Great list! Excellent list.

Under "Innovations We Might Seriously Regret": Indie Schools of Evangelism aimed at potential pastors.

Colporteuring belongs on the list somewhere, but I'm not sure where...

As someone who colporteured for six summers, it does have a special place in my heart. . .

Why must everything have the prefix "Adventist"?
What about the Adventists joining the larger Christian biblical society? ?

Why might there be regret on closing Adventist academies? Have they not long outlived their once-upon-a-time usefulness? Since all the stats show that approximately 50% of young people of all denominations will leave their church home, are the academies still being promoted as the ideal way to ensure they will remain Adventist? On what basis is that presumption made?

A five-year ban on anything related to the jewelry issue. Every church member can wear jewelry with no repercussions, and no one can say anything about it.

After the five-year ban is over, we can talk about how nothing bad happened.

"Sunday worship as the mark of the beast" has outlived its usefulness?

And folks wonder why I question their Adventism?

Oh ya, we forgot about that book.

I thought ACS and ADRA already had joined forces? Perhaps they just work together. I know people in my home church who are very involved with ACS, which also at least works closely with ADRA in many areas.

I also agree with Elaine about the boarding academies. I think they were a good idea but studies show clearly that times have changed and parents are no longer so willing to send their children away. I think with the academies closing we need to have a person in the education department of conferences who is specifically a resource person for churches with kids who attend public schools so that they learn how to nurture these kids rather than condemn them. There also needs to be closer work between homeschoolers and local church schools (this is happening in some places, due to forward-thinking teachers and administrators).

M

Cliff:

You don't seem to do anything BUT question other people's Adventism, something that I don't think is yours to question, unless you have been appointed the Church's Inquisitor. I was not aware of the creation of such a post, but I haven't been keeping up on church politics. I'm surprised that you seem to be surprised, considering the general bent of many articles on this forum. Again, last time I checked, Goldstein was NOT the final arbiter of all truth. Adventism does not have a pope. We are a community. You who judge others Adventism, I question your Christianity. Which is more serious?

Adventists are right to protest Sunday worship, but not because it constitutes some diabolical affront to the sovereignty of God. Instead, if we are going to protest, we should protest that it marks the first great schism in the Christian church - a split that brought disunity to the body of Christ. That, if anything, is the working of the beast.

We continue to do violence to the body of Christ in our insistence that all those who worship on Sunday are wandering after the beast. Show it to me in the Scriptures, and I'll give you $10,000. Just kidding.

First of all Alex, I'm offended by your opposition to
mass-evangelism. I live in Massachusetts and there is still hope! :)

Secondly, you better not put colporteuring on that list or else I will calling EP, BK, and LC!

Peace

I suppose that I must have had different experiences with praise music, because the type of praise music I get to participate in at PMC during the school year is one of the main reasons I attend. If I want a sermon, I can read a book on my own time. But what I can't do on is participate in a community. I absolutely adore well planned music, and I enjoy thoughtful responsive readings. Basically I am blessed by a well coordinated, planned, etc. worship service that is heavy on participation. Because I am blessed by that sort of worship, I assume everyone else is as well, so we should just make it dogma, add it to the fundamental beliefs.

Only slightly more seriously, how about adding "lengthy sermons" to IDEAS THAT HAVE OUTLIVED THEIR USEFULNESS?

"Adventists are right to protest Sunday worship, but not because it constitutes some diabolical affront to the sovereignty of God. Instead, if we are going to protest, we should protest that it marks the first great schism in the Christian church."

Hmmm. That's a new perspective. What "schism" are you referring to that Sunday worship brought about? It's true there was a schism in the early Christian church, but where is the history showing that it was caused by Sunday worship?

The great schism between the eastern and western churches was much later and I have yet to find any reference to any worship day as all Christians for nearly 2000 years were worshiping on Sunday. Only if you count the Jewish church (of which we have no record after 70 AD), all were meeting and celebrating the Eucharist in honor of the Resurrection.

That's a good point. The schism I'm talking about is the split from the Jewish church by the Christian Church. Sabbath to Sunday, as I understand it, was a principle part of the split. That's why I say that it is the first schism. So Sunday worship didn't bring about the split, it was the split.

This did not originate with me. I stole it from John Webster.

Oh, I really should write up a post on the good principle behind the Biblical idea of the Mark of the Beast. I had a great class on Revelation that just blew my mind in thinking about how state powers setting up a day of worship is diabolical.

If fact, those who use the late Adventist ID of Sunday worship and the Mark of the Beast soft peddle the deeper issues of what changing worship days represent which is the co-option of church authority by the state. I'll always be a Sabbath-keeper, and I want to think how that act of resistance gains meaning, looking down on everyone else and waiting to be proven right sometime in the future. There are institutional beasts that must be resisted today.

Although it's getting old, I don't really mind Cliff questioning my Adventist cred. It reminds me of the dying days of McCarthy running around with blank lists calling people unAmerican.

It's just sad. Those who do this warmed over post-60s, culture-war-imitatio witch-sighting behavior are saying a lot more about their own insecurity with changing community meanings than really contributing to anything that will last. If someone like Cliff stopped polarizing and started really engaging in conversation with the next generation - I'd love it - and we'd all create a stronger Seventh-day Adventism.

Anyone here read Constantine's Sword?

Ha. Angelo.

Evangelizing Mass. . .you know man, the rest of the country is getting tired of your sports teams winning. . . I'm preaching. . .it's the time of the end for your state.

Niemand, you gave me new respect for praise music by sharing your appreciation for a well-organized service.

"The schism I'm talking about is the split from the Jewish church by the Christian Church. Sabbath to Sunday, as I understand it, was a principle part of the split. That's why I say that it is the first schism. So Sunday worship didn't bring about the split, it was the split."

And from what history did you get this information? The principle "split" has already been recorded in the Bible of the dissension in the Jerusalem church where Sabbath was never mentioned as the cause, but all the Jews who accepted the Messiah were demanding that the Gentiles obey all the Jewish rituals and diet. It may have originated with the distorted SDA history writers of nearly a century ago, but not by unbiased secular historians. My master's degree was largely on early Christian history with thesis on Constantine and the early church up to the mid-fourth century. With more than 3 dozen books on Christian history that were consulted, I have yet to see any reference to a schism caused by Sabbath worship. I'm always open to new information; whatever you can supply on this subject.

Bother. That's what I get for floating a half-cooked idea that I heard in class in THIS circle. I'll have to refer you to Dr. Webster since he argued for it persuasively in Theo class, and naturally didn't cite his sources in the lecture. I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

IDEAS THAT HAVE OUTLIVED THEIR USEFULNESS

The Sabbath School Lesson Pamphlet : a trite publication that fails to guide its readers into their own in-depth study of the Bible, and instead treats them to a handful of out-of-context texts and some inane paragraphs purporting to discuss them.

Sabbath School Classes : A forum where each week the vocal yet ignorant tout their long-held unquestioned beliefs without having bothered to first read the provided trite publication, certainly without having actually studied the material

So, this poster is thinking that we need solid communication and good thought within the church community about all kinds of "stuff", serious, non-serious, whatever. I'm kinda opposed to that happening during the worship service (although my reasons have more to do with personal taste than any special revelation that I might or might not have received during the wee hours of an ambiguous morning on yesteryear). Sabbath School has seemed to be the natural place for such a forum, but I really like what happens on sites like this. Maybe these sorts of things could suffice?

And about the Sabbath School Quarterly. Bevin, I totally agree with what I interpret you as saying. I remember reading recently (a few months ago?) in the teachers edition something along the lines of "The student will understand . . ." and then followed some point that would only be clear if one assumed the inerrancy of Uncle Arthur (much as I did appreciate those books as a child). Yes, the student is expected to "understand", "accept", "comprehend" the discussion of a collection of poorly juxtaposed quasi-texts.

Alex, write the post! I'm very interested to hear some fresh perspectives on the Beast concept.

