Cliff is brilliant. The problem is he knows it! One of my mentors used to say: "The task of genius is to work with mediocrity." A task Cliff has yet to master. I recall a story the envoled shortly after I was discharged from the Army. I was scheduled to enter dental school in the fall. My dad was building a gym at AUC so I hitch a ride from Chicago to Mass and worked for dad all summer. Dad had the guest room in the men's dorm. I bunked with him. In the evening the fellows would gather on the porch and swap stories. One young man was a high caste Indian from Bombay. He would endlessly relate how much he gave up to become a Seventh-day Adventist. At about the sixth time, I interrupted and said. "Sir, if you keep telling that story, soon you will discover that you gave up too much and be on the next boat to Bombay. He laughed and waved me off. About midway through the summer session, he packed his bags and headed back to India.

The story to tell is how much God gave up to save us sinners. The fact is we are as filthy rags covered by His Righteousness. I love to tell that story. Tom

It must be a very powerful experience when a person who didn't believe there even was a God, starts to believe in God. For a second, third (etc.) generation Adventist it is hard to comprehend. I feel it can even happen sometimes that we can become mellow or passive about what we believe.

You’re right Tom, it is important that we tell the story about how God saved us sinners. I feel sometimes though, that maybe we don’t see that we are these filthy rags in need of his rightousness as you say, maybe that can sometimes be the problem. Just in short to tell my experience:

I was raised in the church and was always active, and while many of my friends left the church (kind of drifted away) I remained. At the same time, though, I wasn’t really a true believer, I went to church on Sabbaths, but lived my own “worldly” life. I didn't feel the need to pray or read the Bible (thought it was boring) and I didn't see any problem in going out with my friends to bars and discos and doing all kinds of "fun" things. But at age 23 things changed and I started to have a personal relationship with Christ. Now, when I look back, I appreciate it SO MUCH that I DID find a personal relationship with the Lord. In my self-dilusion before, I even thought I was really ok with God, even though he was nothing to me in real life. I hadn’t really seen myself as a sinner, as a person in need of Christ.

Anyways, after being reborn I am more “dogmatic” about what I believe. And with the experience that Cliff had, I can understand why he has these strong views about things.

Yes he is indeed brilliant, and perhaps(?) he needs to work a bit on how to deal with the mediocrity. I do however believe that he is often quite misunderstood. Yes, he uses strong words and so on, but I don't see why we need to fuss so much about that. I believe him to be a very honest and whole-hearted as a believer and an Adventist, and he says things in a very passionate manner, that is just how he is. I do like the way he speaks, I find it quite refreshing! But for those who don't, that's fine, no need to be grumpy about it :-)
(Not talking about Alex’s post in particular, just more in general)

Happy Sabbath to all!

Sandra.

Props to bro Goldstein for being one of the most discussed Adventists on the Spectrum blog! That's no small accomplishment!

Stories, and particularly our own stories, have a way of making meaning in our lives, often dictating how we view reality and providing a sense of purpose. The danger we face as humans very much shaped by our own stories is the risk of believing our stories to be normative.

In fact, I would go further by saying that we're on rough terrain any time that we take a single human story as normative. That is a subtle, yet harmful, form of idolatry that we ought to push back against.

Alexander
I think you make too much of a fuss over Cliff. I might be wrong, but my impression is that Cliff is a voice crying in the desert, but that few people are listening. I can understand his frustration very well, having once been where he is. He's facing a church that's going through both a generational change and a theological shift which are both leaving him and the other dinosaurs of Adventism mired in the swamp of despond, where they will be preserved for future generations looking for museum pieces.

PS Cliff is intelligent, ok. Brilliance is what you do with your intelligence, and the only things I have seen have been by him are occational magazine pieces and some "Faith-for-Today" like books about Adventist dogmas that in-house scholars don't dare touch with the proverbial ten foot pole. Cliff, you need to write something that is going to make a difference.

The Gospel is Good News, so why all the anger, frustration, and diappointmnet? It is the Holy Spirit that convicts--we are merely the story tellers. There is no need to place a curse on anyone, believer or not! Cliff has a beautiful pen when he uses it in a Gospel fashion. Too often he comes across as Top Gun. Tone it down and enjoy the life of the forgiven. Everyone wishes you the best Cliff. Tom

Yep, I considered not responding since we had a piece up not long ago. But there is a common theme that Cliff keeps pushing in the church - a sort of solipsistic biographical apologetics - that needs to be diffused.

And the preceding comments do a brilliant AND self-aware job of showing how individual experiences create contingent meaning.

Heed has been paid; I read 1844 Made Simple, Like Fire in My Bones, God, Gödel, and Grace. And I'm willing to give my friend Cliff all the epistemological ground he needs to live truth fully, but there are generations of Adventists who find ultimate meaning not just in their relationship with God, but God suffused in their relationships.

I'm not interested in more us vs. them rhetoric dividing our community. There are some really true ways that we can do good together, not just stand around on the old glacial ground.

As a fourth possibly 5th generation SDA, I have appreciated Cliff's tendancy to focus as editor on RBF "alone" in the quarterly's. It is much better than many that preceeded him.

I think he is sincere and genuine but I think he doesn't completely understand the nuances of Adventism's past and some of their present dogmatism concerning the IJ, perhaps to much prophetic certainty and also Christ not entering the Most Holy at His ascension but rather in 1844...now called "pre-advent judgment."

As far as "present truth" I believe we and other churches hold "present truths" and none of us alone has a monopoly. I do appreciate many of our "present truths" however but our 28 are not "The present truth."

