Dave
Don't you think his opposition to slavery might have been one reason he was not keen to support rebellious slave owners across the sea?

If the colonies had remained British, the slave trade would most likely have been banned here in 1807, the way it was in Britain (where slavery itself was banned in 1833).

The reason why those in the Reformation tradition so strongly oppose Wesley is that he comes close to embracing the RCC metaphor of salvation as healing process. The Reformers wanted the scabs and bleeding sores to show, even when people put on their Sunday best.

And as you write, there is something almost Islamic about the Reformers (especially Calvin's) view of God's sovreignity. You know Wesley far better than I ever will, so correct me, but my impression is that much of Wesleyism is a softer view of God.

Dave

E.G. White came into Adventism as a post-Aldersgate Wesleyan. As time went on she became more and more like a pre-Aldersgate
Wesleyan. She did hold to an Arminian position, much to her credit. If the Wesley brothers were Methodists! then E.G. White became a jot and tittle Methodist. At least if one majors in the Willie White tattle tales and the compliations published post 1915. E.G. White far away in California had to keep the brethren in D.C. in tow--so the endless testimonies. The issue was not holiness but control. It still is! Fear and rebuke served Ellen well so why not now? Tom

Another story: At one time the Medical College of Georgia School of Dentistry was know as Loma Linda East, since we had at least 12% SDA faculty and staff. Every seven years the school would undergo an outside accreditation site visit of 3.5 days. On the afternoon of the last day, the dean would buy beer, coke, ginger ale, sparkling water and have a celebration in one of the larger labs. On one such day, the dean and I were standing together enjoying the scene. Then he gave me a jab in the ribs and pointed. There was a LLU graduate, stuffing beer cans in his white lab coat looking around all the time to see if anyone was watching. After collecting about 4-5 beers, he edged his way out of the lab and headed towards his office. The Dean said--mixed with profanity: I don't care if he drinks my beer but @#&* he had better drink it with me! Talk about lonesome, try drinking a beer alone in a closet. Not even a Dutchman would consider such an afront. I can have as much fun with tap water in fellowship with colleagues celebrating a job well done! We should be the most open happy people in all the world. Very
late, almost too late: John Wesley understood--should we wait any longer? Tom

Aage & Tom

Thank you for your comments! I appreciate them all even though in what follows I will comment on only one of them.

Thinking of salvation in healing as well as legal terms did appeal to Wesley.

I think that this is one reason why deep in the Adventist theological psyche there is something that instinctively resists thinking of salvation in exclusively or even primarily legal terms.

Those who fault Wesley for being too Roman Catholic sometimes overlook the fact that he was very fond of and widely read in the Greek theological tradition of early Christianity and the use of healing metaphors for salvation are as central to it as legal ones are for the Latin tradition.

Anybody who challenges Adventism's Wesleyanism must keep in mind that he or she is confronting a theological tradition that is significantly more than a thousand years old. Again, we are talking about something that is very, very deep in the Adventist theological psyche.

I think that this is a good thing and this is one reason why I am still an SDA!

Thanks again!

Dave

"John Wesley's Therapeutic Understanding of Salvation" by Jeremy Ayers can be read at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4044/is_/ai_n9140532?tag=artBody...

Here are two of this paper's early paragraphs:

"Early Latin and Greek theologians tended toward different understandings of the relation of creation, sin, and salvation. These differences developed further in the progressively separated Western (Latin) and Eastern (Greek) Christian traditions, with the eventual result that the soteriology of the main strands of Western Christianity (both Protestant and Roman Catholic) came to be characterized by a dominant juridical emphasis on guilt and absolution, while Eastern Orthodox soteriology typically emphasized more the therapeutic concern for healing our sin-diseased nature.3

It is my claim that Wesley's primary understanding of salvation was therapeutic, more closely resembling the Eastern mindset than the Western.4 Within this context, this study examines Wesley's theological self-understanding of the therapeutic nature of salvation."

Thank you!

Dave

Very interesting to focus on the healing aspect or the therapeutic nature of salvation. I have a 1903 book written by Dr. Henry Van Dyke pastor, at the time of Brick Presbyterian Church of New York. The book is entitled: The Open Door. His text is taken from John 10:9 in which Jesus declares Himself as the door. Van Dyke makes his major point that the door is open for anyone and everyone to come in for "healling" and then to go out to serve.

A very interest commentary from a Calvinist. Tom

It is not unusual to hear a pastor speak of the "sin-sick" world. It is a congenital anomoly of mankind.

Right, Tom!
Wesleyans have no monopoly on therapeutic metaphors for salvation [nor anything else, I suspect!]. Thanks for the reference to the book by Dr. Van Dyke. Combining the two metaphors--healing and door--works for me. Hope this turns out to be a good day for you! We're getting off to a good start here.
Dave

Hi Dave, great essay! I'm with you on affirming Adventism's Wesleyan heritage.

Where I think we've (Adventists) done a disservice to Wesley (and each other) is by thinking that "perfection" is:

A. Something we do (adding on to what Jesus did for us)
B. Defined behaviorly, e.g. by not eating meat, drinking alcohol, observing the Sabbath, wearing jewelry.

As you point out, Wesley does not teach "A", but believes complete sanctification is something God does; it's a second blessing given to those that have faith.

On "B", Wesley is clear that perfection is "perfect love for God and neighbor." In other words, it is defined positively in terms of what we do, not negatively as a bunch of things we do not do.

We should read more Wesley. =)

While thinking of a response to Elaine in another thread if an atonement/salvation metaphor has greater validity over others (since there are several of them in the Bible), I was reminded of the now classic "Metaphors We Live By" by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson.

http://theliterarylink.com/metaphors.html

Am I correct to assume that traditional Adventism has been defined by a "Judgment Hour" (IJ) metaphor? That, in its place, Des Ford aims to restore the good old "Penal substitution/forensic justification" metaphor of conservative Christianity?

My question is: Sin-sickeness being the basic problem we all have, which of the above offers a better remedy? Or, is there not a better health metaphor/model out there? Wesleyan?

Still having no assurance of his salvation at the age of 62, after preaching thousands of sermons, John Wesley confessed in a letter to his brother as follows:

"I do not love God. I never did. Therefore, I never believed, in the Christian sense of the word. Therefore I am only an honest heathen...and yet, to be so employed of God!" [Quoted from Tomkins; "John Wesley: A Biography"; Eerdmans, 2003, p. 168]

John Whitefield rightly stated, "We are all born as Arminians. It is grace that turns us into Calvinists."

Dennis Fischer
E-mail: dfministries@gmail.com

Dennis

"I am only an honest heathen" sounds good to me! Those who think that Wesley was spirtually prideful might find this interesting.

Joselito

I think you may be right; however, participating in these conversations has made me ever so much more cautious about knowing what "traditional Adventism" was.

It turns out that it was much more diverse than I thought.

As I've said earlier, IJ teachings had no signficance in my childhood. None whatsoever.

I heard about it one night in each of my father's three-week evangelistic meetings. Also, I studied it in a passing way in school. But that's it. Never heard a sermon about it in church, etc.

While visiting my younger sister in Canada recently, I asked her how much she heard about the IJ as a child.

She said she vividly remembers hearing a sermon about the IJ by someone other than our father that frightened her intensely, so much so that she went to him in tears seeking some solace because of her huge unworthiness to face it "all alone."

[What kind of Christian minister would preach that kind of sermon? Had he never read what Jesus said about harming children?]

Her report of what our father said to her corresponds with what I would have expected:

"Don't you think that I would have told you if there was anything you for you to be worried about? Don't be frightened. God is good and we can trust him. Now, go to bed and have a good night's sleep. You're safe." Much relieved, she did!

My father is not usually remembered as a liberal! But this is the way he reared his children and I think many other SDAs in his generation did the same thing.

Zane

I think you are "spot on."

Having said that, I often remind myself that Wesley lived before Darwin, Marx and Freud.

The first started to teach us how much we share with other animals. The second taught us how much of what we think and do is influenced by our social/economic class. And the third gave us a clue as to the huge impact of the subconscious.

Had he taken all this into account, as I think he would have if had lived in the 19th and 20th centuries instead of the 18th, I think Wesley would have been more circumspect when talking about "perfect love."

Yet, all in all, I remain among those who prefer the Wesleyan theological gestalt to its major alternatives.

I'm glad you do too!

Many thanks!