Nice list! And, Alex's list didn't specify what type of Adventist academy we might regret closing, although there have been many more boarding academies closing of late. Elaine, I know you don't identify yourself as Adventist anymore, but I'm wondering if you see value in any denominational identity? Surely Adventists aren't the only Christian denomination with unique institutions and cultural markers? Isn't that half the reason a lot of folks figure out how to stick around and figure out how to work around the thorny doctrinal bits (like the mark of the beast/Sunday law pamphlets with that really freaky/campy artwork in the foyer of an Adventist church that shall remain nameless but makes me cringe every time I visit)?

By the way, veggie meat is also something that's also making a comeback--although it's not the canned, crammed full of unpronounceable ingredients kind that I can find in my local Adventist market.

Great list, Alex!

I think the idea of the Mark of the Beast as any coercive amalgamation of religion and politics has a lot going for it in our time.

Also, the gradual replacement of Sabbath with Sunday as a symbol of the creeping [and creepy!] Constantianism of Christianity that contributed to the murderous gulf between it and Judaism is worth considering.

Adventists are often accused by Constantian and Augustinian Christians of being "very Jewish."

I should hope so!

Thanks for a thought-provoking post!

Dave

Niemand--

I am not speaking for the church; no one said I was; I certainly I didn't. I was merely expressing my own opinion, which is all I do on here, And time and again I hear folks express ideas that are so far out of the way of anything that remotely sounds like even the most basic and generic Adventism, and so I would (logically it would seem) question whether they really are Adventists or no. And that makes me the SDA Inquisitor? Folks push ideas on here that are so wacko (Adventist's supporting "loving, committed, monogamous" homosexual sodomy and the like) and I have the aduacity, with my "warmed over post-60s, culture-war-imitatio witch-sighting" (I didn't become an SDA until the 80s), to question it, and I'm suddenly this terrible guy. I imagine that my views reflect 98 per cent of the world-wide SDA community, and yet I'm the one labeled as someone out of touch. But, I guess, it's my own fault for posting on here, so when I get tired of it, I can stop, that's all.

By the way, what, pray tell, is the mark of the beast going to be then, since our long held views are no longer tenable. All this reminds of an article in Spectrum 20 years ago, under the spiritual and uplifting tutelage of its former editor, which informed readers that our old view of Rome was wrong and that it was so clearly obvious that the final persectuting power in the last days, the beast, was--"Soviet Communism."

That's what I like about Spectrum: always on the cutting edge!

Keep up the good work!

Bury the term "non-Adventist", whether applied to children in primary schools, or the wider unwashed. (Maybe this is a peculiar Australianism, but it still stinks.)
And how did the 'Clear Word' abomination escape mention?

I like this post. And I love that Cliff devotes time to reading our archives.
Cheers!

Hear! Hear! What a great discussion!

I'd like to second GavriloP suggestion that the 'Clear Word' be included under things that we might live to regret. Mormon and JW have their own Bible - not SDA's.

Under ideas that we have stood for in the past - how about including the notion of "Present Truth".

And under things we should be for and support - please list TEAM!!!

I am part of a praise and worship team that is in its beginnings. Some very talented musicians getting together to add beauty and life to the worship of God. For us, an exciting development...and a relevant one. I like many of the old hymns, but the gospel needs to be communicated in a more contemporary musical language than 19th c. agrarian hymnody...just as the Bible needs to be translated into English beyond 1611 Elizabethan, if we are to reach 21st century urban dwellers.

Thanks...

Frank

Cliff,

I consider that many of the issues you consider to be "wacko" are important contemporary issues that need to be carefully addressed and discussed by the church community. Things like homosexuality (and sexuality in general), evolution (and philosophy of science in general), our attitude towards the Roman Catholic confession (and towards other denominations and faiths in general), to name a few. I don't think it is safe to ignore these things (and I also think that, on many or even most of them, the church official should NOT make a ruling).

I understand that many of the ideas questioned and debated on this and other forums may seem to strike at the heart of what it is to be Adventist, but that surely does not justify not discussing them. If we refuse to talk about and question anything touching our identity, then we are certainly no better than what many Adventists and Protestants have accused RCC of being. And I submit that these questions only SEEM to strike at the heart, for surely Christ is at the heart of the Church? I confess that I really appreciate Rob Bell's comparison (in his book Velvet Elvis) of belief with a trampoline. He likens the doctrines and philosophies to springs on the tramp which may or may not facilitate our jumping. And the point is not the springs. The point is to jump. And the proof of the "rightness" of any given spring is in whether you jump higher with it in place.

Thanks for being willing to dialogue.

Dave

You write of "the gradual replacement of Sabbath with Sunday as a symbol of the creeping [and creepy!] Constantianism of Christianity that contributed to the murderous gulf between it and Judaism is worth considering."

You touch upon an important issue springing out of the first centuries of Christian history--the role of the Torah in Christianity and the rise of anti-semitism.

The disciples of Jesus and his brother James saw Jesus as an ethnic redeemer, a Jewish Messiah. They would have violently opposed any attempt to replace the Sabbath with Sunday.

The Sabbath was a quintessential Jewish institution. Sunday worship was an innovation which symbolized the eventual take-over of the Christian movement by gentiles. Paul, who spearheaded this move, recast Jesus as a universal redeemer, a world savior, and in the process he cut all ties to the Jewish Torah (Epistle to the Galatians) in defiance of Jesus' brother James.

"Creeping Constantinism"--the process of turning a religious faith into a state religion--did, as result of Paul's revolution, create a murderous gulf between Christianity and Judaism, but what most Christians don't recognize is that the seeds of anti-semitism appear in the NT, the writings that were generated by the gentile Christian movement--especially in the Gospel of John, in which the Jews are described as an alien mob of crazed murderers, baying for blood and proclaiming the improbable view that the hated Roman emperor the only king they acknowledged.

Adventism stands with one leg in each of these camps, the historical Jewish Jesus-faith and the gentile world religion called Christianity, siding with both the victors and the vanquished.

Cliff and all,

How about the "mark" being the "spirit of humanity" that is hostile to God,His Word/Christ, the cross and His true believers just as the dragon beast satan who leads them astray.

It is a sign that can be manifested in many ways but the message mankind hates and opposses is the everlasting gospel and worship of the creator. Sabbath may be a sign that helps/ warns against apostasy but it is not the answer within itself or the Jews of Christ's day would not have rejected Him on that basis alone. Likewise Sunday worship may be associated with the final apostasy but not the cause within itself.

The jews of Christ's day worshiped the sabbath ritual rather than the Lord of the Sabbath. Something good for us to remember.

regards,

pat

I find myself in the odd position of rising to the defense of Cliff, at least in regard to the Sabbath School concept. Cliff himself says that the quarterly is meant to be a springboard for study and discussion, and clearly states it is not the final arbiter of truth.

I remain absolutely convinced that Sabbath School CAN be incredibly useful (it was to me when I joined the church and many questions to ask). That's why I'm happy to facilitate an hour long discussion that takes the lesson as read and delves into the meaning and application of the Biblical material that's presented (available at www.sabbathschoolstudy.org)

How about reclaiming Sabbath School for a "free conversational study of the Scriptures" (to borrow EGW's phrase)--and turn it into a stimulating and productive place? (a bit like this debate forum, minus those who like to "flame"!)

Best, Jonathan

INNOVATIONS WE MIGHT SERIOUSLY REGRET

- Local conference regional structure in the Pacific Union based on race and ethnicity
- Evangelism tourism
- Adventist Health International

SEEMINGLY HORRIFYING IDEAS THAT COULD HAVE POTENTIAL

- Qualified BRI, GRI, EGW Center staff urged to apply for positions in one of our universities where they may continue their research and writing as members of the respective academic departments

- Relocate the General Conference headquarters outside North America and organizational restructuring minus the divisional headquarters staff

- Decrease the ratio of professional clergy on the pastoral staff in the local congregation to the number of lay professionals - meaning, the number of pastors assigned to each congregation shouldn't be directly, but rather inversely proportional to congregational size.

Daneen asked:

"Elaine, I know you don't identify yourself as Adventist anymore, but I'm wondering if you see value in any denominational identity."

