides of subjects, cartoons, clips of popular TV and or radio and music snippets. Presented like a high school or college lecture in general using whatever is available to add interest during the lecture. Participants will be given books filled with the information that the lectures were taken from. Not to be used as workbooks or added to as the lectures proceed but as material they can use after the series. Ideally this document would be put together by the church offering the seminar which means that they are preparing the ideas and the lectures for a year or two in advance. They are examining the topics and gathering the information so that the local church is involved intimately with the presentation and the follow-up should people want to attend the local church. Of course if some church prepares the document it could always offer it to sell for those churches who cannot muster enough interest to do the work themselves. But I think the work of the preparation would very often help the local church as people come together to search and prepare the information and the lectures. Giving people some good impetus to know each other better and work and grow together.

TOPICS

WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY

1. If you can't prove it why should I believe it?

1. Evidence vs. facts
2. Facts vs. faith
3. Questions and the search for truth
   

2. How did we come to exist creation or random chance?

1. What do evolutionist's say
2. What do creationist say
3. Creationist varied views and evolutionists varied views
4. Mathematical possibilities

3. Is there a God, if so how does He communicate to me?

1. The presupposition of God vs. the presupposition of no God
2. Creator vs. disinterested clock-maker.
3. What is the nature of inspiration--Verbal or thoughts, literal and symbolic
   

4. What is the Bible, where did it come from and what is in it for me?

1. How was the Old Testament collected
2. How were the New Testament and Bible put together
3. Stories, legends, literature and meaning of the Bible.
4. Is it true/accurate? Evidence from history, archaeology, manuscripts and prophecy
   

5. Does God hate me, love me, or even notice me at all?

1. Why does God care?
2. Why so much pain and trouble?
3. What does God offer?
4. Kingdom of God now and not yet
   

6. What is a Christian and why would I want to be one?

1. Definition
2. Connection to Judaism
3. Accomplishments and failures
4. Philosophy
   

7. Did Jesus Christ really exist, a special man or God?

1. Evidence of Jesus what the witnesses say
2. What does history show about Christ?
3. Did the world really change after Christ?
4. God, son of God, and son of man
5. Trinity or one God can we conceive of God?
   

8. Why did Jesus have to die, how does it help me?

1. What is the problem with sin?
2. Can God be trusted?
3. How to demonstrate what love is
4. Is God subject to his law, does Jesus pay a penalty?
5. Is reconciliation legal or relational?
   

9. So many instructions given, what am I supposed to do?

1. What about all those sacrifices?
2. Do I have to follow all those Old Testament rules?
3. The law that brings us to God
4. Christ in me?
5. A new beginning, a new man, a new heart, a new mind
   

10. Aren't all religions the same, does it matter which path I follow?

1. So many religions how is Christianity different?
2. So many Christian denominations what to look for?
3. Traditions helpful or hurtful?
4. On the path what is your goal?

Probably the biggest news in Christianity today is the recent publication of the letters of Mother Teresa in a book soon to be published. It is remarkable to me that after spending so many years with the destitute people that anyone could think she would not be constantly filled with doubts and question her religion. Not to mention some of the long established Roman Catholic ideas which don't make much sense. Her devotion to helping people is a tribute to the radical concepts of love that Jesus expressed whether you believe Him to be God or not. Though I tend to disagree with the arm chair theologians who declare her now to be an atheist, it makes me think that is the reason she wanted her letters destroyed as she did not want to cause people to doubt the way she had. In any case this is a testament to our search for truth and understanding and why I think it is important to continue the search. She it appears desired to serve without continuing the struggle for understanding and no doubt the Roman Catholic church influenced that idea. Which brings me to one of the strengths still in the Adventist church, that freedom of inquiry and exploration. Yes there are some in the church who try to stomp it out of existence but praise God it is still alive and well in many.


The following is taken from the Mother Teresa's Shocking Struggle with Faith:

---

BY HELEN KENNEDY
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Mother Teresa, a globally beloved symbol of saintly devotion to the poor, spent her last 50 years secretly struggling with doubts about her faith, her newly published letters show.

"If there be God - please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul," she wrote.

"How painful is this unknown pain - I have no Faith."