Dave

Charles Wesley was pastor of a little church on Sea Island, Ga
It is still open to visitors. Available is a small booklet that contains some of Charles "best" sermons given in that little church. Ugh! What dull nonsense. Then John and Charles went or were sent home--back to England. Then Aldersgate happened. Now our Hymnals are full of Charles' hymns--great poems of Grace and Salvation. To have seen the contrast first hand--I also am a Wesleyan Fan. (Sorry, I have displaced my little copy of Charles' "best".) Tom

There are so many metaphors and analogies plus the rabbinical use of mishna in both writing, rewriting, and copying of the biblical texts, that we would do well to not willingly adopt any one as THE only one. Their use of metaphor had to relate to their own world--a world quite foreign to us thousands of years later.

Thomas Jefferson, and his other contemporaries were wise in their reliance on both Greek and Judeo-Christian principles when they wrote our nation's constitution. Principles of all great religions are similar in their respect of others, their condemnation of actions that would deprive anyone of liberty, and the amendments that have followed were based on those original documents.

A Christianity that is based more on correct orthodoxy is only a cerebral religion; morality is not at all limited to any religion but is best practiced in its absence, unbound to tenets which could hamper the tolerance that all should have. Religionists, throughout world history have been the most intolerant of peoples; much more so than pagans or the Eastern religions.

The necessity that most religions demand belief in all sorts of miracles and impossible events invite the removal of rationality and adoption of concepts that in any other area of life would be seen as preposterous: e.g., belief in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy; demons and witches, poisoning of wells by the Jews in the Middle Ages; dogma that once was widely believed should have died long ago, but are still a large part of religious belief.

Elaine

You are indeed correct. Relgion is a mystical thing.

However, Christianity is a historical reality. Too bad we keep mixing the two.

As if holding a heavy Bible up for any length of time validates anything. Ranks right up there with copying without citation. Tom

Tom

Your connections with the time John and Charles Wesley spent in Georgia are fascinating, especially your comparison of Charles' effectivness before and after.

At the Sea Island Chapel do they tell how much trouble Charles had with women in Georgia, or that John had even more difficulties with them?

For John in public to refuse communion to a prominent woman after she married someone else following their romance was not very professional. No wonder he slipped out of town and eventually made it back to England, very depressed! And then, as you say, Aldersgate!!

John had unhappy experiences with some women all his life. His relationship with his eventual wife left much to be desired. I sometimes wonder if this is one reason he traveled so much. But being married to him probably wasn't easy. "Men of God" can be difficult!

In this respect, Luther was more fortunate or adept or both. But he should not have said in public some of the things he said about their marriage, even though they were good. But the man, saint though he was, was not famous for being discrete!

Luther's report in his discussion of the sacrament of marriage in the "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church" of his advice to a woman who was married to an impotent man will surprise many.

But this was a long time before Viagra! Also, it shows that Luther took the sexual needs of women much more seriously than many did than or many do now. Good on him!

Elaine

I agree with you on the need for multiple metaphors. My only addition would be that we can't change them as easily as we do what we wear because they become so deeply imprinted in the psyche that we often experience any questioning of them as a threat to it. Not easy!

Whether religious believers have killed more people in wars than others is a puzzle to me. My first reaction is to say "yes, of course." My second is,"What about the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao? Didn't the numbers they killed outnumber all the ones believers have killed?"

The response I usually get to that is that in fact they led quasi religions, which I agree they were.

This leads me to the conclusion that every war is religious in nature, so much so that the category of "non-religious war" is empty.

This makes sense if we stick with Paul Tillich in thinking of religion as the substance of culture and culture as the form of religion. Can't separate them.

Dennis

I would like to add that Luther had similar bouts of spiritual depression and desperation throughout his life; i.e. his assurance of salvation was not always experientially available to him. We now know the same thing about Mother Teresa.

This is why I don't think we should tell people that once they have experienced justification by faith their assurance of salvation will spare them from all subsequent "dark nights of the soul."

It didn't in the cases of Martin Luther, John Wesley and Mother Teresa. Why should we expect this in our own?

Many thanks!

Dave

The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another. In "The Metaphors We Live By", Lakoff and Johnson submit that we structure all our experiences metaphorically without noticing it. Some metaphors work better than others for specific individuals as well as for certain communities.

I may be off, so in advance pardon me please. Tom's allusion to the sin-sickness of the soul, pointing to a spiritual health model for salvation, is a metaphor we use unconciously. In my mind, the forensic justification metaphor Des Ford aims to restore to Adventist Christianity seems analogous to the practice of conventional, allopathic medicine. Am I wrong? Des will probably disagree. The volumes he authored on health are more wholistically oriented and includes the preventative aspect as well (which is not missing in conventional clinical practice but simply not given as much attention it deserves), I know. Anyway, let's repeat one more time: there's no perfect illustration, scientific or metaphorical.

Comparing conventional therapy with alternative methodologies, I learned the following:

1) 38.4% positive effect or possibly positive (12.4%) effect versus 41.3% positive or possibly positive effect
2) 4.8% no effect versus 20% no effect
3) 0.69% harmful effect versus 8.1% net harmful effects
4) 56.6% insufficient evidence versus 21.3% insufficient evidence

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/

Surprise! Nonetheless, for my own good, I've basically chosen the conventional over alternative health models. Some will select, "All of the above". Others, "None" but this, IMO, is impossible.

As a non-believer, what I like about the Jesus portrayed in the synoptic gospels is the altruistic thrust of his ethics-based message. He is all about the people around you, especially those that suffer and the outcasts. He was the champion of the powerless and the poor.

What I don't like about the Wesleyan tradition is that it focuses its attention too much on the life of the believer. Historically it gave rise to American revivalism, later morphing into pentecostalism and the charismatic movement--movements that sought to enhance private spiritual experience rather than moving people to become a blessing to those around them.

The danger of resorting to therapeutic metaphors of salvation is that people begin to focus on all their weakness and pains and shortcomings and end up so myopic and self-centered that they have no time for others. (In the Catholic church, it led to an over-emphasis on the dispenser of healing, the divine pharmacy that delivered God's healing grace: the church itself.)

The Reformation moved the church out of focus and put God at the center. Martin Luther, who had been consumed with pathological guilt, found freedom from condemnation in his theology, but he did not recapture the altruistic nature of Jesus' ethics. Luther sought to free people from guilt and bad theology, and see to it that they learn to read the bible, but that was the extent of his altruism. The Reformers reduced religion to dogma, and Luther wouldn't even shake hands with fellow Christians if they disagreed with his personal views. (In his table talks, he says that in 1527 he refused to shake hands with Zwingli, because doing so would give the impression that he was assenting to Zwingli's theology.)

You would think that of all people Christians would champion altruism and ideological generosity (and some do) but it is troubling to see how hopelessly self-centered the religious experience tends to become, whether it is obsessive concern about salvation or getting God to find you a parking spot.

Dave

Only the stories about John and his women is open history in Georgia. Charles seems to have gotten back home character in intact at least in the stories on Sea Island. I also have read of John's troubles with his wife in England--responsible for much of his travels, I understand.
Tom

Eschatology, a major doctrine in Adventism, relies on metaphor entirely: There are sayings of Jesus that those hearing him would not see death before the saw the kingdom of God (Matt. 10:23); Luke describes the coming kingdom in a number of ways also. "There will be no one saying, 'Look here!' for the kingdom of God is among you. It will be unrecognized: people will be eating, drinking marrying, even two people will be in the same bed and one will be taken and the other left" (Luke 10:22-37).

And yet, the most used metaphor of all is the one of the dark cloud in the east which eventually carries Jesus (source?). The latter has caused many children and older to have nightmares of being unready when it happened so suddenly. What about Luke's claim that the kingdom of God is among you--here and now? How often is that heard from the pulpit or in church publications?

Eschatology came to the forefront during Jewish persecutions and their captivity and later under Roman rule. This is the major theme of Daniel, written in the second century under foreign rulers. It consists mainly of symbols: when a work consists wholly or mainly of symbols, it should immediately notify the reader that it is not a literalist book; a pseudepigraph, attributed to someone other than the actual author. Some of the reasons for that appraisal: There is no evidence of any kind that the Babylonians interfered with the Jewish food regulations or compelled the Jews to worship their own gods, or that the Persians forbad them to observe the rules of their religion.

Simply read 1 and 2 Maccabees to see that all this was what Antiochus was doing at the time when Daniel was written. The whole purpose of this curious literary device was to assure the raders that their sufferings had been foreseen, that they wer part of a regular pattern and under the control of a divine plan which God was working out on the stage of world history and would bring to a successful conclusion. This is also true of Revelation: it is to assure God's people that he will eventually triumph.