I appreciate Tom's comment that our message to be "present truth"(my addition) is about what Christ gave up to come and save us. After we have done all we can we are to consider ourselves but unprofitable servants. We are to grow by the grace of the indwelling Spirit and understand the mature sanctified attitude of the man in the temple who said, "forgive me a sinner God" and he went away justified.

regards,
pat

I'm just reminded of EGW's exhortation, I believe in MH, "No two people see truth in the same way..." to give a short paraphrase. While that can slide into relativism, I see the real wisdom in it...we need to cut each other a break. We need to allow for our differences in growth, perspective, backgrounds, education, etc., when we approach the Bible and our differences on how we interpret it.

I believe what many here are reacting to is Cliff's tone...it doesn't sound or feel like he allows for this. It often sounds real cock-sure... my way or the highway. The most extreme example of this in SDA history was Glacier View.

However, most of us on this blog can be just as convinced of our own opinions on truth as well. I guess how we handle "every one else being wrong" is what really counts.

Good one for me to chew on...

Thanks...

Frank

There is always a danger of confusing a "powerful experience" with a "heady" one; translating it into zealotry for one's personal beliefs.

Brilliance can be a blessing or a curse; depending on the recipient and how that gift is used. When used as a cleaver or a sledge hammer, it becomes far too sharp, and therein lies the danger of confusing our own personal experience with what others should also have experienced. A personal experience cannot be passed down; it is uniquely an individual event.

Shouldn't Cliff's experience, of having to "give up everything he believed" in order to follow the Spirit to greater truth, be the same experience all of us have? Unless we believe that we have landed on the ultimate final truth (and who would admit that even if they believed it?) then we have to be ready to abandon our "cherished beliefs" and move into the new land as God shows it to us. That is where the religious leaders of Christ's time failed, they thought they had all truth and were not willing to give up that cherished belief when they got their noses rubbed in a greater reality. That is where the early leaders of the SDA movement shone, they were willing to study for themselves and follow the truth that the Spirit revealed to them where ever it lead. Would that their children had inherited that spirit as well!

So I would challenge Cliff and all of us to not be lulled into believing that we have now arrived at ultimate truth and can stop moving forward. There is always a "next step." This doesn't "invalidate" what has come before, it actually affirms it. But if we stop we die. We should must always looking for the next step!

Mark

Alex,

What in balzes is "Pascalian bushfire faith"?

It's well known in psychology that people value that which they have paid much for a good deal more than that for which they have paid little or nothing.

Cliff seems to both know that, and to think that it's an argument that should be compelling to others. "I've been through so much becoming an Adventist that you should value my struggles and what they've gained."

The train of thought trends toward the narcissistic, and not for the first time. While there's nothing unusual about creationists valuing their (uneducated) incredulity that evolution could produce life's variety, this is certainly Cliff's line, along with the genetic fallacy.

Of course his whole attitude toward "Adventist liberals" suggests that he understands the church to be a sanctuary for anyone who agrees that it is whatever he considers it to be, not a place for dialog and the reconsiderations of what might be "truth", possibly even a process of learning. He had the Platonic experience of reaching absolute truth, hence these disputes and learning anything from non-believers is utterly beside the point.

The fact is that he decided that it was his experience which is unquestionable. Understanding another's experience and position then was not his goal, nor does it seem to be something that he generally achieves. What seems to have happened is that he first absorbed the idea that truth is personal, and on top of that he began to believe that truth was absolute and determined by God. Hence his truth is absolute and given by God, not something to be teased out of study of the world, or even by understanding Biblical writings in context.

Remember, he thinks that we might as well believe the Biblical chronology, because none of the creationist scenarios are actually supported by evidence (not that he doesn't utilize the false dilemma of if not evolution, then creationism). If one can really believe that truth is that which doesn't conform with the evidence, surely at some point your "truth" collapses into narcissistic assertion. The difference between the traditionalist and Cliff is that the former is usually a collective narcissism (so to speak), while for Cliff it is far more personal.

So that although Cliff is far more willing to leap into these discussions than are the rest of the GC, such "discussions" also never get beyond Cliff's understanding of his own truths. He gets to reassert his truth against any other understanding, and apparently he enjoys doing so. It seems to be his primary motivation.

Glen Davidson

Elaine said:

"A personal experience cannot be passed down; it is uniquely an individual event."

I say: exactly. That's what I was trying to say, but it took your saying it for me to really get it.

Badger (Mark)-

I believe you're right that there is something quite admirable and desirable about following after truth, even when it means giving up deeply cherished beliefs. We probably don't need to employ the degree of hyperbole that claims it is good to give up everything one believes. Imagine if that were really the case!

One other thing--we should exercise caution in advocating reading scripture for ourselves and then letting God direct us where God will. True, we do not lazily defer to precedent and tradition as the default for our understandings, but neither can we throw out tradition, precedent, or the voices of people around us in exegeting the Bible.

There's something dangerous about interpreting Scripture in isolation without conversation partners. Scripture, as it has been all along, should be read and interpreted in community (while each should be convinced in his own mind...).

Reading in isolation can and often does result in skewed understandings (just look at the Adventist offshoot cult featured on this blog and Trevan Osborn's a few weeks ago!) It's a problem not dissimilar to the problem of making one's experience normative.

It may have been hard for Cliff to join, it was probably equally hard for me to make the decision to join a Reformed Presbyterian Church. How could I do such a thing you ask, after being SDA, the Sabbath, EGW, etc....

It wasn't easy, but as I studied about the Sabbath, the SDA god, I found, to my surprise, it was a shadow of Jesus rest we can have any day of the week. In fact, read this:

Heb 4:6"It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. 7Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today,"

I don't have to wait 7 days for rest!!!! The 2nd Covenant really is based on better promises.

Do the Presbyterians believe this? Try reading the Westminister Confession:

"7. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath." http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapxxi-xxv.htm#chapxxi

But, I had just had a bad experience with a church run by a family, almost in total. No justice, no abiding by the Church Manual. I left looking for fairness. Did I find it, I think so in the Presbyterian system of church organization. Do I differ on the doctrines, yes. Can I be a leader in their church with my differences, no. But, an interesting thing happened as our family joined the church, we had to appear before the Elders and state what Jesus meant to us, individually. Quite touching to hear my wife's testimony, for the first time.