Of course, every institution must have an identity. But, there are some ideas that were good in the past but have lost their relevance today.
Expensive day or boarding academies, isolating students in a still "cocoon-like" environment delays the full maturation for a future of living in the world.

There are now many non-denominational Christian schools (my granddaughter is attending an excellent one) that provide Bible instruction and also offer good academic scholarship, something not always available in the smaller SDA schools. Adventists have been isolated from the larger Christian community because of their unique habits and lifestyle, but it may have harmed, rather than helped us, IMO.

Elaine,

I agree.

I attended the first 8 years at our church school. 1 year of boarding academy in the 11th grade while my parents were divorcing and the rest in public HS in Atlanta.

I attended 3 years college at SMC, 2 Years at University of Georgia before attending Dental School at the University of Tenn.

I attended RTS seminary for my M.Div.

All of this to say I am glad and fortunate to have a mother who wanted me educated with good academic scholarship and also recognize the many wonderful Christians of other denominations.(not excluding "good" neighbor non-christians either) I am grateful. We must not have a cocoon mentality.
Perhaps the first eight grades then "lets grow up."

David, you commented:

"I think the idea of the Mark of the Beast as any coercive amalgamation of religion and politics has a lot going for it in our time.

Also, the gradual replacement of Sabbath with Sunday as a symbol of the creeping [and creepy!] Constantianism of Christianity that contributed to the murderous gulf between it and Judaism is worth considering.

Adventists are often accused by Constantian and Augustinian Christians of being "very Jewish."

At the risk of disagreeing with someone who is far better educated, I would ask for your data regarding the "Constantianism of Christianity"
that created the gulf between it and Judaism.

Even the biblical records show that the disagreements between the Jewish and Gentile Christians were the agenda for the Jerusalem Council, and Constantine lived three centuries later, so it is somewhat confusing to see that name introduced as causing a gulf.

The gulf began in Jerusalem, and there is no secular or religious historical records of a Jewish-Christian church after 70 A.D.

When Constantine in 313 enacted the Edict of Milan, it was to guarantee religious tolerance of all worship within the empire; probably the first religious liberty law enacted. Up to that time, there had been much persecution of the Christians by the Roman rulers, especially Diocletian. This Edict of Milan extended tolerance to all religions and ordered the restoration og Christian properties seized during the recent persecution.

In 312 Constantine gave his Christian soldiers leave to attend church on Sundays, which would indicate that it was the day they were meeting then. In 321, he gave a law that prohibited all official business and manufacturing on the Lord's Day, though it allowed agricultural work if God granted fine weather. There was no confusion over which day was the "Lord's Day."

Innumerable writings of the church fathers show that they had been meeting on the first day of the week in honor of the Resurrection since the early second century.

Christians separated from Jews by the end of the first century, and while the Jews certainly continued observing the Sabbath, there is scant, if any evidence that Christians were worshiping on that day.

The "gradual replacement" you speak of was that:
as the split between Jews and Gentiles, beginning in Paul's ministry, they went their separate ways and beginning at Pentecost, the first day of the week gradually became for Gentile Christians a day of celebration but they did not then declare it holy. Long time practice becomes a fait accompli that needs no official endorsement, and Constantine merely recognized Christians as celebrating the first day of the week, and that pagans had also been meeting in honor of Sol Invictus (inscribed on Constantine's coins.

INNOVATIONS THAT HAVE PROMISE:

Sabbath as a shadow of Christ's True Rest as outlined in Hebrews 4:7 , Col 2:16, 17.

Overflow Worship services on Sunday as a result.

Why is the declaration of one day in seven resting, by the State so diabolical, anymore than they declaring Homosexual marriage legal. Resting can be considered a secular issue also. Ever thought of that Alex. Probably not. Especially if you don't have to worship on that day, but just rest from secular work. What's wrong with that???

Mr. Goldstein,

For the second time, you've thrown around misleading, hide-bound phraseology: "loving, committed, monogamous homosexual sodomy" at an attempt at some sort of semantic power play. We'll not just let it slide.

If you're using sodomy in its contemporary usage, you're talking about oral sex and anal sex. Heterosexual couples engage in those acts as well. So if your gripe is with the act of anal or oral sex, you'll find friends in Texas who also supported the anti-sodomy laws that the Supreme Court struck down in 2003.

If you are using sodomy as a biblical concept to refer to the sins of Sodom (even though "sodomy" appears nowhere in Scripture, as you're well aware) defining sodomy as homosexual sex is not only unbiblical, it is naïve and puerile.

I refer you to a section from Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: Biblical Texts in Historical Contexts provided by Alexander in the other thread:

That the purpose of the men of Sodom in this story was to show their social and cultural dominance over foreigners is confirmed by the vast majority of references to the acts of Sodom in the rest of the Bible. In other biblical texts (e.g., Ezek 16:49, Isa 110-17, 3:9; Jer 23:14; Zeph 2:8-11; Wisd. 19:13-17; Matt 10:15; Luke 17:28-29) Sodom's evils are listed as being pride, failure to help the poor, and lack of hospitality to foreigners, not sexual abuse. Indeed, the one reference in the Biblical material to the so-called "sin of Sodom" that might carry some sexual overtone is found in the tiny New Testament book of Jude, verse 7. In that text the author of Jude accuses the men of Sodom of seeking "alien flesh" (Greek: sarkos heteras). Given the context in Jude, which in the preceding verse has just alluded to the odd story of the sexual relations between angels and the daughters of men in Gen 6:1-4, this reference to "alien flesh" interprets the action of the men of Sodom as, not seeking simple dominance over foreigners, but instead seeking dominance over angels. After all, the Genesis story does indicate that the three visitors were angels, although Lot and the men of Sodom do not seem to recognize that fact in the story itself. From Jude's perspective, however, the men of Sodom were actually attempting to declare themselves dominant over the Divine, an act of incredible hubris.

Mr. Goldstein, if you would like to make a case against same-sex marriage on Scriptural or other grounds, do so! But this game of verbally disparaging the issue ain't going to cut it.

That's the usual tactics Cliff uses: hop in and lay on a lot of distorted texts and then run away. Not interested in discussing the true issues, but a few sound bytes thrown out to distract. The desire to always have the last word.

RDS, a common fallacy, evident above, (beyond assuming what a person thinks) is to compare two things without establishing how they are related. But since you've left that open.

The state calling LGBT legal partnerships called the same thing as straight legal partnerships = more human freedom

The state telling thousands of religious traditions what day of the week they can gather = less human freedom.

Also, you miss the point. No one here is arguing against the state providing parameters for resting from work, i.e., weekends, work week hours, etc. The point is the state determining holy days, not holidays.

When visiting this site, please join most of us in a more dispassionate, fair-minded discourse. The first key is to put in the work to understand what people are talking about.

Here all is a great mini essay that shows some of our Adventist roots in Anabaptist opposition to state religion.

http://www.covenantnews.com/daveblack051110.htm

Cliff
I agree with Jared Wright. You debate with your elbows and you generate bitterness by resorting to taunting language. This is the method used by the wingnuts on AM radio, who have done their best to poison American politics, not by their arguments, but by taunting and abusing and libeling their opponents.

Most people on this forum disagree with you, but I don't think any of them think the less of you for that reason. It would be nice if you could return the favor. Your arguments need to be heard.

Appreciate the logic and research there, Jared.

What seems to lie behind some of the opposition to equal marriage rights is the fear that this will undermine the authority of the Bible. But history and understanding the language, all important hermeneutical tools, actually help us redeem God's Word from human tradition.

But anyway, there are lots of fun ideas on this post, let's give some more of them some discussion. I intentionally left same-gender marriage off the list, as it is getting plenty of discussion here.

I see that pathfinders with an ecological focus was added to the list. I think that just the concept of pathfinders does seem to be making a comeback of sorts, but my field of view may be too limited to be accurate. I think it is interesting while other churches are attempting to create "rite of passage" programs and the like, Adventism has had within itself such a program for very many years...

Chapel Records hiring a DJ to remix the King's Heralds...is this for real?