"The Language and Imagery of the Bible" by G.B. Caird, clearly shows how translators must thoroughly understand not only the words, but the thought forms and presuppositions of the ancient world, from all its mental furnishing to those of the present day in order to begin to reveal what the Bible writers intended.

Accepting these limitations, should cause all of us to be far less certain of the meaning of any passage of Scripture and exchange the certitude for more humility.

Dave,

When the subjective work of Christ in us becomes the central focus over the objective work that he accomplished for us, that, to me, can lead to deeper, darker and longer "nights of the soul" such as Wesley wrote about. If salvation is totally progressively experiential and has no objective basis upon which to rest, then how much progress/sanctification is enough for God's acceptance? How much is enough to make it through the gates, so to speak?

This is the problem that I have encountered within the confines of Adventism, which seems to stem from the holiness emphasis of Wesleyanism. Many Adventists, especially of prior generations, seem to never have had any assurance of salvation because of the hyper-focus of inward sanctification and "perfection". A focus that moved Christ's work for us to the margins, and minimilizes the promise of glorification as well.

And I agree with Aage; it really causes a morbid introspection in many conscientious people, moving them away from freely and unselfconsciously looking out to and for others. Carol Cannon wrote a wonderful book in the early 90's highlighting the addictive and dysfunctional behaviors that arise from such addictive and dysfunctional religious systems and families called, "Never Good Enough." A very fitting title that describes the experience of many Adventists.

Thankfully, Wesley did lay down the blueprint for the Oxford and later 12 step movement, that moves the healing experience of salvation from isolated introspection into a relational and community setting of belonging and acceptance...where real healing almost always happens. However, I find it interesting that at such a late age, this seems to have eluded him, at least according to the above letter.

Isn't it interesting that he shares the same experience with Mother Theresa? I wonder how much of the subjective theological emphasis that he seemed to share with staunch Catholicism could have contributed to such a state.

Thanks...

Frank

Jeannieb43

Because of Adventism's Methodist roots, my dear late husband and I made it a point to visit John Wesley's first (?or early?) church at the Foundry in London. [Sorry my feeble memory isn't more specific about the exact location.]

It was a thrill to be able to stand at the pulpit Wesley used. The room is small -- holding only about 75 movable straight wooden chairs. The structure is not imposing -- placed adjacent to an old foundry. But from that humble beginning, a great movement arose.

And thus I learned why some Methodist churches are called Foundry Methodist.

Hi Dave,

On Freud and Marx, one of my profs has got a great little book called "Suspicion and Faith" where he claims that Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche are the secular expositors of the Christian doctrine of original sin. (He recommends that Christians should read them for Lent!)

In reference to Darwin, I'd claim that the capacity to "love" is a distinct human capacity, although I know that some might dispute this.

Either way, we love imperfectly and this is what sin is. We confuse love with egoism, hedonism, etc. That's why we have Jesus, who reveals what loving God and others looks like. Learning to love as he did is what sanctification is all about.

"Those of us who write about others usually reveal much about ourselves." So true. I think it is because we write from the heart with passion.
When I wrote Des Ford's biography I was wearing two caps.
1. My historian's coonskin. In the narrative I cited a handful of men who objected to two aspects of old Methodism, i.e., what they regarded as anti-intellectualism and an imprecise or even flawed view of sanctification. I did this in the context of the righteousness by faith debate in the SDA church, reaching its peak in the 1970s.
Within this narrow context some writers are on record identifying a kinship between the Methodist and Roman Catholic views of sanctification. The observation did not originate with me. It is a fact that others, both SDA and non-SDA, noted the connection.
David Larson has lifted phrases out of my narrow context and inserted them into the broad context of Methodism in general. I don't believe that is a helpful ploy.
He goes on to mention some noble elements in Methodism, which I applaud, but I look on these as red herrings in his hamper. They belong to a larger Methodism but not to the 1970s Adventist debate on righteousness by faith.
2. My favourite toupee. Under my coonskin I had my toupee. From this hat I engaged in some editorial comment or critical analysis throughout the narrative, as expected of a writer deeply engaged in his subject. It was my personal reflection. In the introductory pages I candidly admitted this would bring criticisms about objectivity. I happily take those criticisms on the chin.
Can I indulge in a brief personal testimony that helps to explain my personal view?
I was raised as a perfectionist. I listened to countless sermons and read numerous articles in denominational papers in which I was told I would be accounted righteous with justification and MADE righteous with sanctification. In fact, I was told I had to attain a level of morality so high that I could stand in God's presence without a mediator!
These assertions were given to me by perfectionists who did not live by the ideals they preached.
One perfectionist was disciplined by his local church for writing love letters to young girls barely out of elementary school. One was president of the Australasian Division who was precipitously removed to another Division when he was found to be in a tryst with a female nurse. The Division Minutes contain a three-point strategy designed to keep the news from Mr Average in the pew. I have a fat file of accounts of other officials who did not know the difference between their wives and other women in the church. Their conduct was hypocritical, to say the least. (In the Des Ford biography I did not elaborate on too many sins of the perfectionists lest I be accused of carrying a chip on my shoulder. Of course, not all perfectionists are sexual deviants and not all sexual deviants are perfectionists. Nevertheless, on a number of occasions I could have written, as the Old Testament historians wrote, "And he did evil in the sight of the Lord").
My reason for mentioning a couple of examples here is simply to illustrate that while I observed these scoundrels and at the same time read their articles and listened to them taking the high moral ground, I concluded, rightly or wrongly, that their message of perfection was pie-in-the-sky, unattainable by even the proponents.
At that stage I did not have the scriptural background to either understand the weaknesses of their arguments or provide a satisfying alternative.
A milestone in my experience was planted in a seminary class conducted by Dr Hans La Rondelle. His suggested reading list for the semester contained the hefty volume, "Examination of the Councils of Trent" by Martin Chemnitz. The compelling scriptural arguments presented by Chemnitz convinced me that for 30 years under the guise of perfectionism I had believed virtually the same as the Roman Catholic version of sanctification. The terminology was a little different but the process was almost identical.
I had reached the same conclusions as those of the 1970s who noted the similarity between Methodism and Roman Catholicism regarding the doctrine of sanctification. I want nothing more to do with perfectionism. I am pleased if my abhorence of it is evident in the biography. I do not wish to rehearse the debate of the 1970s with David Larson but I would remind him that my objections to Methodism are not against its dogma in toto but rather against its tendency to foster perfectionism. Given the context in which I was writing I think most readers would see that as self-evident.
Shalom.
Milton Hook

I believe there is much that is good is Wesleyanism, but there are also certain pitfalls that should be avoided, especially the concept of entire, instantaneous sanctification. Adventism is at its best when it borrows the good points from the various theological traditions and avoids their errors.

It should be noted that confessional Lutheranism differs from Luther on predestination, at least the Luther represented in the "Bondage Of The Will." The Lutheran Formula of Concord argues that people are lost, not because God wills it, but because they resist the Holy Spirit. And when it comes to conversion, the FOC states that the natural human will is in bondage to sin and cannot make even the slightest move toward God. But through the preaching of the gospel, the Holy Spirit performs a miracle, enabling lost sinners to have faith and then working faith in them if they don't resist. So while the FOC upholds total depravity, it does not teach the irresistable grace of TULIP. Thus, in confessional Lutheran theology, there is no compulsion is conversion.

I mention this because some Adventists tend to lump Lutheranism right in with Calvinism when it comes to
predestination. This is quite inaccurate. Personally, I think there are many good points in the FOC position.

Joselito

I lost you! Are the percentages comparisons of the therapuetic benefits of different types of "medicine?" I think I need another chance at this. Sorry!

Tom

Charles had troubles with some women in Georgia, too. But they were of a different nature. A couple of the women he encountered took a swift dislike to him and his message and made his life miserable for a while, apparently threatening him with a rifle on one occasion. Life can be difficult!

Elaine

After a review of much eschatological material, you write: "Accepting these limitations, should cause all of us to be far less certain of the meaning of any passage of Scripture and exchange the certitude for more humility." I agree wholeheartedly!

jeanneb43

How fortunate you are to have visited the Foundary in London! It sounds to me as though you and your late husband took seriously your Wesleyan theological roots! Wonderful!!