The letters paint an astonishing alternate portrait of the nun revered for her selflessness and serenity. In reality, she was tortured for decades by her inability to feel even the smallest glimmer of the Lord's presence.

She felt abandoned by Christ, referred to Jesus as "the Absent One," and called her own smile "a mask."

In the 1960s, after receiving an important prize, she wrote, "This means nothing to me, because I don't have Him."

Sixty-six years worth of her deeply personal letters to superiors and confessors - preserved by the Catholic Church despite her dying wish that they be destroyed - are published in a new book, "Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light," excerpted in Time magazine.

The book is by the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, director of the Mother Teresa Center and the driving force behind efforts to canonize her.

She has already been beatified, the step before formally being declared a saint.

"I've never read a saint's life where the saint has such an intense spiritual darkness. No one knew she was that tormented," Kolodiejchuk said. "It will give a whole new dimension to the way people understand her."

He argues that the depth of her spiritual suffering increases her saintliness.

Most believers suffer from crises of faith, but the duration of Teresa's alienation from Christ seems extreme.

It began, she said, soon after she set up her Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta in the late 1940s to succor India's poor. And it lasted, with only a joyous five-week respite in 1959 when she refound God, until her death at age 87, a decade ago.

"There is such terrible darkness within me, as if everything was dead. It has been like this more or less from the time I started 'the work,'" she wrote in 1953.

After Pope Pius XII died in October 1958, Teresa prayed to him for proof that God was pleased with her work. "Then and there," she rejoiced, "disappeared the long darkness ... that strange suffering of 10 years."

But five weeks later she reported being "in the tunnel" again, and her dark night of the soul never lifted.

The nun, born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu to ethnic Albanian parents in what is now Macedonia, coped with what she termed her "spiritual dryness" by likening it to Christ's doubt on the cross.

"I have come to love the darkness for I believe now that it is part of a very, very small part of Jesus' darkness & pain on earth," she wrote in 1961.

Teresa was a 36-year-old convent teacher riding on a train in India on Sept. 10, 1946, when she said Christ spoke to her directly, telling her to become a missionary in the slums to help the poorest of the poor.

"Come be My light," is what she heard.

Back then, she felt a deeply personal bond with Jesus, recounting conversations and visions. It was that loss that she mourned the rest of her life, although she never abandoned her work.

Story Time 2

Talking to Jesus....

The story is told of an old woman who would tell anyone who asked that she talked to Jesus, and that He talked back to her... all the time. When questioned she would confirm that indeed she talked to Jesus and Jesus talked back to her, that they had conversations all the time.

The preacher who felt like many others in the church that the old woman was crazy asked her one day about her story. He asked her if she really believed she talked to Jesus. Of course she responded that she did and that He talked back to her. Well the preacher had had enough and wanted to expose her as just a crazy old woman he told her, "Since you talk to Jesus, the next time you talk to Him, ask Him what my last sin was." The old woman said okay.....

A few weeks go by and the preacher, ready to prove his point corners the old woman and asks, "Well have you talked to Jesus?" The old woman replied that she had. The preacher said, " Did you ask Him what my last sin was?" The old woman said, "yes."
The preacher said, "Well what did He say?

The old woman said, "He said, I don't remember..."

Psalms 103:8-12 The LORD is merciful! He is kind and patient, and his love never fails. (9) The LORD won't always be angry and point out our sins; (10) he doesn't punish us as our sins deserve. (11) How great is God's love for all who worship him? Greater than the distance between heaven and earth! (12) How far has the LORD taken our sins from us? Farther than the distance from east to west!

Story Time

The following is from a recent sermon given by Richard Faiola (MD ABFM). The first section is an internet story by an unknown author the second half was written by Dr. Faiola. This actually gives both sections equal credibility.


This morning I wish to deal with a quite subtle way in which Christians misrepresent both reality and their God – and this they do while believing they are promoting his kingdom.  

I want you to listen to a typical “Christian Story” – the kind that circulates continually on the internet with the closing admonition to “pass it on.”  The first part I have condensed a bit, the second I made up myself.  

STORY ALERT!!

Brenda was a young woman that wanted to learn rock climbing. She was scared, but felt confidence in the Lord’s protection. 