Now, relate how I was baptized into the SDA church at 12 years of age. I tried to tell the Pastor I wasn't ready, the day of the baptism, and he shued me away, and baptized me anyway. But.... we only had to come to the Presbyterian membership on salvific issues, not 29 doctrinal issues. I didn't have to say I agreed with there position on Predestination or Total Depravity (the T in TULIP)or the rest of their Calvinistic beliefs.

Why attend, you ask, the blessing we received in the worship service. At 11:00 AM on Sunday worship started, no carry over of announcements or Investment stories. A true respect for worship of God.

My view of the church grew, rather than shrank. I realized reasonable men could differ on doctrine, but not on what saves, Jesus. Those differences didn't have to divide the Church, in the bigger sense of the word Church.

Jarad wrote:There's something dangerous about interpreting Scripture in isolation without conversation partners. Scripture, as it has been all along, should be read and interpreted in community (while each should be convinced in his own mind...).

Oh, by all means! I think God works best through "community" and there is nothing stronger than a community that is studying for itself. Yes indeed, I did not mean to imply that "studying for yourself" meant "studying by yourself"! My best experience was with a small group of friends, going through the bible book at a time, for ourselves, and asking "what is God trying to tell us about himself?" After doing that a few times one becomes almost unshakable because one has already looked at the hard places and wrestled with them in the company of friends. I think we'd loose a lot less of our young people who go off to college or wherever and run into things they had never thought of before and end up throwing the baby out with the bath water. Much better to have noticed "Hey, God commanded genocide here, what about that?" Because there ARE ways to deal with those kinds of things that don't involve throwing up one's hands and saying "It's all a lie" - which sadly is what happens all too often. But I digress...

Mark

Hi RDS,

I love my Presbyterian friends and the experience I had at RTS and if not a SDA or if I ever changed it would be to the PCA. What I do know is there is no one denominational perfect church.

regards,

pat

Mark, it frustrates me to no end, to hear the "new Atheists" use terms like "genocide" for a war to control land, without discussing the context, the long record of disobedience to God, the idolatry, the debauchery, even in some cases offering human sacrifices, and sex in their temples. God is LOVE, but God is not "ONLY LOVE". He is a "jealous God", be made man and knows what makes him tick, makes him happy and what is just. These same "new Atheists" wish to talk about natural consequences of sin. They sound like the Founding Fathers and their Deism. God created us, but won't interfere in the course of human existence. HONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNK!! Wrong answer!!!! Our pacifism can not substitute for justice. God other personality facets, beside LOVE is demonstrated in this passage, which really is an act of LOVE, isn't it???

Genesis 18: 22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?"
"If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."

29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?"
He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."

30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?"
He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."

31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"
He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."

32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

RDS,

Please go on, I don't know the term "the new Atheists"- who are they (more on their belief characteristics)?

RDS (by the way, what's your name?)
Are you saying that genocide is ok when it is waged against people who have another religion? And, by the way, isn't that almost the sine qua non of genocide? Nobody wipes out their own people. They always find an excuse, such as different religion or ethnic background.

Wouldn't it be better to say that "I don't understand how a good God could tell the Israelites to wipe out entire communities, kill men, women and children indiscriminately. It's a mystery." At least, lame though it be, it at least gives you a chance to come down on the side of morality.

Look, my point was simple: look at the options. If you aren't going to give up the Sabbath, or the state of the dead, where else is there to go?

Someone up there called me a "dinosaur." That could be true. I've said a long time ago, my reading fan base is dead. I know that that, but what can I do? I write out of my experience; writing is too draining, too hard, too taxing for me not do it without a firm belief in what I am writing about.

I am more than ready to accept to that others have different experiences and see things differently. How else could they see it? And my views have changed over time (which is kind of a drag for a writer because you write stuff that years later you don't see the same way but it's always out there haunting you).

I'm not gonna respond to all the various posts on here. All I try to do with my writing or my preaching is throw out ideas and experiences that have been helpful to me, that have helped me understand my faith better, that have helped me understand the Lord better; I tell folks, consider the source, and then take from it what you can. What you don't agree with, chuck it. I'm not the Urim and Thummin. When I get an idea, when something impresses me as helpful or true, I have this uncontrollable urge to express it to others, in the hope that they might find it helpful. That's all I am about. Period. I guess, though, from what I've read here, I must come across more dogmatic than I realize.

I admit that I find the liberal perspective in Adventism utterly illogical, contradictory and impossible for me to comprehend. I think to myself when I read some of this stuff, Why do these people bother with Adventism? Become Seventh-dau Unitarians or something, but why in the world Adventists? (my Jewish mom is actually a back-slidden Unitarian, if you could believe it?).

You know, I thought about it the other day, after talking to some very conservative Adventists. I am totally alienated with them over the gospel: I mean if you don't have that, you got nothing, and many of them still don't have that. A belief in 1844 ands the IJ without the gospel is the theological equivalent of voodoo. They scare the daylights out of me with their understanding of salvation, they really do.

But at the same time, I find the liberal wing of Adventism intellectually, logically and morally bankrupt, inconsistent, and hypocritical. We work from totally different a prioris, so it's hard to make any headway with the liberal mindset in the church. They might be sincere, but they seem the equivalent of those in ancient Israel who brought Baal into the Israelite cultus, at least that's how I interpret much (but not all) of the left-wing Adventism. I don't understand those folks at all.

It's so bizarre; coming as I have out of a hard-core materialist background, Jewish to boot, into Adventism. I still sometimes have to pinch myself and ask how did I cross all those gaps? I'm a prime example of Anselm's Credo ut intelligam ("I believe in order that I may understand"): the Lord had to zap me first, converted me, gave me an experience with Him, and then, after that, I was able to build an intellectual foundation for my faith. Trust me, it sure wasn't the other way around.