Zane

I'd like to read your professor's book on "Suspiscion and Faith." I think we need more volumes along those lines.

Yes, indeed, love in its purest form [agape?] on this planet is a distinct human capacity. Yet I am very interested in how and to what degree nonhuman animals approximate it.

Also, the recent discussions of "the biology of love" seem important. I have much to learn about these things.

Some say collaboration--not competition--is the key to evolutionary progress. I wonder how different human history in the last 150 years might have been had that been widely believed.

Bob

Thank you for clarifying the important differences between Luther and the Formula of Concord. Also, we often say "Luther and Calvin;" however, as you state, their positions are actually different theological gestalts.

These distinctions are not minor matters because they help us be more precise and clear when we are discussing the most important of all topics.

You write: "Adventism is at its best when it borrows the good points from the various theological traditions and avoids their errors."

I agree. However, there is no theologically neutral ground on which we can stand when doing this picking and choosing, right? We have to start wherever we are and go from there.

For most SDAs this means that we start with some form of Wesleyanism; whether to abandon it or try to improve it from within as one progresses on one's theological journey is an important question. I've clearly chosen the second path.

Aage, Frank and Bob

I agree that it has been altogether too easy for Wesleyan traditions to become too subjective and self-regarding. Also, the idea of instantaneous sanctification doesn't make sense even on Wesley's own premises, I believe.

One way to counter these tendencies is to retrieve Wesley's emphasis on "social holiness." This might help us move beyond petty conscientiousness in the direction of serving human needs. Were he alive today, I suspect this is what he would recommend.

There is one thing that I really want to resist, however. This is the idea that the Wesleyan tradition is so berift of the assurance of salvation that it returns people again and again to dark dispair.

I don't deny that this happened to Wesley and to many of his followers. But it also happened to Martin Luther again and again, after his theologial and experiential break through, as it has to many other Lutherans along the way.

Consider this from the November 13 "Christianity Today:"

"It was not in Luther's monastic years, when he was struggling for acceptance with God, that he felt the absence of God most deeply. Like Mother Teresa, it was after his special experience of God's grace and after he wrote his watershed 95 theses that his periods of Anfechtung, his word for doubt, turmoil, and despair, came upon him. To discover grace is not to escape spiritual tribulation.

Here is a sample of how Luther wrote about his feelings of abandonment: "God often, as it were, hides himself, and will not hear; yea, will not suffer himself to be found."

I think that it is very important that we be clear with people that there is no theological gestalt whatsoever that can guarantee them that they will always feel "the assurance of salvation."

To preach that to people is to set them up for even greater theolological and psychological problems, I hold.

Milton

Thank you for your book and for responding to my comments about it!

Like you, I do not want to revist the theological squabbles of previous generations. However, some things of continuing theological importance matter to me.

One of these is that we do not make sweeping generalizations about the Wesleyan theological gestalt or any other.

There are passages in your book that come across to me that way, particulary when you state that Paxton was right to measure Adventism against his understanding of Lutheranism instead of Wesleyanism.

I'm glad to hear from you that it was not your intent to be so global. Thank you for this good news!

Another thing that matters to me is that we accurately represent the theological gestalts we are analyzing and assessing.

As I understand it, your book attributes to John Wesley things I have never read in his writings. I mentioned this in my initial comments with the additional note that I would like to be corrected with long passages from his own works if I am in error. I want to understand him as accuately as possible.

It is true that as a priest in the Church of England John Wesley was closer to Rome than Wittenberg on some issues. Just saying that doesn't necessarily mean that he was wrong, however. Maybe the Roman Catholics are right about some things. Why not have an open mind and consider these issues one at a time?

Many historians write in ways that I find convincing that the key to Wesley's thought is not Roman Catholicism but what today we call Greek Orthodoxy. This means that he was working in part from a hugely different tradition.

I don't expect you to go into this in your book because it is about Desmond Ford, not John Wesley. But I do not know how anyone can understand Wesley apart from that background and I do not know how anyone can assess his theololgical gestalt without understanding it.

But this brings us back full circle and to your point that your remarks were not aimed at Wesleyanism as a theological gestalt but to all the hurt and harm you have experienced in the form it came to you. Again, thank you for clarifying this.

I benefited from readng your book and have recommended it to others. I think it more ardent than analytical, but that is precisely its value.

Many thanks!

Dave

Milton,

First of all, thanks for writing something to inform all of us about a often misunderstood figure in Adventism.

Dave above, quotes one of the letters cited in your book above:

“perhaps ignorantly, was coaxing the constituency back to the Roman Catholic Councils of Trent and the second blessing of Wesleyanism, the two sources that advocated self-generated righteousness with God’s assistance as the essence of sanctification”

Like Dave, I'd be interested in finding the places where Wesley teaches that we can generate our own righteousness. To be honest I have only read one of Wesley's works, "On Christian Perfection", which did not contain such a notion, and would be eager to learn of another place where he did. In CP, Wesley says that "the second blessing" is something God gives to those who have faith. This faith is expressed in acts that "cooperate with God" , i.e. Bible study, prayer, small groups, etc. and is expressed as love toward God and neighbor. In other words, it is not "righteousness" we generate.

I wonder if the issue at the heart of this debate is one's understanding of "salvation." The forensic/justification people seem to want to make salvation purely other worldly. I am saved for the afterlife.

The moral influence/sanctification crowd want to emphasize God's power to change us in this life.

I don't think Lutherans/Calvinists deny the later, and that Catholics/Wesleyans deny the former, so perhaps the difference is one of emphasis.

If one does deny either, they are clearly being unfaithful to Scripture and Christian teaching through history.

Dave,

Here's a link to the book:

http://www.amazon.com/Suspicion-Faith-Religious-Modern-Atheism/dp/082321...

Yeah, I'm interested in the neo-Darwinian stuff on the biological basis for compassion. The new wave says that the the gene/traits for group survival (cooperation) instead of individual survival (competition) is what gets passed on, right? and that the traits of overly aggressive individuals get weeded out because they are perceived as threat to the rest of the group?

If this in fact the case, perhaps humans in general are not as egoistic as some might claim biologically, i.e. "naturally." We'd still in to explain if the culture we create (secondary "nature") shapes us to become so.

Perhaps sanctification is then the ability to love those outside our own survival group (race, socio-economic class, religion, nation, political party), and if we want to define this group broadly as all "humans", our ability to love/care for other animals and the planet.

Anyway, just some thoughts...

Comparing conventional therapy with alternative methodologies, I learned the following:

1) 38.4% positive effect or possibly positive (12.4%) effect versus 41.3% positive or possibly positive effect
2) 4.8% no effect versus 20% no effect
3) 0.69% harmful effect versus 8.1% net harmful effects
4) 56.6% insufficient evidence versus 21.3% insufficient evidence
Posted by: Joselito Coo | 17 September 2008 at 6:22
Joselito
I lost you!... Sorry!
Posted by: davidrlarson | 17 September 2008 at 10:49

The list compares the practice of conventional medicine in the US with complementary-alternative systems (as defined by the National Institutes of Health's Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine):

See the Wikipedia entry on Alternative Medicine under the subhead:
Alternative and evidence-based medicine
Testing of efficacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine

"For most SDAs this means that we start with some form of Wesleyanism; whether to abandon it or try to improve it from within as one progresses on one's theological journey is an important question. I've clearly chosen the second path."

Dave, I agree with you. In fact, I believe that Ellen White blazed this trail ahead of us by choosing the second path. She was from a Methodist background and retained much of her Wesleyan heritage. However, she abandoned a major tenet of Wesleyan theology, namely entire, instantaneous sanctification. When she stated that sanctification is the work of a lifetime, she was right in line with Luther and Calvin. It seems to me that our theology is at its best when it is eclectic.

"our theology is at its best when it is eclectic."

Astounding! But, nevertheless, like it or not, we are all gradually becoming much more eclectic in our theology as well as our tolerance and even appreciation of other ideas,
which we should relish.

Joelito

Thank you! I take it that this comparison is analgous to a study of alternative theological gestalts. Am I heading down the right path? I do want to understand this. Thank you for your help!

Zane

I ordered the its last copy of the book from Amazon [through this web site so as to benefit AF!]. Do you have the good fortune of studying with Merold Westphal?