And on the issue of Blogging...it is truly difficult to blog by onesself. I pray that more folks will come in to post regularly....Just don't use the Adventist name...and thus we get to the trademark issue...

On issues that have outlived their usefulness...Does anyone ingather anymore? Don't folks just simply pay it out of their pocket? I am not sure it has outlived its usefulness though. to raise money to do work in the world could be something that we should revive...

on the issue of no more segregated conferences...how about no more local conferences and unify them all into the union conferences?

If one throws out the Mark of the Beast then one is really suggesting a total rethinking of Rev. 14. To which I strongly agree. Tom

What Adventists along with all Christians should consider are the three most important prayers in Scripture:

John 17: The affirmation of the Covenant of Redemption.

Luke 23:34 The Grace of Jesus

Luke 23: 46 Mission Accomplished.

Tom

RDS,

As you know, I agree with many of your positions but I would see this comment of yours a little differently.

"Why is the declaration of one day in seven resting, by the State so diabolical."

If it is not a day obviously associated with a particular religious tradition and of their/the state selection...fine.

So if "we" hypotheticaly are going to have a rest day "by law" lets see about a midweek Wed.day of rest and see how that flies. Don't think anyone rests on that day out of tradition. It is always an advantage to some and disadvantage to others when one has the old style "blue laws."

regards,

pat

Alex, if you think that I think the Iraq war is an evangelistic effort for Christianity, you are "smokin'somethin'". Your reference was interesting but some believe it is secular issues such as the economy that will force a "day off". We are far from that with our relationship with Israel, the best Sabbathkeepers around.

As far as you lecture to me:

"join most of us in a more dispassionate, fair-minded discourse."

I don't consider your special project on Homosexual marriage to be "dispassionate or fair-minded". Sorry you think so.

Jared, what do you need for sexual overtones, when Lot offers his two daughters to the neighbors instead of the visitors. Tell me how you interpret that as non-sexual, but just wanting to be "socialiable".

Jared, esq., note this text:

"Gen 19:5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." "

How much planner do you need it. Can I ask a personal question of you and Alex, what is your interest in the Homosexual issue all about. What is gained by your positions? Most wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole unless it is about Religious Liberty and protecting the church against lawsuites.

Pat, choosing Wednesday as a secular day off is an interesting suggestion, but would be too disruptive to commerce, given that the weekend already exists as a time of secular and religious rest.

Alex, wants to separate marriage and gay marriage in a similar way. Not sure of his motives, only he knows.

RDS,

I'm not an esq. I have made my points, you've made yours. Let's shake hands and move on, shall we?

(And so saying, I extend my hand)

-Jared

Hey Pat,

I identify with your comment about the variety of schooling you received.

I had more than one religion prof at Andrews who, while free from the heresy you got at RTS (just kidding : ), definitely could have benefited from the intellectual exercise in exploring Adventist ideas in other theological contexts.

Sorry Jared, got you mixed up with Jason A. Hines, Esq., although the same points seem to be agreed on. Your gesture is accepted. Hopefully the topics chosen will be a little more appropo in the future.

The Book of Revelation tells us the following:
1. He Lives.
2. He Reigns.
3. He Cares.
4. He is Coming Again.

The Three Angels of Rev. 14 were not put in there for Seventh-day Adventists alone. Let us reason together:

Revisiting The Three Angels Messages
Revelation 14: 6-10

Rev. 14: 6And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. 8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. 9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. KJV

1. Verse 6 tells us that the Everlasting Gospel exists. It existed before time “The Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth.” The Christ Event is now history. It is also presently Good News that salvation is offered to all those who dwell on the earth.

2. Verse 7 tells us that the Good News of Christ's victory over sin and death brings each one to the critical moment of decision or judgment. Is God who is says He is, or is God who the Devil says He is? The critical hour, the moment to decide for the good or evil side is now man's. The rest of the universe has come to consensus that God is Just and the Justifier of those who believe. The judgment addressed in Revelation 14 is the verdict of the outcome of the contest between Christ and Satan (The Great Controversy) was decided at Calvary. Now it is time for every rational creator to decide for or against Jesus Christ as the winner in that contest. The hour of His Judgment is come—now is the moment to decide for the good or evil side!

The point is simply: one cannot hear the Gospel—the full story of the Christ event without having to make a choice, a decision, a judgment. Is the Christ event "true" history? Was that event necessary? Was that event sufficient? That is, was the event sufficient not only to settle the Great Controversy but to settle my personal redemption?

3. Verse 7 goes on to declare that a decision in favor of God compels adoration, love, gratitude, and worship.

4. Verse 8 tells us that when Christ cried out: "It is finished" Babylon fell! The prince of this world had been unmasked and dethroned. His claim to and his hold on the earth has been broken.

5. Verse 9-10 tells us that to give support, honor, obeisance, allegiance, and/or worship to the adversary of Heaven is to share in his fate: be that support physical or intellectual, the fate is the same: symbolized by a “mark” in the forehead or in the hand indicating intellectual consent and/or material aid.

7. Therefore, the message of the Three Angels of Revelation 14 is a validation of AD 33 rather than some future date derived from complex numerology of Old Testament Apocalyptic literature.

8. Thus, Revelation 14:6-10 is not a proprietary Scripture, but an open invitation and assurance to any and all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Thus the Investigative Judgment was built upon enthusiasm without proper exegesis and is sustained by a futuristic eisegesis by a few zealots unwilling to admit an error.

Even so Come Lord Jesus—

Praise be to God! He has made plain the way. We as His witnesses, man, woman, and child should be proclaiming with the Angels of Revelation 14 the finished work of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Master. When the judgment comes to your name and mine what will we say? What can we say except: “Jesus Christ is Lord, Master, and Savior” “Our hope is built on nothing less the His blood and Righteousness.”

Our task is to bring honor to the Lord of the Sabbath—the Author and Finisher of our faith. We are not time keepers we are Gospel speakers. Above the exit doors to the Emmanuel Missionary College Chapel were the words: “The Gospel into all the World in this Generation”. I am now 83 I haven’t done a good job. You by, education and appointment, are placed to make it happen. May God give you that level of courage. Tom

Aage--

In many ways, though, how can we aruge when we are working from totally different presuppositions? I write an article in the Review on what would seem a reasonable interpretation of some texts in Numbers, and I get skewered, not so much for my interpretation, but for actually thinking the texts mean what they say, for assuming the texts belong in the Bible to begin with and should be taken at face value. Despite what you posted before, I was taken totally by surprise by the hostility.

You know, as I said in another thread, I am alientated from the conservative wing of the church over the gospel mostly. Otherwise I am pretty much with them on the doctrines, prophecy, and so forth, though many of them have I think a kind of sclerotic approach to The Spirit of Prophecy,for sure. But otherwise I am with them in most things.

I get on here and I am, I admit, rather stunned at to how far out in left field many of the folks are here. I really, in my naivete, didn't think we had SDAs, or professed SDAs, this far out in what seems to me to be La La Land. I mean, who doesn't know that the Spectummies are out in left field; I just didn't have any idea, really, how far in left field they are. I'm not judging anyone's heart, soul, salvation, or the like; please, I got enough of my own baggage to be judging others (just ask the folks who know me at the GC). But the teachings that are presented on here really do astound me; astound me because they are coming from professed SDAs, at least some of them. I know you left long ago (are you going to church anywhere?), and Elaine . . . ? Well, I presume she's a theist (though maybe I'm being presumtuous here too).

It's all kind of fascinating to me, really, to watch what happens when folks, at least it seems to me, have detached themselves from any sort of Archameadean starting point, some sort of cogito-ergo-sum moment, and just float around in the mindscape of ideas without what seems to be any absolute foundation other than what happens to be du jour.

Again, I'm not judging hearts and I appreciate the generally kind tone to me (wish I had it in me to always reciprocate it, but sometimes I violate my cardinal rule of "Don't-post-ticked"). How can a Frenchman and Chinaman argue when they don't speak each other's language?

Cliff

RDS,

The idea of hypothetical Wed. in the hypothetical "day of rest" was simply to show how particular religious interest can get caught up in politics and politicians are more than ready to accomodate if it is temporarily to their advantage.