Maybe that's the difference. I did have my Pascalism brushfire faith; that got me started, I admit it. But later on it has grown in numerous ways, though the older I get the more fidestic I become.

Enough rambling: I sitting in a hotel room in south Texas, burned out and exhausted and am supposed to preach tommorrow but don't feel like it at all. I just want to go home.

P.S. Cough up a lousy 8 bucks and post all this stuff on the Atoday blog. I'm gonna have two blogs a month and you harass me all you want.

Nice to see that everyone is carefully following the posting rules for this blog site: "We simply request that you...not attack anyone."

Cliff, I appreciate your posts and participation on this site, and welcome to Texas. Sorry you are having a bad time, but S. Texas has some charms, even in the summer! Hope you can find them tomorrow after a good night's sleep. If by some chance you are passing through IAH on Sunday and have a long layover, let me know and I'd be happy to meet you for brunch or dinner. You can send an email at "junk1 at plastability dot com" with contact info if interested in meeting a hybrid liberal-conservative Adventist!

Cliff's artical is/was fine.
It's hard to appeal or relate to some people when writing. Some percieve something in ways the author didnt intend.

Cliff relates a personal story about his journey, growth and where he is comming from. He says it was hard for him in many ways, and yet Alex chooses to see it as some sort of pecking order or competition of who had it more difficult, Cliff or Alex's grandmother, grandfather or the millions in Africa.

Yeah, I'm sure that was what Cliff was getting at. He had it so much harder than Alex's grandma.

Cliff has said on more than one occasion that he doesnt understand the liberal perspective.

Apparently liberals dont grasp everything either, not that one would ever hear them admit it.

They point out what they percieve as the problem and then say ....
"It's really interesting how much Cliff mashes up his biography and theology. Not that there's anything wrong with that."

If thats true then why post it?

Perhaps it would be a good time for more of us than Cliff to check our "recurring apol(ego)tic rhetoric"

Thanks, Cliff, for weighing in with honesty and good humor to boot...and I don't mean ice cream! :-)

Hope your preaching goes well.

Frank

Aege, Google "New Atheists" , that simple, start here as a beginning:

http://newatheists.org/

Guys like Hitchens, and Sam Harris believe they need to "disrespect" those that can't objectively show evidence of a God. Also, try www.atomorrow.com and engage Neal Walls, recently invited back by the forum owner to interact, though self proclaimed Atheist.

It somewhat bothers me when people are seeking truth, to separate people into liberal and conservative, left and right, even refering to "the Church" as the SDA denomination. I have found seekers outside of the SDA church, and the Bible should be the guide,not labels.

Sorry Arlyn, the "New Atheist" Google was for you. Aage, you need to read context, is all I'm saying. Show me a group of people wiped out at God's direction, and then show me where it was done "indiscriminately", for no reason. Most of my reading shows God delaying judgement, sometimes even changing his mind, that upset Jonah, remember that story?

Arlyn, "New Atheists" also are usually Darwinists and don't believe the Bible is inspired. What common ground for discussion about Salvation do you have at that point. All you have is inevitable death and dust.

Cliff is a straight arrow. He can be on my team anytime.

I extremely rarely deploy ideological markers like "liberal" or "conservative".

They are so fraught with multivalent meaning that they really don't help a conversation among friends.

Robert, I bet if we all got to know each other, most of us would see what are all are: hybrids. An ideological "team" mentality really has no place in good discussions.

Of late Cliff has been repeating the theme: I don't understand how they can. . .which is why I, and perhaps a few others, take the opportunity to reply. And when Cliff writes interrogatively in the first person, I believe that it's fair to reply, although not attack.

A better approach, and one I am happy to be held accountable in modeling consists of careful attention to the language employed and the epistemological issues undergirding an argument. And since my friend Cliff shared from his heart (peace brother), I'll share that I'm sick and tired of the world's culture war binary short-cutting creeping this Adventist conversation. Instead of distilling a worldview down to a word, I'm willing to put in the time and talk about the overlying issues and the definitions.

I respect Cliff, which is why I wrote up a critique to show the flaws in his argument.

I see a couple of folks have tossed around liberal here. Are we talking Eric Alterman, or more Michael Tomasky? Or perhaps more of a neo-Mickey Kaus, or kind of a classic Lockean approach or did you mean something more economic like Keyes or even, yes, liberal market guru Milton Friedman? It will add a lot more to our conversations here if the folks who accuse others of being in a camp, take the time to define such overused and often loaded terms.
__
Michael: the point I was making lies in the lack of contingent self-awareness in the piece, which is why I brought it up. You obliquely link me and my Cliff-directed neologism. Me an apologist? I'd love to see how you arrived there.
__
Carlitas: good question. It's a mashup reference to the one word beginning in the testimonial story related in Blaise Pascal's Pensées (1670) and the Mosaic metaphor that Cliff employed.

I have just read through this blog and have to agree with Robert when he questions just how well the admonition “We simply request that you...not attack anyone” has been followed; though I’m still not sure how possible it is for this many people to dissect what a person has written, how he has written it, why he has written it and whether he should have written it without crossing the line between discussing ideas and attacking the person. I wonder if this should be taken into consideration for future blogs. Obviously the intended direction is not always followed.

A little more tact through the entire thread, clear from the beginning, would most likely have helped avert some unnecessary and unproductive criticism. The same goes with some sarcasm in a more recent post, which I guess was to straighten out those who were being critical. I just believe that Spectrum was designed to function above this level.

Robert--

thanks for the invite but I fly out sunday morning at like 530 and have an hour in IAH (I think that's where I'm going).

