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 Catholicism in the Great Schism of 1054, which was several centuries before the Reformation began in earnest. Furthermore, the Albigensian Crusade (1220-1229) in southern France was instituted by the Roman Catholic Church against the Cathars. While the Cathars would hardly be considered orthodox, they certainly were not pagans. Not everyone who took the name of Christian or professed Christian beliefs before the Reformation was a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

As for Aage's statement that "when we look at the record from the 16th century onward, I don't know that we can really say that one [Catholicism or Protestantism] was worse than the other" perhaps needs another look. Let's just take the 20th century, a recent period of time. Some of the most horrific concentration camps during WWII were run by Franciscan priests in Croatia, in which hundreds of thousands of Eastern Orthodox, Jews, and Roma were murdered. In fact, the goal of the fascist state of Croatia (1941-45), with the support of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, was to wipe out or convert the Orthodox. When Croatia became a nation again in 1991, the religious purges began again under the new government (cf. the "Trail of Tears," with hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Serbs fleeing for their lives from neo-fascist Croatia, and hundreds of those left behind slaughtered in cold blood). The recent history is truly horrifying. Of course, since the United States took the side of Croatia during this war in the 90s, we heard little of this in our news. One could also talk about 20th century persecution (or vocal support of forced conversions) on a large scale by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in such countries as Abyssinia (under Mussolini), Slovakia (WWII), Argentina (the "Dirty War"), Chile (under Pinochet), and elsewhere. Yes, there is no question that Protestants clearly and horribly persecuted those of other faiths since the Reformation. And yes, Protestants(and certain Seventh-day Adventist leaders) supported Adolf Hitler. Other illustrations could be mentioned with regards to Protestants. But particularly with regard to recent history, I am not aware of how Protestant persecution of those of other faiths can compare to the persecution on a massive scale, instituted, organized, and supported by Roman Catholic prelates during certain parts of the 20th century; Roman Catholic persecution cannot be relegated to the Inquisition or some other time centuries ago.

At the same time, numerous Catholics have been horrified by their own history--even recent history. We all should be horrified by "our" horrible, "Christian" history. It's not as if one group is inherently evil and another is not; we all need to support freedom of conscience and beware of the temptation of spiritual totalitarianism.

JoAnn, I don't think the idea behind putting 3ABN and mass evangelism on the list of things that have outlived their usefulness has anything to do with their intent/purpose but rather their methods. We had a rather lively discussion not too long ago about traditional television-style big media evangelism and if it still had a place.

In the place of the mass evangelism quick crusades or "harvests" and the huge money put into television networks and programs that can only be accessed via a special satellite (so who is watching?), I'd like to suggest an idea whose time has come would be permanent urban ministry centers. I'm not a pastor, but some of the ideas I've heard Ryan Bell and Dave Larson talk about in this space in the past excite me--what would happen if our churches were funded and encouraged to engage in the community. Different communities would obviously have different needs, and true growth and opportunities to interact in an authentic way would replace the one-size-fits-all methods of past evangelism which seems to have outlived its usefulness at least in Western countries. This doesn't change the mission, just the methods.

Ross

Thank you for highlighting the diversity and complexity of Christian history. As I understand it, not before, during or after the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century was Western Chistianity ever one thing.

I also appreciate your invitation to be realistic regarding Roman Catholicism. It should not be demonized, but neither should its past and present tendencies toward tyranny be overlooked.

By any account, it has been and continues to be an exceedingly hierarchical, authoritarian and patriarchical system that has done much good and evil over the centuries.

If anything, under the current pope, who is regarded by many Roman Catholics themselves as being regressive, things are getting worse rather than better.

Thank you!

Dave

JoAnn, note that I wrote mass-evangelism. Let's at least make sure that we represent others' views correctly.

Daneen gets right to the point. 3ABN and mass-evangelism is a method not the end in itself to communicate Adventist truths. We have to lead people to Jesus and healthy community relationships, not personality worship. It may not be evident to some yet, but the majority of searching folks would not connect or identify with this representation of family.

In fact, most Adventist scholars who think about witnessing and church growth realize that televangelism and mass-evangelism create a very one-dimensional understanding of salvation and Christian community life.