Well, she got to a ledge where she could take a breather. As she rested, the rope jerked in some way against her that her contact lens snapped out.

Of course, she looked and looked and looked -- And she prayed that the Lord would help her to find her contact.

When she got to the top of the cliff she looked out and thought, "Lord, You can see all these mountains. You know every single stone and leaf that's on those mountains and You know exactly where my contact lens is.” 

Finally, they walked down the trail to the bottom. Just as they got there, a new party of rock climbers came along. As one of them started up the face of the cliff, she shouted out, "Hey, you guys! Anybody lose a contact lens?" 

Well, that would be startling enough, wouldn't it? She had found the contact lens! 

But you know why she saw it? An ant was carrying that contact lens so that it was moving slowly across the face of the rock reflecting a few rays of sun. 


When Brenda told her father this incredible story, he drew a cartoon of that ant lugging that contact lens with the words: "Lord, I don't know why You want me to carry this thing. I can't eat it and it's awfully heavy. But if this is what You want me to do, I'll carry it for You."

That is a true story. What does that tell you about the God of the universe? Is He in charge of the tiniest things?  If God is in charge of the ants, don't you think He cares about you and me? 




A prudent, preacher, would probably stop there and look expectantly for a chorus of “amens.” But, then I am seldom accused of being prudent in such matters.  


THE REST OF THE STORY

Brenda, after having recovered her contact lens in such a remarkable way, went on to attend a Bible College. She met and married Joe, a youth Pastor.

They embarked on a successful ministry to a growing band of enthusiastic young people. Answered prayer was a centerpiece of their worship. The youth often shared how the Lord had blest them in recalling a difficult test question; making it the last mile to a station before their gas ran out; in finding just the right boyfriend or girlfriend. 

After two years of marriage, Brenda and Joe felt it might be the Lord’s will that they have a baby. She discontinued her use of the Pill and began to pray about it. The youth group prayed. 

When in about 6 months she conceived they all rejoiced at this answer to their prayers. In due time, a healthy baby boy was born.  They named him Samuel to recognize him as a gift from God and dedicated him to the Lord. 

Brenda and Joe and their youth group made the growth and development of Samuel a matter of regular prayer. His successful weaning from the breast, his first steps, his potty training all occurred within several weeks of their first prayers regarding those developmental milestones.

One summer day, when Samuel was about 3 years old, he was out joyously splashing in his shallow wading pool. Brenda had been very careful to let the sun warm the water, before placing him in it. She could watch him from the kitchen window. 

While reflecting on the many blessings God had specially prepared for her and Joe, the phone rang. It was one of the girls in the youth group. Her parents were fighting and she needed encouragement.  Brenda shared her faith with the troubled teen and they prayed together over the phone, confident that God would work on behalf of the reconciliation of the parents. 

On returning her attention to the window, Brenda's breath froze.  She could not see Samuel. Instinctively she feared the worst.  She prayed, in succession, that the water she had put in the pool had leaked out; that the face down baby she found would breathe when turned over; that the paramedics would resuscitate the baby; that after 2 weeks on a respirator the words "brain dead" would be taken back; that the Lord would revive their lifeless son- His child.

For weeks Brenda's nights were disturbed by the absurd sight of an ant carrying her contact lens.

Where was God and His ants when they really needed Him? 

The skeptical had always suggested that most of the things they were grateful for and had credited to God's special action on their behalf (or on behalf of the young people they loved so much) had been the routine, expected results of normal effort, timing, circumstance, or coincidence. 

People of no faith at all, do, after-all, have babies, find their keys, or pass their exams. 

Occasionally, they win at the gambling casino, escape the consequences of a drug overdose, or narrowly escape being found in the wrong bed. They seldom, except in profanity, credit such good luck to the hand of God. Nor do most believers credit God with arraigning the good fortune of the “undeserving.”

Because Brenda and Joe could not understand, respect, or love a god that cared more about her lost contact lens then about their son, they left the ministry. The loss, the guilt, and the recriminations strained and finally broke their marriage. Joe took to hanging around bars, drinking too much, and taking home strange women. 

One evening, half drunk, he bet a buddy he could hit a bull’s eye on the bar room wall with a single dart, thrown left-handed. 

To the amazement of all, he hit it! 