Actually, I wouldn't have anything against a 1 day out of seven rest day as long as no individual or business was prevented from choosing their workday and restday. That's not the way the old "blue laws" worked however.

regards & shalom,

pat

We love you Cliff!
We were even fond of you when you were still "Clifford"

And yes, we do understand how everyone comes to position honestly, and within the background scenery provided by their own journey.
I guess there are two issues:
* integrity - and we should accept that in others, and expect them to accept it in us.
* reasoned discussion - not necessarily passionate, but making sense, considering the "revelation" we have.

No one takes a position without knowing the possiblity of having to defend it. You edit the pamphlet, and that has its costs. We discuss the issues here, and in Sabbath School. That too has its costs.

Thank God for Grace!

Tom,

Excellent points... Points I consider correct.

Regards,

pat

Expensive day or boarding academies, isolating students in a still "cocoon-like" environment delays the full maturation for a future of living in the world.
=============================================================

That is pretty revolutionary:

http://www.choate.edu/

http://www.etoncollege.com/

http://www.deerfield.edu/

http://www.rosey.ch/

Boarding schools are alive and well, and in high demand. We have not even begun to scratch the surface, but I did not want the post to be flagged what with all the links.
There is nothing wrong with church schools with a boarding component.
There are many, many, many people who would benefit from this, so much so, that I am beginning to wonder whether or not you think everybody is "like you" (prosperous and from an educated background most likely).
Some people live in home and neighborhood environments that are toxic, toxic and have little chance for a proper education.
If anything we need more scholarships--not less boarding schools.

The schools also need to be single-sex (but I know Americans have a problem with that one!).

Cliff,

It is fascinating and educational to see and hear the ideas put forth in a blog discussion. The first time someone takes a position different from ours, we really notice it, and can be offended by it, but as we hear their story and ideas repeated, they become more familiar. Knowing something about them helps in understanding them and their opinions. In other words, they become a friendly voice and their ideas less threatening.

You began and ended with the impossibility of arguing when different languages are spoken.
And isn't that really great. Arguing may not be necessary. We can just nod and smile and be gracious while mumbling that great phrase that Fritz Guy attributes to Paul Tillich--we need God's grace just as much for what we believe as for how we behave.

Anyway, thanks for being part of the conversation, and making it lively.

The "mark of the beast" seems to mean a lot of different things to different people. If you read the original Adventist books on this subject (The Great Controversy, for example), it seems that they really do not attack the Catholic Church, despite the contemporary popularity of anti-papal views, but instead have the Protestants in their sights. The anti-papal material is intended to document what was widely agreed by all Protestants. (After all, what were they protesting to be named Protestants?) The point about Sunday is that in the late 19th century the Protestants in America were on the one hand campaigning to stop immigration from Catholic countries out of fear of "popish" political manipulation, and on the other hand seeking to pass a law that would establish Sunday as the official Sabbath of Christian America. It was this hypocrisy that Ellen White and others were targeting. It cuts the moral ground out from under all the righteous pretensions of the Christian activists of the time; that's the point.

The "mark of the beast" was seen as the moral fingerprints of the ill-begotten Christian political movement that wanted to force their religious observance on everyone. Why is it the "mark" of "the beast"? Because it is enormously corrupt to force people to enter into worship that they do not freely choose. It is a kind of spiritual rape. If Adventists became the dominate political power in a country, or aspired to it, they might be tempted to engage in the same evil.

Constantine is the key actor in this concept because he was the emporer of Rome who gave Christendom its first taste of real political power. Sunday is symbolic because the papacy officially claims that it is the result of its authority to establish doctrine in the name of Christ. Official Catholic theology agrees that there is no hint in the New Testament that Christ in any way intended or authorized a change in the Sabbath, and states clearly that the decision was the result of the bishops exercising their theological authority.

Although scholars have not figured out all the details, it is clear that this issue is rooted in the split between Jewish and Gentile believers. This did not happen overnight. There is as much time between the events recorded in Acts and the reign of Constantine as the entire history of the United States. Lots of organizational evolution occurred in those centuries. There are fragmentary records of what may be Jewish Christians after 70 CE, but clearly the Jewish people were crushed by the harsh measures surrounding the Jewish wars and the first major moral failure of Christendom was to rush to renounce its Jewish roots and do all it could to avoid being accused of being "Jewish." It did not identify itself with the persecuted as Christ clearly taught His followers to do. It invented all kinds of ways to differentiate itself. We can have some sympathy for the Gentile Christians who were persecuted for simply being Christian, but does not change the essential evil of the political positioning they took.

These seeds matured into a full-blown weed of enormous proportions. Read some of the books by Catholic historians documenting the long, bloody history of Christian persecution of Jews. No stone is left unturned; no act is too brutal or too evil for Christians to engage in against Jews. That is the history of at least 1,800 years. To this very day, many sincere Christians declare that observing the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday is wrong because it is "Jewish." Anti-semitism is so deeply woven into the fabric of Christendom that good people are blind to their own language. Why is something wrong simply because it is Jewish? Many translations of the New Testament read this anti-semitism back into the text in a way that "spins" the issues in Acts 15, etc. This is the very reason why many secular people today reject Christianity entirely. How can something with such an obvious moral blight across its face be respected as an authentic answer to humanity's deepest moral and spiritual yearnings?

The history of Christian anti-semitism, the "mark of the beast," the aspirations for political power, and the changing of the Sabbath are all about something gone terribly wrong with the Jesus movement. If you really care about the Jesus of the gospels and His Good News, then you must take a stand against this evil! That is what Adventists have been trying to say. And others; remember, we learned this from a Baptist lady; it all started in the Radical Reformation. We too often get side-tracked with our own irrelevant issues and end up behaving in "beastly" ways, but that does not do away with the fundamental moral problem that eats the heart out of Christian spiritual authenticity. To be really Christian, we must root out all of the anti-semitism accreted over the centuries, confess all the evil done and embrace our Jewish roots. Jesus was a Jew! Paul was a Rabbi! Happy Sabbath!!

Pat, you want conditions, not unlike those for or against same sex marriage. We're for it if we can call it "civil partnerships"; we're for it if we can choose which day. No absolutes anymore is there, just what individuals want to feel good, eh?

Monte, the 2nd Covenant is based on the Jews disbelief in Jesus as the Messiah, in fact actually killing him. Is that antisemitic? Nice to have a label for the truth, that casts aspersion on those that know the truth, eh?

I did not want to comment on the list; although I saw it as a useful list of the general set of beliefs that are deemed "acceptable today" in liberal SDA circles.

I just think that maybe Spectrum and Spectrum-like circles have been talking to themselves for so long, that they have completely forgotten what normative Adventism is.

I too had the same reaction (as Mr. Goldstein) to things blithely printed without a thought as to exactly what it is was actually being proposed (although I think it came across worse because of the list format).

Indeed, what is Adventism?

The Mark of the Beast (and Sabbath issues surrounding the end times) are pretty much standard bedrock SDA beliefs that serve to delineate who we are (which I think is the "problem" people have with it).
This is basic theology for well nigh the "98%" Mr. Goldstein alludes to.
(Which makes me wonder about your yearning for a President from the "2/3rds world". Spectrum would almost certainly mourn that development.)
Mind you, Sunday worship, in church theology is not now the Mark of the Beast, but will be shortly when God and the enemy start marking their respective disciples near the end of time.

What I also did not understand was the "No literal hell" comment. Do SDAs not believe in a future literal hell?

I think the real issue here is that many liberal SDAs are uncomfortable with the idea of being different to other Christians; and thus are embarrassed about any beliefs that they cannot find validation for with other Christians (or with popular, accepted secular humanists--especially cutting-edge ones).

(It would be interesting to see Spectrum analyze other denominations in the same way, starting with Unitarian Universalists and the United Church of Christ.)