And, Alex, are you saying the Sokalian-neo-Derridian matrix format of transgressive hermenutics, (a la Foucalt-Hieddeger) forms the neo-pythagorean post-platonic Weltnaschauung of the feminist quad of apophatic blatherskite.

That's what it sounds like to me

Has anybody seen Bob Rigsby lately? I was just looking over some comments of his on the old Spectrum blog, and golly, that guy can sure write a comment!

K, that's all.

error

Cliff, sounds like it will be a long day! (I'm not a morning person myself). Have a good flight, and maybe some other time.

Alex, I agree that the terms liberal and conservative are often used without adequate definition. However, I think within the SDA church context, folks know what they mean. i.e., conservative = ATS, 3ABN, literalist biblical interpretation; liberal/progressive = AT, Spectrum, non-literalist biblical interpretation, etc.

Jered,

Bob is still around and doing well. I'm sure he will comment again from time to time.

Donna

Pat,

That's one of the better comments I've seen on the Spectrum blog.

Donna,

Thanks! If you ever speak with him, let him know that I'm planning to write a piece on Christianity and climate change, so he'd better start preparing a rebuttal :-)

Or rather, tell him that the Spectrum discussion isn't the same without his comments!

Robert, thanks for the definition. This makes it fun (at least for me.) Even with that bare bones definition the binary collapses. There are plenty of folks who read the Bible very literally who can't stand 3ABN, but do enjoy AT and Spectrum. And there are some generally non-literalists who participate with ATS.

One of my favorite profs, Malcolm Russell once said off-hand that East Coast Adventists are liberal in their theology but conservative in the lifestyle, whole West Coast Adventists are the reverse. Of course their are a thousands exceptions to this and he knew it. It's fun to think about the variegated nature of our community.

My point here is that I'd prefer while we're having a fun discussion, that folks who dash off a line about "those liberals" or "those conservatives" really should take the time to define when they characterize.

Gaylene, it's not clear to me to which comments you're referring. Could you share some examples?

Cliff, what do you mean, what sounds like that to you? It's very easy to string together terminology in any discipline to reveal ones confusion. But I'm not sure to which point you refer. Derrida writes: "No one gets angry at a mathematician or a physicist whom he or she doesn't understand, or at someone who speaks a foreign language, but rather at someone who tampers with your own language."

Thanks Jared. I miss reading Bob's comments as well.

Below I'm going to argue that "liberalism" would not survive without people like Cliff. If you have the patience to read through it, I'd be very interested in your responses.

Fundamentalism is not popular in mainstream churches. Its binary creed, the way it divides the world into enemies and friends and the ease with which it overrides science and modernity have limited appeal to educated people, for whom ambiguity is a fundamental dimension of life. We, the children of the Enlightenment worship the question mark, not the exclamation mark. And yet, moderates, progressives, liberals, whatever non-fundamentalist people of faith call themselves, they owe their very being to fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism is the life-blood of faith, and all people of faith live off it. Religious liberalism (I use the term loosely) does not breed fundamentalism. The movement is always in the other direction. Religious liberalism is derivative. It is an attempt to create a place of refuge for those who are not ready or willing to break with their faith tradition, who want to hold on to what they perceive to be good in it without having to affirm the ‘inaffirmable’. But without fundamentalism, there would be no liberalism.

Paul argued that if the trumpets of war did not sound a clear signal, the army would not be ready for action. Church growth, as we clearly see in the third world, is driven by fundamentalists. It is precisely the black and white character of fundamentalism that drives people to take a stand for or against a faith. The reason why Western churches have stopped growing is that there is no longer a strong fundamentalist tide there to lift all boats.

Moderate, liberal Christians recognize that their faith is derived; therefore most of them raise their children as fundamentalists, to give them a basis upon which to build a more “mature” faith later on.

In Western Europe, where creationists are as rare as chicken teeth, only about five percent of the people go regularly to church. Liberalism is an attempt to separate the baby from the bathwater. The trouble is that when you drain away imaginary bathwater you risk being left with an imaginary baby. In Europe, a vague, nebulous faith in search of a shape still survives, but that is nearly all there is left.

Next time you strike out at fundamentalists in your midst (and most of us can’t help ourselves!), know that you’re rocking the very foundation on which you stand. Fundamentalists can survive without you, but I’m not sure you survive without them.

It seems to me that it is God's job to separae the sheep from the goats, not ours! Why must we always start with labels. Immediate classification prejudices all subsequent thinking!

I am basically a sinner, fundamentally in need of redemption which I have found liberally in Jesus Christ, my Lord and my King. Therefore, I find kinship with all of mankind. Tom

Cliff said:

"I admit that I find the liberal perspective in Adventism utterly illogical, contradictory and impossible for me to comprehend. I think to myself when I read some of this stuff, Why do these people bother with Adventism?"

This statement I find enlightening about Cliff and others, that are dismissive of those seeking change and a new look for Adventism. It is even worse in a PCA Church, they use 1650 Westminister Confession, and boy you better not disagree, or leadership positions ARE withheld.

But back to SDAs, it is a Progressive Truth institution, liberal, but it is always evaluating its position, as it should.

Liberal, isn't it just another name for a position that we disagree with that "liberalizes" our conservative/absolute position?

Take the Sabbath, what if we taught the Gospel so well that people flocked to us so we had to have four weekend services, two on Saturday and two on Sunday, would that desecrate Adventist orthodoxy??

RDS

Please define a liberal--Is it one who wears a belt instead of suspenders? One who eats three meals a day? One how dusts his shoes off on Sabbath morning" One who eats eggs and drinks cows milk? One who sends his 15 year old daughter to the local high school rather than to an academy 300 miles away? Pne who reads Daniel for himself rather than have someone else tell him what it means? One who blieves that ordination is a priviledge and not a judgeship? One who can disagree with Cliff? Or alll of the above plus one who believes that E.G. White was a child of her times. Tom

Tom
As you no doubt know, "liberal" is hardly ever used in its orginal meaning, referring to the German school of theology that preached that Christianity could be summed up in Harnack's words as the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man and the ethics of love (or so I believe Dr Johnston put it back in the day, at the Seminary). Nowaydays "liberal" means somebody who doesn't believe in biblical inerrancy.