He took his $50.00 next door and bought 50 lottery tickets. Latter that night the winning numbers were displayed on the bar room TV screen. Everyone crowded around to watch and to help Joe check his tickets. For the second time in one night there was amazement as Joe, and several others crowded around him, recognized a winning ticket. 

Everyone wished to see the ticket for themselves. In the gleeful, grabbing melee, the ticket was dropped -- and just disappeared.

Joe was furious. No one could (or would?) produce the ticket. Joe blocked the front door. He insisted on searching everyone. The barkeep swept the floor. The soles of shoes were checked.  Pockets were turned out. Joe became more and more angry, and the other patrons less and less sympathetic. 

Joe cursed. He swore at his friends and at strangers.  He cursed a God he no longer believed in. He got pushy; others pushed back. A fight broke out. 

Joe was punched hard in the abdomen. He went down. In a fluke of bad timing another fighting patron wishing only to strike a menacing pose was lifting up a broken beer bottle.  Joe fell into its path.  His left carotid artery was severed as he fell.

As he lay on the bar room floor, winded, and bleeding profusely, he looked towards the bar.   There, a group of ants were working to remove an obstacle from their path.  Before loosing consciousness, Joe recognized his lottery ticket.

---------------End Story------------

The first part of the story sounded so pious.  The exemplary kind of religious faith that is often held up as a model, but it is neither reasonable, reliable, nor redemptive to us -- or those around us. 

Thinking persons, contact lenses notwithstanding, have long ago concluded that the balance of abundance vs want,joy vs sorrow, health vs illness, love vs malice 
–and we know those conditions will only get worse favors the conclusion that God either does not exist, is absent from his Creation, or is ineffective. 

Conference recommended ways to really kill your church

Recently Jere Patzer wrote an Editorial in The Gleaner which demonstrates some of the wrong thinking that exists in our denomination. He writes in the form of opposites, that is he is telling you how to kill the church so that if you want to make your church live you should do the opposite of the things he says. As you will see it is certainly a safer way of saying the rather unintelligent things he means. I will intersperse my comments with those from his Editorial.

Top Ten Ways to Kill Your Church

Institutionalize. Make sure that the majority of the church budget is used to maintain the existing programs and structure. Don't spend too much on outreach. When the Waldensians who had lived and died for their faith for centuries joined the general Protestant Reformation in 1532, they went from a movement to an institution and lost their focus. But history won't repeat itself.

I don’t really know what he means here. The Waldensians were rebellious against several Roman Catholic Church positions (rejection of purgatory and the intercession for the dead. About 1530 the Waldenses took up contact with the Reformed Protestant reformer Wilhelm Farel and in 1532 officially joined the Reformation at the Synod of Chanferan.
Even then some of the Waldensians went back to their valleys and today there is still a Waldensian subset of Christians though they are small. They never really became institutionalized. Certainly never as institutionalized as say the SDA church. The Reformation was a far greater movement the Waldensians.

Be apologetic about our Seventh-day Adventist name. Successful organizations like McDonalds, Honda or Nordstrom wouldn't think of promoting their logo. So call your church or school something generic like the Community of Happy Friends Fellowship. Maybe someone will inadvertently wander in and then a year or two later you can tell them who you are.

This is interesting when you consider it has been a pretty long running technique of our Revelation Seminars to not place the SDA name anywhere on the brochure. Two of the more successful (meaning large) churches in my area are called Living Water and Capital Christian Center. Unless you research their website you do not know that Living Water is a Foursquare denomination. Denominational affiliation is likely not that terribly important to many people who look more at what the church offers over what their denomination is. Adventist having grown up believing themselves to be the Remnant find the denomination far more important then most other non fundamentalist Christians. A recent survey found that preschoolers preferred fries in a McDonald’s package over the same fries in a cup. For Christians however there are more important factors then a logo.

Don't emphasize mission or mission offerings. Ellen G. White was wrong when she said the best way to strengthen the home field is to invest in foreign missions. After all, charity begins at home. And by all means don't show the quarterly Northwest Spotlight on Mission DVD that comes to your church highlighting stories close to home.