I think that paragraph 1 in part 2 of John Wesley's sermon #85 "On Working Out Your Own Salvation" [!!] is as good a summary of his views as any:

"Your own salvation begins with what is usually termed (and very properly) preventing grace; including the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against him. All these imply some tendency toward life; some degree of salvation; the beginning of a deliverance from a blind, unfeeling heart, quite insensible of God and the things of God. Salvation is carried on by convincing grace, usually in Scripture termed repentance; which brings a larger measure of self-knowledge, and a farther deliverance from the heart of stone. Afterwards we experience the proper Christian salvation; whereby, "through grace," we "are saved by faith;" consisting of those two grand branches, justification and sanctification. By justification we are saved from the guilt of sin, and restored to the favour of God; by sanctification we are saved from the power and root of sin, and restored to the image of God. All experience, as well as Scripture, shows this salvation to be both instantaneous and gradual. It begins the moment we are justified, in the holy, humble, gentle, patient love of God and man. It gradually increases from that moment, as "a grain of mustard-seed, which, at first, is the least of all seeds," but afterwards puts forth large branches, and becomes a great tree; till, in another instant, the heart is cleansed, from all sin, and filled with pure love to God and man. But even that love increases more and more, till we "grow up in all things into him that is our Head;" till we attain "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."

Some comments:

1. I agree with those who criticize what he says about sanctification cleansing us from "the root" as well as the "power of sin." The same with the idea of a "second instant" in which total cleansing occurs. In my view, neither of these fit with Wesley's own accounts of original sin.

2. But even these are not "self-generated." Rather, in "working out our salvation," as Scripture urges us to do, we are always responding to God's grace. For Wesley, God's grace is always first, last and everywhere in the middle.

3. In this paragraph Wesley talks about "preventing grace." Others have used terms like "preveninet grace." The point is that God's grace is like the air we breath; without it we can't even begin to live. So, for Wesley, the only answer to what we can do "on our own" is "nothing." This is equally true in the physical and spiritual realms, if we want to divide things up that way [I don't].

4. Wesley uses the word salvation to cover both justification and sanctification whereas today some say it should be reserved for justification so as to prevent us from thinking that it depends in any way on us. I think a part of Wesley would go along with this, providing we have some other word to cover both. He was practical and irenic about such things.

5. However, another part of him would probably have some difficulty because he would likely say that even in justification we have some role to play and this is to accept the forgiveness we are offered. Also, I think it would be difficult for him to understand even in human relationships how one can be forgiven without that very forgiveness empowering one. I know that when someone forgives me I can stand a little taller and be a little stronger. But let's use the words in ways that convey what we all mean.

6. Wesleyanism is more a child of Calvin than Luther. [Once I asked the door keeper of an overcrowded discussion at the AAR of Calvinism if perhaps I should not enter but leave room for others because I am an Arminian. "Your one of our children, not Luther's!" he exclaimed as he pulled me into the conference room with a huge welcoming smile.]

7. In general, I think that Wesley's gestalt is better than Calvin's on the outset of the Christian life and that Calvin's is better than Wesley's on its continuation and culmination.

Thank you, Zane! Even when we disagree with it, I believe that those of us who are SDAs should take our Wesleyan hertigage seriously and treat it respectfully.

Elaine

I share your joy and gladness. If we learn nothing more from Wesley than to "extend the hand of fellowship," as he put it, to everyone, eager to learn wherever we can, we will have honored his memory.

Bob

You said it better than I can. Thank you! What a wonderful way to start another day!

Dave

"God's steadfast love endures forever."

Perhaps I alone wonder if a person who keeps "fat file(s) of accounts of other officials who did not know the difference between their wives and other women in the church." should be writing books on religious issues.

If Milton was suprised that "These assertions were given to me by perfectionists who did not live by the ideals they preached." I wonder what he thinks about Paul as a leader in the light of Romans 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do?

Michael

I also am glad that Milton did not include these sad stories in his book. Yet I think that sometimes an overemphasis on perfection is a way of cloaking some difficulties in one's own life.

How often have we learned that those who are intemperate in their denunciations of homosexuality are irresponsible gay people themselves?

I'm glad you reference Romans 7. It is one of the most subtle and signficant moral psychologies around. So much more sensitive to the complexities of life than many of its rivals, beginning with Aristotle.

Thank you for participating in this conversation!

Dave

Hey Dave,

I do have that good fortune. =)

Thanks for the Wesley quote and for the explanatory comments. I wonder if many people confuse Wesley with Pelagius when they denounce him of teaching "self-generated righteousness."

I do think that certain strands of Adventism have Pelagian tendencies, but this is not Wesley's fault. Rather it is our own; we should be studying our Augustine, along with Wesley.

"I wonder if the issue at the heart of this debate is one's understanding of "salvation." The forensic/justification people seem to want to make salvation purely other worldly. I am saved for the afterlife.

The moral influence/sanctification crowd want to emphasize God's power to change us in this life."

Zane,

I would agree that this is the heart of the issue. But I find, within at least some quarters of Adventism, a curious mix.

The emphasis on personal holiness/sanctification as a continual process has often led to an inward looking life that has its only goal being ready or good enough for the next life. The undue emphasis of this form of sanctification and a deemphasis of justification leads to the same other-wordly preoccupation that you have attributed to the forensic camp...including a pervasive lack of assurance of the outcome.

I just don't find this in reading the NT. The tenor seems to me that justification is not just the door in. It is the reading back of the "final verdict" into one's life now. It is one of the reasons that righteosness/tsedeqah is used in parellism with salvation in the OT. They are two ways of describing the same thing. When God justifies, he saves.

In Christ, the eschatological dimension of this is brought more fully into focus. The cross and the empty tomb is God's verdict over all who receive Jesus as Lord. Thus, the main issue is not my level of character development, but do I gratefully follow Jesus as my Lord, the one who justifies/saves forever?

And following him as Lord is personal, but not private. Even Paul's statement, '...work out your salvation with fear and trembling...' can be seen in this light. Paul is writing to the Philippian church about the relational issues going on among them. To work out their salvation(something they already possessed) was to live it out more authentically in relationship with one another. Paul was urging them to follow Christ's self-emptying pattern of life in community.

Sanctification in this light, is not simply some gradual process, it is also a status conferred. One is sanctified/set apart as belonging to God for his special purpose, the moment they come to Christ. Set apart for good works, set apart to bear fruit, set apart for service...etc. I just don't see the ideas of personal, individual character growth that is often read into this term as predominant. Even the growth parables such as the mustard seed, are oriented towards the collective growth of the kgd., not the personal growth of the individual. I wonder how much of our reading the individual's spiritual development into this term comes from what Stendahl termed as the introspective consciensce of the West.

I'm not denying the reality of individual spiritual growth. I just would rather term it more precisely as transformation or something similar. I also believe that this needs to be seen under the reality of the assured promise of salvation in Christ, not to somehow "punch my ticket a second time to get through the gates."

Thanks...

Frank

Jeannieb43

There's a wonderful review of this book on AToday.com right now, written by Smuts van Rooyen. He writes marvelously, with a depth of understanding of Des Ford's experience, and an appreciation for the author's presentation.

Jeannie

If the word saint has any connection with santification then Paul in addressing his friends in Corinth and others had a very different concept that does the Book Great Controversy--particularly in its eschatological emphasis and the great debate evolving within Adventism out of that context. I like to think of it as Wholeness rather than the emphasis upon "Holiness". One is tangeble the other is mystical and ethereal and quite frankly egotistical. Tom

Simplistic legalism(forensic-only justification) is not the solution to complex legalism(historic Adventism). Self-exaltation(Schuller) is not the solution to self-degradation(Christianity wrongly understood). But the proposed solutions are tempting...especially when you're hurting. Ford has said that to un-do, you have to over-do. But going from one ditch to the other is an excellent way to go nowhere fast.

What if the emphasis were placed upon the salvation of humanity...rather than upon MY salvation? Biblical, or not... my preference is for compartmentalized universalism and the salvation of humanity...wherein everyone makes it...but wherein we are given responsibilities and opportunities based upon spirituality, ethics, attitude, etc. What if this world is both heaven and hell? What if we need to save the world in order to save ourselves? What if the substitutionary atonement was demanded(by Satan...not by God) to free all of humanity from slavery to Satan? What if all of humanity needs to achieve a significant level of Christ-likeness prior to us getting out of this mess?

Why would God give us a Ferrari to drive...when we can't take care of our old VW bus? We humans destroy or foul-up everything we touch. Is God going to instantly turn irresponsible people into responsible people at the second coming? Ellen White says no...and I think White is right.

I think that at least two themes in the comments just before this one deserved to be highlighted and emphasized.