Additionally, please stop demonizing "Spectrum types" who voice these issues. For the last 40 years, it's the same old dismissive mantra when in fact, Spectrum has been ahead of its time in talking honestly about EGW, scripture, church governance, money, race, women's ordination, homosexuality and evangelism. We ain't perfect, but remember that we're just a collection of Adventists in conversation.

If an idea seems different, maybe instead of questioning the identity of the writer, a better approach is just share your own ideas.

The thread on the history of orthodoxy has been informative, thank you.

The argument however becomes corrupted when we try to pit the RCC against Protestantism, Islam or SDAism.

A point of departure for Judeo-Christianity, is Abraham's departure / calling from the city of Ur in search of a city whose builder and maker is God.

Throughout scripture the contrast is between the earthly Ur, Sodom, Babylon etc and the quest for the spiritual 'Jerusalem'. This contrast in the NT is between hedonistic Rome (the extant power) and all it came to represent when incarnated into a Religio-Political force, and the 'New Jerusalem'.

The sanctuary concept has been bent and twisted by some of our number, but better understood it is a continued represenation of the spiritual / new Jerusalem quest, with Christ at its centre.

When speaking of Religous Systems / Orthodoxies, including our own, the only legitimate comparitor is 'the city whose builder and maker is God'.

The narrative has always been a tale of two cities. We need to be sure that the 'New Jerusalem' is one of them. The other might be Rome, London, Jeddah, Washington or even Loma Linda.

My, my, Alex, a little thin-skinned, aren't we? Upset at the label of "spectrum types"? (I like my moniker, the "Spectrummies" better anyway).

But, come on, Alex, folks on here throw out ideas that are so, so far out of the mainstream of anything even remotely related to what we as Adventists have always believed and/or stood for, and you get upset when folks start labelling you?

Sure, it's one to promote something satirical "Roy Branson as a GC vice president for . . . ethics" (Roy Branson--ETHICS! Heeee . . heeee heeee. [I assume you were being facetious]) but it's another when you make a statement that Sunday worship as the [future] mark of the beast is passe. To me that reveals a gross ignorance of what is so fundamentally Adventist, it really does. I mean that in all seriousness. I think you folks have been for so long wandering outside the parameters of what's even the most generic Adventism, that you toss out an idea like that, and yet somehow expected to be taken seriously.

In fact, this blog has really been an eye opener for me. As I said earlier, I had no idea just how far far away from the mainstream the Spectrummies were. I'm not making a moral judgment here; I'm looking at it, the best I can, doctrinally and theologically and so forth. I mean, you can delude yourself about the influence of Spectrum and so forth, which I think has been minimal and even that minimal influence was negative (IMHO), and I think that's because it has been so, so far removed from the mainstream. You're influence is going to negligiable to non-existent for precisely that reason.

Just for an example, one of many: the God you folks seem to have created here kind of reminds me of the Alcoholics Anonymous "higher power" and the like, but certainly not the God that the Adventists first taught me about when I joined, the God that to me is revealed in the Scriptures.

The other day a friend of mine who reads the posts here said to me, "Why do these folks bother to call themselves Adventists?" And this guy isn't some reactionary right-winger. He's as far as I can tell a mainstream moderate SDA. I keep getting attacked here for questioning folks Adventism, and yet I think the vast majority of church-members, were they to peruse this site, would ask the same question, and that's because so many of the ideas here promoted are not Adventist, or not even closely related to anything that resembles Adventism.

You have been interbreeding for so long, Alex, that you've lost touch with what's really out there and where the bulk of Adventism is. And, quite frankly, that's fine with me, because if you ever caught on and saw just how extreme you were in contrast to the bulk of the church, you might start modifying your positions, toning them down a bit, and then perhaps folks would start taking you seriously.

So, keep it up: keep promoting your extremist culturally-conditioned-free-floating-du-jour agenda, and thus guarantee Spectrum's continued irrelevance in the SDA church as a whole.

DaveB--what did you do with your kids during the Primary SS time period? Just curious. One of my kids is in there right now, but so far, there is not the guilting that there often is. I appreciate that you have raised your children to think. Many Adventist parents do not. I realize that, while my schools did not, for the most part, encourage thought, my parents did, and that is probably what kept me in the church in my 20s. (I attended church schools from grade 2 through two years at AU, before finishing up at a much more affordable state university)

What suggestions do you have for encouraging parents to send their kids away for what you admit is a less than stellar academic program? (though in the schools I worked in, I would disagree that our academics were lower than those in the local public schools--but I have a very, very limited experience in US academies.) How should they be marketed? Who should / should not send their kids away to academy?