It is highly doubtful that not showing mission spotlight slide shows and DVD’s is going to kill the church. Foreign mission or local mission should be up to the local church. We too often think that foreign missions are more important and we often waste considerable money in organizing mission trips to foreign countries to do construction projects which if we simply sent them the money could be built better and quicker and more cheaply by the locals. Yet we find it hard to raise the money unless some from the local church go on a mission trip.

Lower the standards. We don't want anyone to feel disenfranchised. Robinson Crusoe didn't know what he was talking about when he said, "Expand the fences too far and the goats on the inside become as wild as the goats on the outside." It doesn't really matter what your members eat, drink or do.

Standards are still important but often times we create artificial standards which involve what people eat or drink or do. Biblical standards are often different from what many SDA’s may think of as their traditional standards. Saying “lower the standards” is often a euphemism for holding to traditional and often prejudicial standards.

Make music the war department. Use the same style all the time. Just repeat sweet little praise ditties each week. And definitely don't use hymns that reinforce our fundamental beliefs. Always remember upbeat music is from the devil. Or only sing 1800s songs with four-finger accompaniment. That will make the older saints drool for the good old days.

This is the first real issue that has the potential to kill a church, though more likely it will split a church

Public evangelism is passé. Systematic reaping meetings are too confrontational. Besides, the evangelist might use some proof texts. Don't ever emphasize prophecy; the public has no interest in future events. Limit evangelism to something creative: knitting evangelism, beach evangelism, golf evangelism. Eventually someone may hit their golf ball into the church parking lot. Then you've got them.

If one pays attention to the results of most evangelistic programs they would see that they generally have very poor results. I don’t know the statistic but it would seem that Patzer could have backed up his statement if the numbers really indicated his statement. Do you know what a Systematic reaping meeting is? Well neither do I, and I grew up in the SDA church.

If the evangelist does use proof texts he should be corrected as they are often texts taken out of context and used as a pretext for a presupposed idea. Prophecy has been so misused that even though people have an interest in the future the many varied prophetic interpretations have so frequently been proven wrong that it is really a technique that succeeds only with those who are predisposed to certain prophetic views. One of the problems with are evangelistic efforts is that we think people we stay once we get them into our churches. But more likely we don’t cultivate the friendships and stimulate their thinking to cause them to remain in our churches.

Doctrinal pluralism will maintain church unity. The Presbyterian Church lost 1.2 million members in 21 years because it chose pluralism and became "devoid of a clear theological voice," according to the award-winning book, The Presbyterian Controversy. But that doesn't mean it would happen to Adventists. So just pick which of the 28 fundamental beliefs you like from our theological cafeteria.

This is the crux of the problem with Jere Patzer’s views. Hidden behind the coattails of the fact that mainline Christian denominations are losing members he insinuates that the reason is because they allow different views within their denomination. In fact Christianity in all first world countries is declining. Drastically in places like Europe. It used to be the SDA church said the Bible was our creed, well we do still say that but in point of applicable fact we have replaced conscience driven Biblical interpretation with a list of 28 so called fundamentals. Today there is a large section of Traditional SDA’s who claim that Adventists must bow the knee to the denominations incursion of determining religious truth. It reminds me of the pre-reformation Roman Catholic Church.

Never discipline. Families and churches are much stronger and happier without any discipline. The Gospel song was all wrong when it says, "If mercy's all we ever show, there's half a God they'll never know."

Related to the authoritarian views in the previous point about following the 28 fundamentals, comes the strong hand of discipline against any dissension. Submit your selves to the self appointed authority and everything will be so much better. Shades of the Inquisition as they sing "If mercy's all we ever show, there's half a God they'll never know." I don’t know the song, I looked up those words on the internet and could only find them referenced in the Gleaner article.

Ignore the inspired writings. Ellen G. White predicted her teachings would become of "non-effect." Make the red books the unread books. Consider her teachings devotional but not authoritative, particularly in areas of science and archeology. Remember how effective they were as "Club of the Month books."