One of these is that many current readers of the First and Second Testaments are noticing their heavy emphasis upon the healing of the community.

For example: "The kingdom of God is within you" probably means that it is in our midst, not in each one of us individually. There are many other examples like this one.

The second theme in the above comments I'd like to underline is the changing place of ethics.

For example: It has long been customary to read "Romans" in the New Testament as though it outlines the sin problem and then rises to its theological peak somewhere near the middle where it proclaims salvation and then slides down the other side of the theological mountain in its valuable but definitely derivative disucssions of how we should treat each other.

But more and more NT scholars are suggesting that the letter's theological peak is not in the middle but at the end where Paul is spelling out how we should interact. Everything else is pointing to ethics. Every thing else is prelude to ethics. Everything else is driving toward ethics.

It is not the ethicists who are leading out in this newer way of interpreting the texts. It is the exegetes. But the ethicists don't object!

Many thanks!

Dave

This girl is an ethicist! It makes no difference what one claims to believe: it cannot be measured and cannnot be evaluated. The only way for us to be revealed is by our interaction with other people--not claiming a "personal experience with God." Our personal relations with other people is the ONLY significant measure, and it is plainly described in Jesus' saying of who will be welcomed into heaven: Those who have fed the hungry, visited the sick and cared for widows and orphans. Anything less is merely cheap words.

Surprisingly, there are many secular humanists (often called atheists or agnostics) who fulfill these qualifications beautifully. To say that because they do not accept Jesus as their savior is to deny Jesus' own requirements to live with him. "I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day...."

And I would say also that Romans outlines an ethic based on being a healing community, Dave. The two are intertwined.

To me, Paul orients his whole teaching of salvation around the idea that "it makes no difference...God is the God of both the Jew and the Gentile." The statement that by faith we fufill the Torah in 3:31 is made in this context. The faith that fufills the law is the shared faith that brings former enemies into healing community (I don't believe that Paul had the Sabbath and commandments, per se, in view in this text like we do). The community of Christ is thus a new creation, a new species called to live by the ethics of this new community.

This calls for letting God's free mercy stream to those who are different, living a life of mutual acceptance and love that arises from the reception of his mercy, and employing what God has freely given to us for the mutual upbuilding of one another within the new community, and for the healing of the world beyond.

I don't think that this nullifies the dimension of the individual's responcibility and assurance in Christ that Paul brings to light. Instead, it provides the horizontal locus of the believer's experience and life. A shared life that is truly worth living!

Thanks...

Frank

Hey Frank,

I'm in agreement with you that an emphasis on holiness/sanctification has lead to theological introspection and navel gazing. In an early post to Dave I mentioned that as Adventists we've tended to define "perfection" negatively and behaviorly. So "sanctification" = not wearing jewelry, not working on the Sabbath, not drinking alcohol, etc.

This is an erroneous/shallow view of sanctification. I'm in agreement with you and the others on the "ethical" understanding of sanctification as expressed in loving acts to others in our community and world. As Elaine puts it, "Those who have fed the hungry, visited the sick and cared for widows and orphans."

I agree with the "set apart" understanding of sanctification as well and that this happens at the same time as justification and agree there is definately a problem with the "double stamp" view, as you describe it. I just want to deny that God continues to change people, and that we continue to grow in faith and character as we walk with God. This is something we should continue to strive for and expect God to do in us--"complete the good work he as started."

Elaine, I'm in agreement with you that words are cheap, but disagree that beliefs don't matter, although I am perplexed when the loving behavior of non-Christians seems to regularly exceed that of believers, including myself!

Oops..."I just DON'T want to deny that God continues to change people..."

"Our personal relations with other people is the ONLY significant measure, and it is plainly described in Jesus' saying of who will be welcomed into heaven: Those who have fed the hungry, visited the sick and cared for widows and orphans. Anything less is merely cheap words."
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 18 September 2008 at 4:08

I guess salvation by works is still around.
Never thought of Elaine as a Jew before.

Complementary and Alternative medicine comprises entire medical systems and philosophies such as traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurveda medicine. Entire civilizations survived for millennia without the benefit of modern western medicine. However, it's not my aim to stretch my analogy of salvation metaphors to my comparison of conventional medical practice with CAM medical models. (For one thing, neither can solve humanity's 100 percent mortality; they can only relieve our pain temporarily.)

Here's a quote from an amazon review of Milton Hook's biography on Des Ford:

"The traditional SDA doctrine of the Investigative Judgment is a doctrine that leads to uncertainty of salvation, guilt and frustration, and heightened anxiety around behaviour. In essence, it obscures the true gospel. Keenly aware of the way that perfectionist tendencies in the church were constantly obscuring the beauty of the gospel of justification by grace through faith Des Ford made it his life mission to preach that gospel."

http://www.amazon.com/Desmond-Ford-Reformist-Theologian-Revivalist/dp/09...

Des Ford has repeated so often, and during the Q & A in Campus Hill, "Salvation is grace alone, Ethics is gratitude." He learned this from Jesus and Paul. In regards to John and Charles Wesley, according to Des, we can learn much from the lyrics of the hymns they authored.

Dave,

There's much about the Wesleyan part of my Adventist heritage that has shaped me. It is only in recent years that I've been able to critique that a little bit.

That I have freedom to choose for or against God has always seemed important to me. I've never been able to understand a hard predestination—for one thing, it makes no sense when applied to experience, for we feel ourselves making choices, and I can't imagine that spiritual choices aren't among them. But in my maturity, I've also realized that freedom to choose has often meant to me that my salvation was my responsibility. That it is all up to me. To understand that what God does is far more important than what I do has been a great comfort to me, and although it doesn't nullify free choice, I now regard my weak choice (not just for God, but to do all that God and the church expect) as far less important than God's having chosen me, and his continuing to draw me, forgive me, assist me.

Another feature that I've questioned is the tendency to concentrate on small behaviors as opposed to big principles. I dimly remember that in Social Sources of Denominationalism Niebuhr comments that Wesley was always more bothered that soldiers cursed, than that there were soldiers. (Sorry, I can't lay my hands on my copy, and I may have gotten it a little wrong.) That was the faith of my childhood, too: some of the worst sins were earrings or eating pork or doing some prohibited task on Sabbath. I don't remember us questioning larger ethical concerns. And, as Dr. Hook alluded to above, there were much bigger secrets in the church family that never got mentioned, though I didn't learn about those until I grew older. When I meet people who are deeply bothered by small infractions, I'm generally suspicious of their hiding much larger, more hurtful ones. But whether small or large sins, the point is that grace is huge, and our good behavior subservient to grace in the receiving of salvation.

Finally, I've never been quite comfortable with the Wesleyan idea of a point-in-time conversion, accompanied by strongly felt manifestations of God's presence. The whole "my heart burned within me" experience is something I don't have. I know people who say it has happened to them; of some, I must admit that their subsequent spiritual history hasn't impressed me. Perhaps I'm just too left-brained, but I tend to distrust emotional experiences. (That's also very Ellen White!) My own spiritual growth has been incremental, and often hard-learned.

Thanks for starting this interesting discussion.
Loren Seibold

Elaine, a Jew? From a labelling perspective, stereotyping is often done by those in positions of power as a means of social control, we're told. Moreover, here's a perfect example of one's use of a metaphor that mirrors his structure of reality.

Michael,

Such stereotyping does not befit you. Nor is it a totally accurate depiction of Jewish belief. Read some of the rabbis. They will astound you with the grasp they have of God's grace/hesed. The idea that the Jews believed totally in "righteousness by works" is more of a caricature than anything else.

The more acute problem in the time of Jesus was that God's grace and favor was limited to one group, not simply based on works, but by birthright. That certainly hasn't vanished from the contemporary religious scene.

Thanks...

Frank

How should Jesus' words in Matt: 25:31-46 be interpreted other than works that gain admittance to his kingdom? No claims to recognizing him as their Lord?

My "salvation by works" comment was tounge in cheek. I should have done some sort of a winky thing, but I did want to at least give the idea that it is much more than "if you visist me in the hospital you are good for heaven."

That said, it was interesting to see where different personality types went with their assumptions. :) there. smiley face. OK?

Though I was joking, I apparently stumbled onto Elaines true perspective if she really believes her post of 19 September 2008 at 6:48.

Michael, how do you interpret the sayings in Matthew? No offense at the racial description as I know that Jews have always been more involved in intellectual pursuits than other ethnicities.

What about the "true perspective" is being questioned?