M

Just realized I never commented on contested conference elections. Wow, wouldn't that be a switch! I'm sure we all have "interesting" (or horrifying) stories about power plays in conferences and how closed everything is. I for one would really like to see the whole process become transparent so that there would be NO questions at the end, and so that delegates could actually ask questions on the day, rather than be shut down because the decision has already been made for them.

M

Clifford - I read your response to Alex. I'm quite new to Spectrum, and I also see things here that are extreme, and I see things that are the Gospel. I also have heard things on the campus of an SDA university recently which I would also call extreme and definitely not the Gospel by a main stream figure. Is it good to be a main stream Adventist? Was Jesus a main stream Jew? What did EGW say about Adventists?

It is a solemn statement that I make to the church, that not one in twenty whose names are registered upon the church books are prepared to close their earthly history, and would be as verily without God and without hope in the world as the common sinner. {ChS 41.1}"

Are you in this number? Is Alex? Am I? Are we to judge one another? Should be preach the Gospel? I'd certainly be interested in your definition of the Gospel.

Ross and Dave
Yes, I certainly am aware of the Great Schism of 1054 and that's why I used the term "the Western Church" to describe the church that was responsible for the Inquisition and the Crusades and other crimes against humanity.

My point, though, is still that Protestants also took part in these atrocities because they were part and parcel of the Western church before the Reformation. My own country of origin, Norway, was as Catholic as Italy back then. As was Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc.

Secondly, Ross
To blame the RCC for the atrocities of the nazi Ustaše movement in Croatia is a stretch. True, the Catholic church in Croatia was thoroughly compromised by its embrace of the movement just like German Christians who supported Hitler and Southern Protestants in the US who supported slavery, and later segregation.

History shows that Christian faith is nearly always trumped by human passions. In Rwanda Seventh-day Adventists even provided leaders to the homicidal mobs that massacred hundred of thousands of their countrymen. (Their biggest concern, according to a visiting journalist from the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet, at the time of the massacre, was whether they could begin killing their neighbors before sundown on Saturday).

Instead of weighing the relative merits and demerits of Catholic and Protestant killers, maybe we should seriously ask ourselves WHY it is that Christian faith seems powerless in the face of the uglier passions of the human heart?

Cliff
I can see why you shake your head but why such anger?

I appreciate your thoughts, A. Way.

No one is forcing anyone to join this conversation. Spectrum is just a lay-driven space for conversations about Adventism. The people who gather here tend to be better educated on average so this is merely what happens when mostly well-read people get together.

Cliff, I gotta stand up for my Spectrum folks. : )

Let this refrain echo down into Adventist history departments. . .

Cliff: "we as Adventists have always believed and/or stood for. . ."

It's a lot harder to believe that when one reads, oh, I don't know, the four vols. of Spiritual Gifts (read as a teen) or George Knight or Seeking the Sanctuary, etc.

Adventists changed their views of the Godhead. Race. Evangelism methodology. All kinds of stuff in Daniel and Revelation. Justification by faith. Women's roles. You know, the small stuff. : )

Cliff, have you read Seeking the Sanctuary?

Saying that we always believed something is not reason in itself to continue doing so. New light, present truth - those are ideas straight from our pioneers. We should be troubled that our fundamental belief on Christian Behavior doesn't mention the word: love. Or anything about our ethical compassion duty to others.

I remember when you kindly took me out to eat when I was in DC a couple of years ago, when remarking on the Spectrum conversations, you asked if I was gay. (I'm not.) Why else would I care about equality for our LGBT brothers and sisters or evolution, was the apparent rationale there. . .

In Adventism we've sometimes created a dishonest climate in which we don't actually represent who we are and so we're suspicious of "people's agenda." Who's a secret gay, Muslim, Jesuit Spectrummie scientist today?

One problem with this corporate belief-testing (evident in the post-Ford fears) is because just emphasizing what I believe in my head starts to create a mostly mental Adventism, (ha.) in which what one says about their faith means more than what one does.