This I think is a dangerous trend.
Is religion and the truth subject to peer review?
Is what everybody else is doing "right" simply because "there is safety in numbers"?
Are there any beliefs that liberal SDAs are proud that the church holds (or proud that they hold) which are not held by anyone else, and of which they are proud?
What is the criteria for an acceptable belief? Who gets to vet our beliefs?
Should we abandon any belief that makes others uncomfortable?
Should we develop beliefs by polling (Clinton-style)?

--Anonymous@11

P.S. Mr. Goldstein may have come to this conclusion as well, but I think that the reason people seem to pile on him so vehemently in here, is that he is seen as "The Church" to people with a gripe/grievance of any sort; which is a terrible, terrible position to be in I suppose.

RDS

As far as I knew, Adventist Theology has it that Jesus died as a result of the sin of the world. Furthermore, the Romans crucified Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus certainly said and did enough things considered death-worthy under the system of the day that, from a purely legal standpoint, the death penalty was merited. At the very most, a small subset of Jews are guilty of being over-zealous to uphold the law and/or prevent another bloody Roman crack-down by (understandably) paranoid governors.

Maybe.

Sounds nice to me, anyway.

Niemand, how soon we forget the story, who chose to have Belzebub released instead of Christ? Who chanted crucify him, cucify him. All men are guilty of Jesus death, but the Jews had a more definite role. That's not antisemitic, but fact.

I am no great fan of Cliff, but he has an excellent mind, a worthy pen, and a zeal for his cause. The problem is, don't try to counter-punch, he has a very wicked left hook. Tom

RDS,

Sorry but you seem to be getting bent out of shape over hypotheticals and I am not sure what you are saying in regards to my comment. Can you enlighten me? of all people on this site I have pressed for the absolute of scripture.

"Pat, you want conditions, not unlike those for or against same sex marriage. We're for it if we can call it "civil partnerships"; we're for it if we can choose which day. No absolutes anymore is there, just what individuals want to feel good, eh?"

The issue is that "congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion" for me. If the day were "hypothetically" sunday it would take an deluded individual not to see it's preferential nature.

regards,

pat

PS. Enough of hypotheticals...how about dealing with it if it happens.

Pat, the economies that can be gained to the economy when a forced rest day is put forward, are lost when diluted over the week. So, your desire for everyone to do what they want, probably won't happen. The slippery slope of Gay marriage can very easily get into issues like this. That is why the angst about the Gay Marriage issue. In order to support it, you have to toss out scripture that is significant to many. Spectrum's position, ignoring Scripture is a puzzle to me as you can see it is to Cliff, as close an official of the GC as you will get to react on this site.

I have gay friends that are nice, that isn't the issue. Salvation is. Being able to talk and listen to them civilly isn't the issue, Salvation is. At least on Spectrum, IMO.

RDS,

Why would it be a violation of "economy" if an employer such as Little Debbie chose to close on Saturday rather than Sunday? Or vice versa.if one is closed one day.

You would have inconveniences to employees in both situations perhaps but not "economies." Again if it happens we'll discuss it. OK?

regards,

pat

PS. This has nothing to do with gay marriage which I disagree with.

Pat

Thanks you for your encouraging comments. Tom

Please, please, I do NOT speak for the church, or especially the General Conference on here! Egads, they'd fry me alive if they thought I was making myself some sort of offical spokesperson for the brethren. I think they like me and all that, but the leaders in Silver Spring wouldn't want me as an offical spokesman for the church. Trust me on that one, for sure! I mean, they at least need someone who combs his hair.

Has anyone tried to put "Sunday worship as the Mark of the Beast" together with Romans 14:5,6? "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord...."

Bonnie-

Fritz Guy quoting Paul Tillich . . . (and folks wonder why I think this site is slightly to the left of Leon Trotsky).

Cliff

And I thought it was that step stool you sat on that gave the brethren second thoughts. Maybe when you get as old as I am, hair won't be a problem. Sure makes swimming easier. Tom

Here is a thought, instead of commenting, "Why would anyone who believed that want to be a Seventh-day Adventist? Why not say, If I believed that I would find it difficult to call myself a Seventh-day Adventist based on----? Tom

Pat, on your question of accomodation if a forced rest day were purposed, everyone that works would need transportation, so then all or select gas stations would have to be open. You start losing the benefit the government might see. We are speaking hypothetical aren't we?

Personally, Don's question just posed is the one I like to discuss along with Col 2: 16, 17:

"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."

and

Heb 4:7Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, ...

Prof. Rhoads

Interesting idea. I like it, but I think the brethren would argue that Paul is referring to feast days, or whatever.

I still like it.

RDS:

I've never heard Bar Abba called Ba'al zebub before. And I submit that the parties you seem to hold responsible represent only a minute subset of the Jewish population and/or nation. Again, I was always taught that Christ died from the weight of the sins of the world. If anything, this particular subset of Jews, Romans, etc. failed to kill him. According to Christian Theology, you and I got there first.

As an Adventist I've abandoned the study of bible prophecy to understand what will happen but rather enjoy the study of what is happening. My childhood is littered with Adventist books and "revelation seminars" that indulged in wild speculation about the events that bring about the end. I do believe that biblical prophecies will happen (be fulfilled) but that the details are beyond a specific pre-understanding. Nobody named the countries in the statue in King Nebuchadnezzar's dream before they came about. Yet looking back the story strengthens our faith. As events unfold I think it will be awesome to those who study and who know him. We will be surprised and our faith in God will be greatly strengthened. I think that to get locked into a specific pre-understanding sets us up for gross deception. I also consider any additional revelation of prophecy beyond scripture only a possibility (ie. EGW). I like to focus on who God is (his character) in order to understand what his role is in earth's final events. For me knowing God is the key to knowing his works. Getting locked into a specific understanding if the future is not a part of my faith.

RDS,

One of my NT Profs at RTS said it this way. Paul was allowing Sat. for Jewish Christians or Sunday worship for gentiles or any other. Who are we to judge another man's servant. Neither view should impose.

Do you have a problem with that? I don't. Must it be Sunday for you?

pat

Signing off for tonight...are you suggesting everyone must stay home rather than travel and get gas on this hypothetical day of rest?

Don,

Please see my comment to Cliff, Posted by: pat travis | 20 June 2008 at 6:28 above.

pat

Cliff
You wonder aloud how a meaningful discussion can be had when we approach religion so differently. You write that to you it's like a Chinese and a Frenchman debating without knowing each other's language.

I don't think your metaphor is apt. We all understand each other; we just happen to disagree. And keep also in mind that quite a few of us, such as myself, only have historic ties to Adventism. The reason we take part is because we've never given up our interest in religion and the quest for truth. And if it hadn't been for this Forum, you wouldn't even have known about us. Look upon us as your mission field, if you must. And some here plainly agree with you.

And finally, nobody is persuaded by arguments. Your challenge is to tell a story that is so appealing that we might want to identify with it. It's only when people are attracted to a point of view that they begin to take a look at the arguments that support it.

Monte
I find it hard to believe that you think that the classic view of Roman Catholicism passes the smell test. For instance, would you feel comfortable sitting down with a Catholic friend and tell him what the book Great Controversy says about his church?

As I have said before, this doctrine is based on libel and not exegesis, and can safely be compared to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The Mormons in 1978 finally ditched their racist doctrine that banned black from the priesthood and relegated them to the lower echelons of the hereafter. If you could get the GC to declare Jan Paulsen a prophet, maybe that would allow the SDA church to override its 19th century prophet and rescind its libelous anti-catholic doctrines.

It's possible to disagree with the Roman Catholic Church--and most Protestant churches still do--without resorting to libel and sectarian exegesis.

I was a bitter 13 year old reeling from my parents divorce. I was being raised in and by a city that was poised to swallow me whole.

Then my mom decided to get an extra job and send my sister and I to the corn fields of Tranquility, New Jersey. The wooded trails behind the boys dorm became my backyard...and my cathedral. It was during those wonder years that I met and fell in love with the two most important people in my life...Jesus, and Kathy.

Garden Sate Academy has since closed.

Elaine, Monte and Aage:

My thanks to all of you for sketching the rise of "Constantinian Christianity" in greater detail and precision than I did. I would like to emphasize several points:

(1) The process of separataing Judaism and Christianity of which we are speaking was long, gradual, uneven and complex.