"Conservative" and "evangelical" are essentially modern terms for "fundamentalist." I use the term fundamentalist in the sense used by James Barr in his book on the subject, as people who believe in scriptural inerrancy, people who hold the position that holy scriptures by definition cannot contain either errors or contradictions, and that if any can be found, they are by definition "apparent" errors or contradictions.

Labels are shorthand, introduced to keep from having to restate the same broad summary of beliefs all the time. But they are often not very precise, and most of us feel uncomfortable when others do the labeling, like when somebody says: "That's typically American." "Typically American" is somebody's shorthand, and not necessarily helpful. It certainly needs to be modfied.

Tom, this I know, some of the most "off the wall" "extremists" are when put on a continuum represented by a circle those that meet at the bottom of the circle, the far left, and the far right. They are the ones, even in Congress holding up progress on such subjects as Energy Independence because they are afraid of who will get the credit not what is the right thing to do. I don't think it is much different in religion and church related politics, do you?

Thank You RDS and Aage

Just like you, I would rather be called by my first name than any label I can think of. Of course in the First Century the label Christian had about the same standings as far right or far left have today.

I can recall when Brinsmead was a dirty word. Now I understand they have a section of the library at Avondale named after him. Maybe some day the Book Answers to Questions on Doctrine will be in the book rack of the pew next to the hymnal. Certainly it didn't take long to get M.L. Andreasen's books off the shelves. Now they are reprinted under Herbert Douglass.

Thanks you all for just calling me Tom.

Alex, in answer to your earlier question: I was trying to avoid examples so as not to be guilty of the very thing I’m bringing up here.

My basic idea is that when criticism and sarcasm arise in any blog (be it at the first, middle or last) it is no longer just about an idea. You can’t be sarcastic towards an idea. It’s so easy for me to get swept up in this, too, but I think that the better learning goes on when we can stick to discussing people’s ideas....not people. It’s a really easy line to cross over, but isn’t this what Spectrum is all about?

Cliff you wrote:

"And, Alex, are you saying the Sokalian-neo-Derridian matrix format of transgressive hermenutics, (a la Foucalt-Hieddeger) forms the neo-pythagorean post-platonic Weltnaschauung of the feminist quad of apophatic blatherskite."

I love it - that is fantastic Cliff! Priceless! It even got a confused, "what the?" from Alex.

I'm so glad glad your part of us, and you don't fit properly into either the conservative or liberal labels.

I wonder... would we label someone such as Peter a fundamentalist today for saying things like, "There is no other name under heaven through which we must be saved?" Sounds like a pretty black and white statement that would make those who "worship the question mark" a tad bit uncomfortable, and cause an outcry of intolerance.

I guess we'd also have to lump Luke in there with Peter, and come to think of it, the whole Jesus movement of the first century as well. Ironically, that whole narrow, fundamentalist group suffered enormous persecution, because they dared to stand up and challenge not only the local religious establishment, or the Caesar cult, but also the syncretistic and pluralistic beliefs and resulting lifestyles of their entire society.

The proclamation of Christ crucified brought that reaction then. Any wonder that it would now?

Thanks...

Frank

The Dutch Reformers of Holland, Mich called the Methodists Bun-Luggers because they always had pot-luck following Sunday services.

I still prefer the term Rev. Johnson of Furman Unv. used in closing his sermon at Notre Dame before 28 different denominations: "One can say more but one cannot say less than Christ is Lord!" That is the sheep and the goats dividing line. not some obscure understanding of furniture and rooms in Heaven. Tom

Frank
Labels, to be useful, have to make distinctions in terms of ideas that existed and which divided people at the time. For instance, there is no use wondering if Martin Luther was secretly an evolutionist, given the fact that the issue did not exist in the 16th century. Fundamentalism, likewise, only became a recognized idea in the 19th and 20th century, in reaction to the rise of biblical-critical theology.

I realize that the word "fundamentalist" and "fundamentalism" are loaded and that few people relish it, and maybe I should avoid it and use "biblical inerrancy" instead.

In the first century A.D. Christians were divided, not on inerrancy, but chiefly in their attitude to the Torah. The brothers of Jesus, who took over the movement, were Jews who believed in Jesus and who wanted to preserve their Jewish identiy. Paul and the Gospel writers sought to free Christians from Judaism. That was a major division at the heart of Christendom--a division that lasted until the destruction of Jerusalem wiped out the majority of the Jewish Jesus movement.

Tom
The funniest label I've come across is delivered by a Presbyterian minister in the movie "A River Runs Through It". Talking about his future daughter-in-law, who's a Methodist, he dismissively says: "Methodists are Baptists who know how to read."

" Paul and the Gospel writers sought to free Christians from Judaism. That was a major division at the heart of Christendom--a division that lasted until the destruction of Jerusalem wiped out the majority of the Jewish Jesus movement."

The Jewish-Christians of Jerusalem ceased to exist after the temple was destroyed. However, the SDAs "rediscovered" Judaism and incorporated much of it into their beliefs that separated them from the rest of Christianity. Deja vu?

Aage,

Your point is not mine. All I am saying, is that the early Christians, on the basis of an unshakable faith in Jesus as "the Way" as understood by them through the Scriptures, confronted the syncretism and pluralism of beliefs in the empire, and were incessantly persecuted for it.

Transport that same confrontation between the same type of belief systems to our present day, the "narrowness" of the proclaiming of Christ crucified with a syncretistic and pluralistic post-modern culture, and what happens?