Elaine,

You're taking one parable and making it the whole of biblical teaching on salvation. Considering that you don't even seem to believe in salvation or God from a Christian perspective, I find this quite interesting.

If Jesus' parable in Mt. 25 is the sole requirement, then what about the parable before it, about the servants and the talents? Or the one before that, about the virgins, and the bridegroom? All are judgement parables.

And what of Jesus' promise to the thief, who did no works except call out to Jesus in desperation. According to this account, Jesus promised him a place in paradise with himself. the man's only qualification was his need and his faith.

Adventists are rightly taken to task for building a judgement doctrine on one text, Dan. 8:14. In that light, it's not sound to do the same with one judgement parable. The picture is more multi-faceted than I believe you are drawing it.

Thank you Frank
For a much more complete and eloquent explaination than I would give.
You summerize my thoughts since the first assertion of Matthew 25 as salvation in a nutshell very well.

This issue of "just being a good person," is one I encounter often at dinner table conversations with my atheist or agnostic family members and friends. I'm told that it's just silly to believe in Jesus or God, for all the obvious overwhelming scientific reasons, but that if there is a god and an afterlife and heaven, etc., that obviously God will know that we're "good people" and we'll be just fine, thank you. Without being facetious, I admit that there are a bunch of very good people amoung these relatives and friends; most are more generous than I try to be, many are more outgoing and attractive--the kind of people you'd love to go on vacation with. That said, they all recoil at the idea that I attempt to submit my will to Christ and pray for the forgiveness of my sins. "Whatever for?!"
I am challeged by such encounters in trying to convey, between bites of salad or ice cream, that submission and faith provide an undescribable personal pay off in the here and now, along with whatever otherworldly promises may come to be. How can I do this better?
But I do come away from such discussion with the thought that it's all back to salvation by works - "I'm good enough, so God loves me." How does one break the impasse?
thank you,

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" --- Matthew 7:13-23

Frank

Your reading of "Romans" is exactly the sort of change in interpretation we are seeing more of. Thank you!

One of the difficulties I face when discussing the Wesleyan tradition is that when I pinpoint the kinds of things it has done in its own life to foster Christian community and accountabiliy (the class meetings, for example) and for social change (efforts against slavery, for example), some dismiss them as good deeds but irrelevant to discussions of salvation, per se.

But for Wesley the entire process of being reconciled with God is abortive if it does not eventuate in words and deeds that enhance the community of faith and benefit the society as a whole. For him, these are not optional features of Christian existence; they are indispensdable.

Loren

I think it is a good thing for all of us to assess the strengths and weaknesses of our religious inheritances. This is a part of growing up and the longer we wait the more painful it often is..

At some point one has decide to leave or stay and work for positive change from within. This is true no matter what theological legacy one has inherited. Both are honorable alternatives and we should respect them and the people who make them.

I don't recall Richard Niebuhr saying that Wesley was more concerned about a soldier swearing than he was that there are soldiers. But if Niebuhr did say this, he was mistaken.

For Wesley holiness was always "social holiness." It did emphasize the inner--almost mystical--life but it also emphasized political change.

Although they were very different people, one finds this mix of inward sensitivity and political activism in both Martin Luther King and Ghandi. Interesting characters!

Gerhard

I think you may be discovering in everyday life what Paul Tillich wrote in "The Couarge to Be."

It is that in the first centuries of Christianity it faced cultures that were primarily concerned about the ravages of death.

In the next centuries the societies it encountered were plagued by the problem of guilt.

But in our time people are primarily concerned about the meaning of life and the threatening thought that it may have none.

Many people today are more anxious about the meaning of life than they are about their need for forgiveness. We can either try to make them feel guilty or we can leave that to God and enlist them in living for others as Jesus did.

Many thanks!

Dave

A few lines from John Wesley in Sermon #39 titled "On a Catholic Spirit:"

"A man of a catholic spirit is one who, in the manner above-mentioned, gives his hand to all whose hearts are right with his heart: one who knows how to value, and praise God for, all the advantages he enjoys, with regard to the knowledge of the things of God, the true scriptural manner of worshipping him, and, above all, his union with a congregation fearing God and working righteousness: one who, retaining these blessings with the strictest care, keeping them as the apple of his eye, at the same time loves--as friends, as brethren in the Lord, as members of Christ and children of God, as joint partakers now of the present kingdom of God, and fellow heirs of his eternal kingdom--all, of whatever opinion or worship, or congregation, who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; who love God and man; who, rejoicing to please, and fearing to offend God, are careful to abstain from evil, and zealous of good works. He is the man of a truly catholic spirit, who bears all these continually upon his heart; who having an unspeakable tenderness for their persons, and longing for their welfare, does not cease to commend them to God in prayer, as well as to plead their cause before men; who speaks comfortably to them, and labours, by all his words, to strengthen their hands in God. He assists them to the uttermost of his power in all things, spiritual and temporal. He is ready "to spend and be spent for them;" yea, to lay down his life for their sake."

Thank you!

Dave

I wonder if Dave ever imagined that his original comments would start such a long and varied thread of responses!!
I keep saying Amen when I read such sentiments as taking the best from all the Reformers. "The best," of course, is when it is matched with Scripture. There is always a degree of subjectivity with this exercise because we all interpret Scripture a little differently, as the Spirit prompts us.
I especially liked the responses of Frank7 and Loren Seibold. Thankyou for your incisive comments.
Dave, I too have a hunch that under the perfectionists' masks there is much unresolved inner wrestling with secret sin. I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist but it would interest me to know of any scientific studies that have been published along these lines.
Finally, I want to respond to one of Michael's comments. I think the difference between Paul and the perfectionists I was listening to as a youngster is that Paul was known for his ready admission of his sins whereas I heard no public or private confessions from the perfectionists. They may have confessed but I was unaware of it and for that reason their witness had a negative effect on me.
Further, Michael seems to challenge the right of someone to write about religious issues when, at the same time, they keep dossiers on sinners. Ellen White kept a hefty file of misdemeanours tucked under her arm, figuratively speaking. Sorry Michael, you are going to have to rip fistfuls of pages out of her books and shred them; those pages that speak of religion. Seriously, I think anyone who is in possession of documented information about corporate or individual sin is within their right to call for repentence and offer the Gospel remedy. Whoops! I've fallen into the lap of religion here. But, honestly, I cannot separate the Gospel and misdemeanours. If we take sin out of the equation we have no need of the Gospel. I cannot see how we can discuss one without the other. In Des Ford's biography I did mention some of the sins of individuals but I also tried to highlight Ford's (and, I believe, Scripture's) remedy for those sins.
Some of the scoundrels are deceased. I have no record of a public confession of their sins and I do not know of any private confession of their sins. However, some are still alive and there is still hope that they will at least make it right with God before they pass on. I believe, also, there remains the imperative for corporate confession of the wrongs served upon Ford and the hundreds of fellow believers so cruelly separated as 'goats' from the 'sheep.' Sorry for wearing my heart on my sleeve but, in my opinion, little boys sitting in big chairs played God.
Blessings.
Milton

Hi Milton!

It was my hope that the column would spark a thoughtful conversation about the pros and cons of our Wesleyan theological heritage and I am grateful that it has. Thank you for participating!

I have been haunted by what you wrote in your first comment:

"In fact, I was told I had to attain a level of morality so high that I could stand in God's presence without a mediator!"

I cannot help but wonder how many young people were terrorized by such preaching and how they have fared over the years. I fear not always very well. Too bad they might not recall as vividly that "God's steadfast love endures forever!" Or that Jesus promised to be with us always, right to the end of the age!

As far as I recall, no one commented on what I think is the best part of the column. This is the line or two suggesting that Wesley did not believe that the interactions between God and humanity are like those in a zero sum game, such that the more God does the less we do and the less we do the more God does. Rather, the more God does in our lives the more we do.

This was not how Wesley put things but how I try to express his thinking in terms that are more familiar to us today. I still think it is a good interpretation; however, it attracted no attention. Such is life!

Thanks again!

Dave

P.S.: Don't you like the portrait of John Wesley that Leigh Johnsen found? I do!

"Michael seems to challenge the right of someone to write about religious issues when, at the same time, they keep dossiers on sinners. Ellen White kept a hefty file of misdemeanours tucked under her arm, figuratively speaking. Sorry Michael, you are going to have to rip fistfuls of pages out of her books and shred them; those pages that speak of religion."