(2) This process began very, very early. Whether it began with Paul is an interesting question in view of his insistence that in Christ there is "no Jew or Greek....." But by the time we get to the Gospel of John it is clearly evident.

One of my colleagues at LLU, a Jewish Seventh-day Adventist, told me in private how hard it was for him to read the Gospel of John. He winced every time he read "the Jews....."

(3) Anti-Judaism has been Christianity's lasting tendency and sadistic pathology. One reason my respect for Martin Luther is very measured is that his remarks about the Jews were unbelievably ugly. The man was frequently foul-mouthed; but what he said about the Jews was much, much more than that.

(4) "Constantinianism" is frequently used today not merely in reference to the deeds of Constantine himself but to all attempts to use the coercive power of the state to enforce religious observances right down to the present time. I think that James Dobson is a contemporary "Constantinian Christian," for example.

If Elaine and I see things differently, it may be at that I think Constantine both recognized and enforced Christianity throughout the empire. I think I put more emphasis upon how he enforced it.

(5) To me, in addition to everything else, celebrating Sabbath when the Jews do is a political protest. It is one way of saying that we are "with" them and "against" all religious tyranny.

Yes, the "restness" of the Sabbath can occur any day of the week; however, the "sabbathness" of the Sabbath can occur only when the Jews celebrate it.

There is nothing wrong with going to church on Sunday or any other day of the week. There is something right about openly asserting the Jewishness of true Christianity.

Aage: Isn't Monte just telling the story as many Roman Catholics do?

Thank you!

Dave

Aage
"I find it hard to believe that you think that the classic view of Roman Catholicism passes the smell test. For instance, would you feel comfortable sitting down with a Catholic friend and tell him what the book Great Controversy says about his church?"

I have. We have had a number of Catholics join our church.

Catholics are not unaware of their churches history. It seems strange here that people with a viewpoint such as yours will question God as to his worthiness to be worshipped because of what they percieve as vindictive and genocidal harshness, but seem to give the Catholics a pass on religious crimes thousands of years more recent and easier to verify.

The Catholics I have dealt with are very cultural. If you think Adventism has non active members you would be amazed at Catholics.
From what I have been told by those converting, they valued The high church aspect. They appreciated the ritual, symbolism and that they didnt have to know anything. Just do what the priest says and your good for heaven.
The ones comming into the church have had questions the priests have no satifactory answers to.
At some point the realize the inconguities of papal decrees.
We had a bunch come into the church when the pope changed the churches position from classic creation to "God caused the spark of life and then evolution took over.
The big influx of Spanish Catholics comming into the USA church's have been a factor too.
We had 2-3 events where highway crews replaced road signs and shortly there after some Mexicans driving by saw the virgin mary in the oil residue on the sign. Before long they were causing a hazard on the side of the highway. The local American Catholics thought this type of thing to be rather superstisous.

It has happened enough that at the first mention of a virgin mary sighting, the state or any buisness that has something show up immediately gives it to the local Catholic church. They are really into relics. Now they have quite a nice collection of road signs, plate glass windows, tree trunks and other smaller items.

To more and more Catholics the great contraversy is nothing more than the protestant reformation retold and they are already quite aware of things like the inquisition, crusades, papal and other lower officals historical corruption and for many the priest sex scandles are the last straw.

Angelo--my husband's experience is much like yours, attending a long since closed academy in Michigan after his parents' divorce.

There are many factors in why people aren't sending their kids to academies. When I was directly involved in boarding academies, we saw more and more that many of them were becoming a "dumping ground" for kids whose parents couldn't control them or didn't want to deal with them anymore, or a school of "last resort" for those who had been expelled from other schools for drugs or whatever. I have nothing but respect for the dedicated academy teachers I know. They often get some of the hardest students to teach PLUS get dumped on by the people "outside" who say, Wow, Look at XYZ academy and what their kids have done--I sure wouldn't send MY kid there. Whisper, whisper. So then they don't, and instead of having a smaller proportion of the kids who are "trouble" kids, it becomes a larger proportion until it is more of a "reform" school.

I'm not saying this isn't needed. But I am saying that many parents choose not to send their kids to what they perceive as a school for troubled kids.

Many of my peers (late 30s-early 40s) who have kids getting nearer to academy / high school age are very reluctant to send their kids away to academy. For some, they had bad experiences in boarding academy and don't want their kids to as well. For others, they've worked in academies and don't want their kids there. Some send their kids to a high school. Some home school. Some move closer to a day academy. Some send their kids to non-denominational Christian schools locally. My point is, the automatic reaction is no longer to send kids away to school. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it just IS. Which is why I made some of the comments I did earlier. We want to bury our heads in the sand and bemoan the fact that fewer and fewer kids are in boarding academies. We should rather address the facts and try to have some kind of support network for those who aren't.

There has been adequate research to show that kids who go to boarding academies do not learn decision making skills at the same rate they would if they were in a "normal" school. (I don't know if it's been published, but I know that there have been ongoing studies of boarding academy students.) Again, not making a value judgment.

M

Tom - loved the pun ("left hook")!

On another front, as far as the "gay marriage" issue goes, I wonder why Christians are so worried about it. No one is forcing them to accept it if it violates their theological beliefs. As I see it, it's a matter of fairness and justice and is a secular issue as far as the state is concerned.

In my country (U.S.A.) the government is supposed to be religiously neutral, thus, if the arguments against gay marriage are religious ones (as they certainly appear to be based on the arguments given by those who oppose such nuptials), they have no bearing on laws concerning marriage, etc.

Frankly, when I hear such folks as James Dobson, et. al., decrying that legalizing gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage, I have to wonder how secure they are in their own sexuality! It's as if they believe that the existence of gay marriage will suddenly cause all the straights to become gay!

I fail to see how the wedding of two gays or lesbians will negatively impact my marriage of nearly 38 years!

Dave and Michael
Maybe I should clarify that when I object to the SDA view of the Roman Catholic Church and compare it to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I'm not principally talking about the past. I agree with you that the Catholic church committed terrible crimes. (As did the Protestants, albeit on a smaller scale.) What I'm talking about is how SDAs have made the Catholic church an integral part of Satan's masterplan to take over this world. That's where the Protocols comparison comes in. It imputes to the Vatical a motivation that is unfalsifiable. No matter who the Pope is, no matter what the RCC does, to many Adventists it will always be seen as part of a Satanic deception.

Adventists grew up thinking that it was the Bible that identified the Roman Catholic Church as the Great Harlot of the apocalyptic end-game. To me this has little to do with exegesis. It is simply 19th century Protestant paranoia recycled as religious dogma (obviously with roots in the Reformation).

I, too, do not believe we will live to regret praise music. God forbid that we should ever regret praise divinely-directed praise!

I enjoy many of the traditional hymns (which, by the way, were scorned when first introduced because they were seen as replacing the sacred Psalms). However, few of them are directed to God. Most of them are about God and/or our relationship with God (even some of the praise music falls in to this category, unfortunately).

I bless those who have written music that allows me to sing my praises directly to God, and with others, I often do some re-wording to change the lyrics so they no longer speak about God, but can be sung directly to God.

David: "One of my colleagues at LLU, a Jewish Seventh-day Adventist, told me in private how hard it was for him to read the Gospel of John. He winced every time he read "the Jews.....""

I too had a experience at an international conference on religious freedom. An overenthusiastic lady came over to "witness" to the Jewish representative who was sitting next to me, and handed him a tract. He looked at it and then passed it to me. It was supposedly God speaking directly in the first person to the reader, and calling on Jews to repent and accept Christ "my son" etc. His comment to me: "Don't you find this blasphemous?" --in that here were Christians putting their ideas into God's mouth. I too winced--at both the woman's approach and the tract.

One idea whose time should have surely come a long time ago is courtesy and tact, love and friendship in our communications with others, especially those not of our faith. How can you antagonize and persuade at the same time? as the saying goes. It's our job to speak well of God--and yet all too often we do the exact opposite and lead people to turn away from the distorted picture of God we present.