The labels ( whether specifically the fund. label or others doesn't matter) get applied because the offense doesn't cease. In other parts of the world where the message of the cross confronts differing belief systems, the reaction goes beyond labeling, to marginalization, ostracism, even imprisonment and death.

Western Europe and urban America have a more genteel way of handling it...sort of what Paul experienced at the Aeropogus. They ridiculed and walked away.

Thanks...

Frank

Ant, which Derrida, Foucault, Gadamer and Kristeva works, i.e., those terms referenced, have you read?

The reason I ask is because growing up in the church I found that most of the folks who string together jargon for comic effect haven't actually read the sources. This is particularly true of recent critical work in the discipline of so-called postmodern theory. I just wish that here on the Spectrum Blog we would engage issues of hermeneutics or foundationalism beyond the go-team rhetoric.

Here's a chapter from Derrida's Acts of Religion that helps me think about the messianic and foundation.

The Two Sources of Religion at the Limits of Reason Alone.

Is truth absolute as SDAs would wish us to believe:

Romans 14: 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone.

Col 2:16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Alex

Cliff sounds more like Paul Tilch than Paul the Apostle. Yes I have read both. I understand one. Tom

Frank
You lost me. I was making a point about anachronistic labels and you speak of synchretism. Could you clarify?

Aage,

What I'm trying to say, is that the proclamation that got them in trouble in the 1st c., whether with Judaism or the larger empire, is the same proclamation that gets Christians in trouble throughout the world today...whether its through out and out persecution, or our contemporary labeling. I was simply conjecturing in my original post about how people like Peter would be labled for what they believed and preached today.

My thought is that the offense of the cross has not ceased. But, the specific modes of attack and, yes,labeling have changed. In 1st c. Rome they were branded as atheists...today, fundamentalist is a popular branding.

I hope I'm making myself a little clearer.

Thanks...

Frank

Aage Loved the one about Methodists. Tom

RDS,

I am a 7th day Sabbatarian. However I believe that 7th or 1st day Sabbatarians or "Lord's Day" worshipers should not judge/condemn each other from "either" side.

The greater issue for gentiles,I believe,is weather Christ is our Creator and Redeemer and we worship Him as such. I personally have more spiritually in common with a "Lord's Day" worshiper who see's Him as such than a Sabbatarian who does not.

We should not worship the day but the Lord of the sabbath and resurrection day.

My view,

pat

Frank
I didn't use the label "fundamentalism" to insult conservatives but to describe an approach to scripture that is not open to the possibility that there might be contradictions and mistakes in the Bible. I'll try to avoid using the label in the future, because I know that it also carries overtones of ignorance and fanaticism.

As for anachronistic labelling, it's true Peter would be called a fundamentalist but just to point out how unhelpful this approach is, Voltaire by the same token would have to be called a creationist, since he believed that God had created this world.

I haven't been to church in nearly five years. I came here to see what "thinking" people in the church are discussing. I wonder if Cliff would be able to answer the questions I have.

Andrew--

I can certainly try goldsteinc@gc.adventist.org

Aage,

Agreed...such labels create more confusion than they are worth. For one, most people cross categories, depending upon their stance on specific issues. They also function as a nice shorthand to entirely dismiss people with whom we disagree on certain world-views, without having to bother to listen and dialogue further...to see if we share points of commonality.

Thanks...

Frank

The thread began with Cliff's statement:

"It was one of the hardest things in the world for me to become an SDA. I had to totally revamp my entire view of reality at the most fundamental level possible. I pretty much had to admit that the intellectual and cultural foundations of my first 23 years of existence were, well, flat-out wrong."

Maybe Cliff can empathize with the former SDAs here who went through almost exactly the same crisis of identity. All the things we had been taught our entire lives; all the perspectives given by our parents, school, and church; all the approach to our neighbors ("outsiders") and living in an exclusive, insulated Adventist cocoon could be similar to yours. To discover that there's a great big, world out there that is not poised to some day persecute you for you beliefs and practices; and that there are kind, generous, and courageous people who not only are not Adventists, but may not even be Christians is a real eye-opener. Your wife can probably relate to this, having been brought up Adventist.

Like breaking away from a religious cult who interprets the world with a cyclopic vision, only to discover that it was highly subjective, has left thousands of former members feeling they've "been had" and lied to about many things. Having been told all their lives of the marvelous and miraculous prophetic powers of their prophet, only to finally be told that nearly one hundred years ago the leaders knew and were keenly aware that she had copied other writers extensively, and claiming she had received those words in vision; seeing young children fearful for their very lives and future if, just possibly, their names could be called up in judgment and there was an unknown sin that had not been confessed, or worse, that they were in a movie theater and that small black cloud bringing Jesus had landed. Yes, I have heard many tell of their nightmares of this happening.

So, Cliff, you are not alone in finding that you had to totally revamp your world view. Some of us had been ingrained with this perspective longer than your present years. It is not easy to finally conclude that you have been led astray, no matter how well-meaning most of those teachers had been.

For those who want certainty and security, religion can offer a welcoming home; for those who are comfortable living with doubt, and realizing there always will be unknowns, we also have experienced great change.

Elaine

Excellent!!!!! Tom

Elaine,

Just think of all the built-in hobgoblins. The Alpha and Omega of apostasy! Our brightest lights will go out! On and On. Then the inane appeals of those who didn't know basic Christianity--and then the "Mark of the Beast" worry warts. Of course there were a few "What took you so long?" Now, we have a Presbyterian Pastor who knows I'm an Armenian who says: "Welcome home Tom!" The Lord loves you and so do I."
(By the way he reads Ministry Mag.
I know a few SDA's like that also, but how few and far betweeen. Tom

"I understand that it was intellectually hard for some to join, but it won't mean more by making it hard for the rest of us to stay."