Perhaps the difference is how she came by the information compared to say, you for example? I am NOT saying that this is the case but, some people have visions and some people dig up dirt for their own purposes so you can understand when instead of dealing with whatever you know (as you discribe)you then keep it on file rather than disposing of it. That is troubling and that is the difference.

"Seriously, I think anyone who is in possession of documented information about corporate or individual sin is within their right to call for repentence and offer the Gospel remedy."

Within THEIR rights huh? Somebody tells you a story that so and so did such and such and your exercising your rights?

Another troubling insight. Thats why I wonder about who should be writing some books.

I have been haunted by what you wrote in your first comment:

"In fact, I was told I had to attain a level of morality so high that I could stand in God's presence without a mediator!"

I cannot help but wonder how many young people were terrorized by such preaching and how they have fared over the years. I fear not always very well. Too bad they might not recall as vividly that "God's steadfast love endures forever!" Or that Jesus promised to be with us always, right to the end of the age!

Dave,

Unfortunately within the history and culture of Adventism, statements like the first have so often trumped the wonderful biblical references you give. Whether we like it or not, this is a sad part of our legacy. The authoritative voice of our denominational prophet has often been elevated to a position over Scripture, and used and abused in ways that have damaged many impressionable people.

To lament the the victims' lack of assurance from the biblical promises is sadly on the mark. To lay responcibility for such solely at their feet for not exercising their individual discernment would be off it. It downplays the power of group-think with its social rewards and punishments that has often held sway within our community. It also diminishes the enormous force of authority that has been given to a contemporary prophetic voice...an authority that has often been unthinkingly and unwittingly abused to crush people's thinking and spirits.

Thanks...

Frank

I know of 6 suicides as a result of the terror of use of E.G. White's writings. Five under the age of 20. The issue has been real, I don't think it is today--The power of her word has been lost since Glacier View et al. Althought one suicide did occur following that sorry event. Tom.

To somehow blame young people for failing to realize God's assurance is to exonerate all the preachers, teachers and elders who consistently painted the picture of contant fear of never being good enough or ready to face God's awful judgment.

How can anyone blame them, and not the leaders, who foisted this devilish doctrine in the name of religion, much of it coming from the "Spirt of Inspiration" aka. EGW?

"To lament the the victims' lack of assurance from the biblical promises is sadly on the mark. To lay responcibility for such solely at their feet for not exercising their individual discernment would be off it. It downplays the power of group-think with its social rewards and punishments that has often held sway within our community. It also diminishes the enormous force of authority that has been given to a contemporary prophetic voice...an authority that has often been unthinkingly and unwittingly abused to crush people's thinking and spirits.

Thanks...

Frank
Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 29 September 2008 at 5:40

I appreciate the point you are trying to make. I even believe it myself to an extent.

I only want to ask a question about it.
As I read the part about group think and consider how it is being used as a factor for not being personally responsible....I wonder how that paragraph would play out as a defence on judgement day.

God: Dispite my best efforts and the many chances I've given you the scrolls say, you didnt make it.

Sinner: God you cant "...lay responcibility solely at our feet for not exercising our individual discernment. It downplays the power of group-think with its social rewards and punishments that has often held sway within our community. It also diminishes the enormous force of authority that has been given to a contemporary prophetic voice...an authority that has often been unthinkingly and unwittingly abused to crush people's thinking and spirits.

A poorly done script but consider the argument. Is it a worthy one? Is God going to grant us a break on its merits?
If not, is it a good defence for today?

Michael,

I didn't say not responcible...I said, "To lay responcibility for such SOLELY at their feet for not exercising their individual discernment..."

Obviously, as adults we are accountable for our individual choices. However, I believe there are varying degrees of mitigating circumstances that influence those choices. This is taken into account in human judgement. I believe that God, as one who is infinitely fairer than us, will take such into account in his. Didn't Jesus say to Pilate that "the ones who delivered me to you are guilty of the greater sin?"

But this is not to imply that any of these wounded people sinned. We are talking about people, and even children, who have suffered spiritual abuse. Look at the casualties that Tom chronicled in his post. I was merely bringing up the factors that have helped create such a toxic environment. Group-think in the name of an acknowledged spiritual authority is one of those factors.

There is such a thing as being a victim. I think that God takes such into account, and identifies himself with those who have suffered.

The story of Jesus tells me so.

Thanks...

Frank

Thanks Frank
I get what you are saying and find it completely valid in some situations.
As to suffering spiritual abuse, many times that is in the eye of the beholder is it not?
Also, Tom knowing 6 kids under the age of 20 that have committed suicide over misapplied EGW quotes is an unbelievable statistic considering the rest of us would be hard pressed to even hear a 4th hand story of such an event even once. Definitly something toxic around those Tom knows.
Also attributing the suicides to that sole source is to oversimplify the situation.
Most suicides are a culmination of many factors some of which may include mental conditions such as bi-polar, depression, self esteem, social interactions, unrequited affections, familial problems and a host of other factors.

I do not discount that what you discribe is a factor, It is, I simply balk at the assertion that it can laid soley at the feet of the one factor Tom attributed it too.

MY ERROR!

Frank writes: "To lament the the victims' lack of assurance from the biblical promises is sadly on the mark. To lay responsibility for such solely at their feet for not exercising their individual discernment would be off it."

Elaine writes:"How can anyone blame them, and not the leaders, who foisted this devilish doctrine in the name of religion, much of it coming from the "Spirt of Inspiration" aka. EGW?"

I was shocked when I read these responses from Frank and Elaine. How could they possibly think that I blame the victims of homiletical terrorists when my "obvious" meaning was the opposite?!

But when I reread what I wrote, and compared it to some other things I have said in other conversations, I saw that the error was mine.

I should abandon the sentences entirely. But if I would re-word them, they would look something like this:

"I cannot help but wonder how many young people were terrorized by such preaching and how they have fared over the years. I fear not always very well. Too bad they might not recall as vividly [ "BEING TOLD" or "HEARING" or "LEARNING" ] that "God's steadfast love endures forever!" Or that Jesus promised to be with us always, right to the end of the age!"

Thanks, Elaine and Frank. I am grateful for another chance to say what I mean!

Dave

Michael

You hit the nail on the head--"Something toxic around those that Tom knows: (You should know that I have been associated with Seventh-day Adventist Schools since 1934.)

Two were at E.M.C. one of which was also at LLU.
Two were at Southern Missionary College--and then nursing in the area.
One was in Academy in North Carolina.
One was a senior citizen living in the home of a brother who
was E.G. White 110%.
One wrote my son, who was a Church School teacher at the time.
The note read in part: "I am sorry, I have to do this, but I must apologize to you, you are the only Christian I have every met--but one year was not enough to carry me. I am in fear every moment, I just can't take it any more. "

Michael you might like to know that the parents of one of the young persons wrote me and thanked me for the way I had taught them in SS school so that they could carry on after the tragic death of their son. They blame SMC's environment immediately following Glacier View.

Compare the above with 33 years teaching in non-Adventist universities: One accidental death associated with alcohol and one murder by a serial killer. One suicide by a faculty member with recently discovered cancer. Tom

Hi Tom

On this one my views are closer to Michael's. To attribute the death of anyone by suicide to any one cause seems a little too tidy for me.

For example: One of the victims wrote to your son, "you are the only Christian I have every met."

Without doubting in any way that your son is an authentic Christian, it would take some effort to convince me that he is the only one this distraught person ever met in his entire life.

This is the kind of global thinking--all or none, flawless or damned, everyone or no one--that can get any of us in trouble in a hurry. When combined with other factors, I believe it can be lethal.

On a more cheerful subject, while scouting about in old issues of "Spectrum" for a project, I ran across a long and stimulating Letter to the Editor by you.

You've been active in our community for a long time. Great!

David

I used the quote to demonstrate the mind-set of the person who took their own life. Not to elevate my son or to verify the person's statement. The issue in this thread began by the dispair disclosed by John Wesley and the parallel with the dispair seen in many of our SDA young people. Most of course simply vote with their feet. The response, I have gotten one would think I was the primary cause of their demise. I take great issue with that assumption and I also question your commentary when others have attack me in a personal way without a word of rebuke from the leadership of Spectrum. If I didn't care, I wouldn't write. To imply that I am toxic or create a toxic environment that causes people's death is beyond the pale in my mind. The fact is: misunderstanding and misuse of the writings of E.G. White has created a wounding of our youth in some cases to the point of death. To then imply that I am the one who is troubling Israel