I am very worried that we have a conference leader that implies that we should take Ellen Whites books as authoritative particularly in the areas of science and archeology, I certainly hope he has nothing to do with our educational system. It is a sad fact that among many traditional SDA’s the Bible is the real unread book and they have left it’s interpretation up to the 19^th century writer. If we as a Christian church cannot find our doctrines in the Bible then we will deserve the derogatory label of cult. Once again this is related to the emphasis Patzer has placed upon the 28 fundamentals where Ellen White is said to be an authority on truth. To keep our churches alive we must teach what in many cases time and study have proven wrong. Do you really want to tell you children that volcanoes are caused by underground coal fires or that animals bred with man and the results can still be seen in some races of men today?

De-emphasize the distinctives. Dean Kelley, a Methodist guest lecturer at Andrews University, said, "…Tithing, the seventh-day Sabbath, foot washing, etc., are the things that make the Seventh-day Adventist Church unique, distinctive and demanding. How can the Seventh-day Adventist Church stop growing? Be like the Methodists." Kelley was a Methodist, so what does he know about Adventists?

Once again it is the traditional beliefs that will make our church live. If our distinctive was love rather then ritual Sabbath day observance and foot washing we would be a far more distinctive church. But like the Pharisees it is the rituals and the statements of belief that are so much easier to produce then the friendship, love and reasonable understandings of God. Can’t we be distinctive with a preaching of the gospel to the world? At a time when so many misunderstand God would not it be wonderful if our churches distinction was that we taught about a God of love and acceptance and healing as opposed to the God of wrath and oppression and vengeance of torment. Yes so many churches do teach of a God of love yet they present a mixed view in which God must inflict a penalty to forgive and if obedience is not obtained this God of love kills or worse.

If your church is currently not experiencing growth, or worse, has a decline in attendance, be honest. Ask some tough questions. Take this list to your next church board meeting and discuss it during the devotional time. And if any of these "suggestions" apply to your church, for heaven's sake, change it. It's too late in earth's history to be just playing church.

Jere Patzer, North Pacific Union Conference president, writes from Ridgefield, Washington.

I hope that you do take this list to your next board meeting or Sabbath school or prayer meeting. But please take along this article as well. This is a critical time for Christians in the world particularly now that Christianity is so attacked and weakened. We are at a time when our traditional responses are failing miserably, not just in the SDA church but across the entire Christian religious world. We have the opportunity to change the world, if only we have the courage to change.

The Best Bible Verse

A couple weeks ago Paul Whiting presented a post under the title Power of Scripture meme The idea of a meme is taking something you see one place and replicating it elsewhere. His post begins:

Jason at P. T. Forsyth Files has asked me to "post [on] that verse or story of scripture which is important to you, which you find yourself re-visiting time after time."

Since I did not want to simply post my favorite verse I am taking the opportunity to add my favorite verse to the following story taken from a post on Christian forums.

I have recently been reading a book by Jim Hohnberger. His perspective is so refreshing and his words seem to emanate with what we need to hear today in our world... Here is a quote with a question to us all. (It's about People, pg 32,33) He relates a story he had at a speaking engagement at Camp. A older gentlement walked up to him and challenged him with this...

"I've got five questions to ask you." Well, I said setting my suitcase down, on the pathway, "go ahead". "Number one, what is the one text from the entire bible that is the foundation of our faith?"

I looked at Tom who said, "I can do all things through Christ."

"No" he snapped, as though irritated because Tom quoted this vibrantly confident pronouncement of faith. He then fixed his gaze upon me and commanded, "You tell me, Jim Hohnberger."

"Acts 17:28: 'For in Him we live and move and have our being.'"

"your'e wrong" he barked and then proceeded to quote a proof text for a denominational doctrine.

"Whats your second question?" I asked

"Did Christ take upon Him the fallen or unfallen nature?"

"Whats your third question?"

"Was the atonement completed at the cross?"

"And your fourth?"

"Are babies born sinners?"

"what is your fifth?"

"will we continue sinning until Christ comes?"

I had been praying through this entire encounter for that God would give me His grace and His wisdom because I don't have all the answers. Now I turned to him. "I have just one question for you before I answer your other questions. Brother, do you believe I can be a conservative christian, active in outreach and witnessing activities, take the gospel to the whole world, answer all five questions correctly, and still have not living experience with Jesus Christ, not be changed into His likeness, and not go to heaven?"

My favorite verse which I have found to work, so far for any occasion, would have been my answer to the above admittedly difficult question.

Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure. (1 John 3:2-3 NIV)