Brilliant. Love it.

Cliff writes: "I admit that I find the liberal perspective in Adventism utterly illogical, contradictory and impossible for me to comprehend. I think to myself when I read some of this stuff, Why do these people bother with Adventism?"

That has long been my own thesis. Maybe someone can give a lucid response without muddying the water with obscure allusions.

Those who are officially SDA members should be thankful that Cliff has no authority to disfellowship Adventists. Otherwise, the church would likely lose 50% or more of NAD SDAs overnight.

Although he doesn't have this capability, he is still an official spokesman for the church in its effort to demonstrate pluralism, maybe?

Dear "Your friend", the reason that you and Cliff believe this statement:

"I admit that I find the liberal perspective in Adventism utterly illogical, contradictory and impossible for me to comprehend. I think to myself when I read some of this stuff, Why do these people bother with Adventism?"

might be because you didn't grow up Adventist, and don't have a vision for the future of the Adventist church. I was born Adventist. I personally think the Seventhday Adventist church would do better to call themselves The Adventist Church. For those that are really honest with salvific issues, the day you worship on is not one of those issues. Nor, Cliff, is the "state of the dead". Whether one believes one is sleeping or one is "looking down on us from heaven or hades" can't be proven, and outside the SDA church is more of a comfort issue at funerals. Personally, I think you can prove from the Bible the "soul sleep" side, but don't feel it is an issue to divide over in the BIG Church scheme of things.

"Those who are officially SDA members should be thankful that Cliff has no authority to disfellowship Adventists. Otherwise, the church would likely lose 50% or more of NAD SDAs overnight."

Why? Do we win a prize when we get to a certain number?

Adventism is like no other. Some people are not Adventists by any shape method or form and they proudly proclaim it and yet, sometimes they dont move along or join a diffrent faith.

It's kind of wierd like a couple that split up 30 years ago but one wont sign the divorce papers or not show up to dinner on Sabbath because they would lose their captive audience who is subjected to their rants and selfvation theories.

You know how it is, your trying to eat your macaroni and tofu suprise at the potluck and someone corners you, sits down and proceeds to go on and on about their "one off" ideas or some obscure religious technical details or their progressive activism and how you are an apathetic caveman if you dont agree with them.
Even a grunt from you would be an encouragement so you eat as fast as you can, say your going for desert and then when you get it, you kind of forget where you were sitting??

I have a second theory based on the number of words men and women need to speak in a day and how this persons husband is gone for weeks at a time and she saves up her 25k words per day to unload at potlucks...

Ahhh, its a work in progress...

May be someone else has better working theory's on the subject.

Thanks Ann.

Andrew, I will be praying for God's guidance in your life and for the Holy Spirit to lead your path. I hope you will find the peace in the Lord that I have found.

Sandra.

Elaine, thank you for your good input there about the methods of upbringing and teaching in the church. I agree that there has been the tendency to teach docrines in quite the frightening way. I still remember one time when I was 13, and had to sit in a room with some 40-50 others, and listen to a tape of a "play" where some people acted out how the end time would be like. I don't know how it was supposed to be comforting or reassuring, all I remember is that people were being chased and killed, and two girls went singing to the place were they were to be burnt. I was completely terrified! This did not urge me to want to know about prophesy or the end times. I rather wanted to ignore the whole thing and hope it wouldn't happen in my time.

We defenitely need to be careful what ways we use to get the message across. I think the way the judgment was being taught some time back was not helpful at all like you mentioned Elaine. I think sometimes we maybe do things backwards, and it would be better to listen to Christ when he said: Go ye therefore, and teach (or make disciples of) all nations... (Mt 28:29). This comes before the baptising. My translation says "make disciples" and I think that is what we should be doing, because when we don't start with the living and personal faith, we end up with dry rules and hearts of stone.

Sandra.

"Some people are not Adventists by any shape method or form and they proudly proclaim it and yet, sometimes they dont move along or join a diffrent faith"

Describes me precisely.

The reason is simple - within the SDA church, one goes through several steps...

Naive: You believe the people preaching from the pulpit are both inspired and smart. They are presenting secret life-saving knowledge. You lap it up. You form your childish beliefs. Many life-long SDA never get beyond this step - they don't know the issues, they don't question the beliefs.

Knowledgeable-and-naive: You realize the locals are pretty ignorant, and you begin to understand the issues - that short-age creationism is contrary to the obvious evidence, that 1844 is difficult to prove, that the church is anti-women, that vegetarianism is not as important as weight-control, ... but you think the authors and the distant authorities have solid answers. Few SDA stay here - those that reach it search for answers...

Knowledgeable-but-not-naive: You have got connected enough into the organization to know that the authors and authorities aren't smart - they are simply people with the same lack of insight as the local preachers, but who are good at writing or public speaking. They are often people who are comfortable in their position in life and don't want to face the fact that their childish beliefs are wrong. Often they are experts in narrow areas, and ignorant about others. You see a lot of good in SDA'ism, so you stick to it because the good outweighs the bad, and you hope to help fix the bad - until something really drastic happens...

Stressed-out: You realize that the benefits you get from membership can be got elsewhere, that the SDA church is not honestly addressing its problems, and that attending is both damaging your relationship with God and wasting time and money. You leave, but can't resist watching the train wreck as it happens and trying to help a little from a distance.

Consider going to other churches: and then you realize that the other denominations are just as bad, and often worse. You decide you don't want to waste time sitting around with yet another group of naive people achieving very little. Instead, like me, you form other interests - I became a paramedic and spend many hours each weekend in ambulances.

Cliff, for instance, is a great example of a really literate person who is deeply read in some areas, emotionally committed to some positions because he has sacrificed for them and publically committed to them, and yet who is very narrow in his knowledge base and hence doesn't even understand simple issues outside his area - for example, the evolution of cooperation.

/Bevin