Sadly, Jonathan

Gary, you and your Jewish friend may be offended by this but...:

Deuteronomy 28:64:

Moses, writing ca. 1400 B.C., predicts the scattering of the Jews “from one end of the earth to the other.” This was fulfilled 721 BC when the Northern Kingdom of Israel was captured by the Assyrians, in 586 BC when the Southern Kingdom of Judea was conquered by the Babylonians, and in 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. And to this day, there are still Jews who are scattered “among all peoples.”

http://www.dtl.org/bible/article/prophetic.htm

However, the Jewish people collectively are no longer God's chosen people collectively. They have to be saved like every other individual. Call it antisemitic if you wish, but its a fact that they did not accept the Messiah, hence, the 2nd Covenant.

Hebrews 8:7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people ....

Correction
I wrote above: "I agree with you that the Catholic church committed terrible crimes. (As did the Protestants, albeit on a smaller scale.)"

Having had a chance to reflect on my own statement, I would like to amend it. When we blame the Inquisition and other horrors before the Reformation on the Roman Catholic Church, we indulge in gross anachronism. Whatever crimes were committed by the Western Church prior to the Reformation were committed by both "Catholics" and "Protestants" jointly. Only after the Reformation is it possible to assign blame to Protestants and Catholics, since it was the Reformation that created these two groups.

And when we look at the record from the 16th century onward, I don't know that we can really say that one was worse than the other.

Agreed, Aage. There was only ONE Christian church until the Reformation; no matter what SDA writers and others might like to believe, there existed only one church then.

As for antisemitism, the church originated it; look only at the NT writers to see how it was introduced.

The "predictions" attributed to Moses, was written AFTER the events occurred, ca 600 B.C. Describing past events as "predictions" was a common tactic: Other writers, e.g., Daniel, wrote long after the happenings and were descriptions and not prophetic. And assuredly, the Creation story was not written when it occurred but several millennia later. David Elliott Friedman is one of the foremost authorities on the Bible's authors, from which this information is found. There is no evidence that any of the Bible was written earlier than 1000 B.C., and most was written around the time of the Babylonian Exile and afterward.

mom2twoboys and others,

I had good experience with adventist academy and as an adult I recognize it for what it is. I enjoyed some aspects of it and overcame others. My own children have attended various elementary schools in our small town including Adventist church school, home school, public school and charter school. Also we have some public high school in the mix. Some of our adventist friends even tried out the local Catholic school with good results. Each has it's own specific strengths and weaknesses. All our children made heir own choice at some point to attend and complete (still in process) high school at an Adventist boarding School. The boarding school stage turned out great because we viewed it as an experience in Adventist culture and christian friend building. It was not an academic decision. We were happy that they continued to filter and question what they saw there while still enjoying the things that make boarding academies great. Adventist Academies are lower in opportunities for academic learning when compared with all the public options we had. We raised our children differently than we saw others doing it. We openly questioned much of what we saw within and without the church and taught our children to do the same. At the same time we pointed out the things we liked about the church, and valued the people there we identified with and had grown to love. We had to pull our children out of sabbath school starting at the primary level because they were being exposed to the same guilting nonsense "brainwashing" and cultural conditioning that we went through. We had to pull them out of church schools sometimes too. They skipped forward to youth and kept their thinking minds in an age group where it is finally possible and encouraged.

We found the boarding academy was composed of some interesting demographics. There were a few students from families like ours who valued academy for what is was, warts and all. There were kids from a growing minority that thought that academy, when they were there, was the greatest thing ever and the only option for their students. These are those who wish to keep it the same for either the "preservation of standards" or sometimes simply romantic reasons -- "the good old days." There were children from first or second generation americans of hispanic origin that never afforded it when they were in school, but were sending their students out of desperation to preserve the adventist conservative ethnic subcultures that are being threatened. There were students also there who's parent were relying on the school to somehow exert some control to prevent self-destruction. Those students who got by without getting booted out for alcohol, pregnancy, drug abuse or who did not mature through other processes often "went wild" the day they escaped. There were also non-adventist asians whose parents sent them to get a dose of english language and american culture in a controlled environment-not a particularly accurate dose of the culture I might add. This diversity of adventism was a wonderful place for my children to start to understand how adventists work, to develop some new friendships, further develop their beliefs, and find out that the church is more diverse than our small town.

Academies are great. Let's keep them. Let's figure out how they can appeal to and be valued by a greater diversity of the church.

SEEMINGLY HORRIFYING IDEAS THAT COULD HAVE POTENTIAL: An Adventist blogosphere

Here's a community I'm creating on the topic of evangelism.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Saltworks

One sub reddit is probably enough to keep me busy--any one else out there willing to start one on a more general Adventist topic?

Alex, this list is great and a great idea.

I totally support the "More congregational control over property and money" idea. In Spain we are having a big issue with our Publishing House which used to be very profitable and in the last 5 years has lost a lot of money and now seems to have a big debt, according to sources familiar with the matter. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, because the same sources say that Adventist Risk Managment, Spanish Union Administrators, trial, theft and nepotism are all words that would appear in the whole story. Transparency would make much more difficult these type of things to happen.

I would like to go far afield, and speak to Cliff Goldstein's last editorial piece in he Review. I loved his Carl Sagan's billions and billions! I have been told by chemists that if one were to take an 8 oz glass of water and color each molecule red and then pour the water into a near by stream and if time should allow the mix to be equally spread throughout all water, ice and all, and then one were to take up 8 oz of water, one would find at least one red molecule of water in that glass.

Just think of the impossibility of getting everyone's molecules back together--I don't think so. What Christ did shortly prior to His own death was to taken the decaying flesh of Lazarus and make it whole again and breathed into him the breath of life. A sign both of Christ's own death and resurrection but of his power to taken dirt once again and make a whole person. I like Cliff's assurance and his story telling. The most amazing thing is that of all the billions and billions of stars, Jesus Christ calls me by my first name. I just read through our Chruch directory of 340 souls and could recognized only 30% or less: the good, the bad, and the ugly. The rest seemed just to fade into the stoneworks.

Cliff, I'm with you, amazing power but even more so amzing Grace. I'm glad we car agree on the most elemental issues of the Christian life. Tom

Wow. I am left speechless by these postings. Things that have outlived their usefulness -- 3ABN and evangelism? Things that have led me and many others to salvation -- 3ABN and evangelism. For what does the Spectrum circle propose to offer God? Certainly not the search and rescue of my eternity. Thank you 3ABN and evangelists. I am so grateful.

With eyes wide open I marvel at the "debate" in the Adventist Church. No Sunday church offers so much "diversity." Most Sunday keepers are very content to take their disagreements and start a new denomination. With so much kick in Adventism, I get the clue that something must be valuable or threatening. As Norman Vincent Peale (I forget the spelling) said, "No one kicks dead dogs."

JoAnn,
I appreciate your honest evaluation but may I offer why "Sunday keepers" forming new denominations also makes sense.

I went to a PCA seminary. They explained quite well to my understanding how theological liberalism undermines the authority and message of the Bible and why they separated from the PCUSA.

They felt the need to create a denomination to uphold the integrity of the inspiration of scripture and it as final authority for faith and practice for our life. To make peace with the devil is no peace they contend.

If Adventism is simply a "cultural idea" then all ideas and views are open to maintain the "Adventist culture" and welcome all to the table. If however, Adventism represents a biblical idea of what Christianity is based on scripture alone then we have a dilemma and parameters to what is accepted as truth.

Christianity is Christ and Scripture alone presents to us the true Christ. All else may tickle our ears but it ends in loss.

regards,

pat

PS. If I may be straight forward, in my view we have this problem in Adventism. We have "conservative" SDA's who want to impose EGW on scripture as authority and "liberals" who want to undermine the authority of scripture by "cultural Adventism." Both are lacking.

Regarding Aage's and Elaine's comments regarding there being only one thing before the Reformation, I would suggest that history does not bear that out. For example, a split took place between the Orthodox Church and Roman Ca