I'll be honest Cliff. You probably do have it all figured out belief-wise, but online you're not very kindhearted to your fellow believers. All too often, beliefs merely function as codes for who's in and out and the church calcifies. We have to have better conversations about how our beliefs impact our behavior.

This is one of the moral failings of the "personal relationship with Jesus" mantra; we're forgetting that Jesus emphasized right relationships with others through His power.

Also, you have a really bizarre stereotype of who is a part of this conversation. I can think of folks who've only attended Adventist schools, who've attended self-supporting schools, or attended major research universities. Moms, dads, most Adventists actually want to think about how their faith works in contemporary society.

Furthermore, I attended self-supporting academy for three years with lots of barely high school educated educators who just loved your books. But the more I read the more I became unsatisfied with the pat answers and proof-texting. You can stereotype folks who converse here, but know that they facilitate Sabbath Schools, preach in growing churches, teach in our schools, work in our hospitals. Last week this site had over 8,000 unique visitors and we're growing every single month since we relaunched around Dec.

So far out of the mainstream?

For the month of May, people/site counts:

Adventist Review online: 25,560
Spectrum online: 17,330

Last month the Review was down 3% while Spectrum was up 98%.

Your stereotype may make sense in GC offices, but when I talk at GIEN conferences with Adventist communication directors and young technologists from global Adventism, they are hungry not for the mind numbing repetition of "what we've always believed," but for an Adventism actively thinking and work in the real world issues.

I dare you to come to a Spectrum conference.

It's just a basic fact, more Adventists know more about Biblical history and hermeneutics than they did 100 years ago.

Of course, our growing understandings should impact our faith. What are you afraid of, losing it? I'm not, because the God I trust in is big enough to help me grow intellectually in my faith. Not separate from it.

As Anne Lamont reminds us: the opposite of faith in not doubt, it's certainty.

Alex,

Where is this video from? I felt like I was watching a 1958 re-run of "Leave it to Beaver."

Thanks...

Frank

Cliff says: "what we as Adventists have always believed and/or stood for," as though he has been one for the last 160 years.

Surely, he knows that Adventism has changed, even overriding former beliefs; although most changes were gradual and never officially acknowledged, they have merely been put on the back burner and far less emphasized. There has never been one who could say he was representative of all Adventists. As George Knight admits, few of the early Adventists would agree with the 28 beliefs now proclaimed.

He has lived too long in the "Adventist Beltway" and just like the politicians secluded in Washington, has not experienced, other than short visits or on this blog, to realize how pluralistic the church has become. Any institution begins to disintegrate from the head down, especially when it loses connection with the larger body. When this happens, the lines of communication between the head and the body are gone.

No longer does the NAD move in lockstep and many times the GC in its proclamations are scarcely noticed and have little, if any affect on some of the larger Adventist populations (read West Coast and better educated). Just as in federal politics, so in the church: All politics is local--so all regligious rites, practices and regulations (or lack thereof) are local. If our main concern was what the GC thought or that permission was needed, Spectrum would never have been born. We no longer need approval for what we as individuals think or how we act. Organized religion, for many of us, is an oxymoron. What is really feared, is the loss of control over churches and the members, and especially the tithe when that trust and respect has been lost. When that has once been lost, it is most difficult to regain. Like the old saying: "Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" when trusting members discover they have been lied to, plus the lack of transparency in the church's decisions, both doctrinal and financial, it follows that when the church speaks, is anyone listening?

Frank,

That's straight outta 3ABN, circa June 16, 2008.

Cliff,

Some of your concerns resonate with me...but your posting just drips with sarcasm and even rudeness. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels...etc." What about that? Where is that in your scheme of truth when dealing with those with whom you disagree..and those you deem outside the pale of orthodoxy?

Alex makes a good point, where are the halcyon days of Adventist orthodoxy? Our founders, including EGW, were Arians. Where was a healthy view of righteousness by faith? The list goes on. The only reason why our church grew away from those positions, was because of a climate of openess to the Spirit, and open discussion with one another. For all the "way out" ideas that I encounter on this site, at least that type of climate is fostered here... unlike in many of our churches, official publications, and it seems, administrative circles.

Sadly, the Adventist church at large moved away from this openess as fundamentalism took hold of the American evangelical Christian world in the early 20th century. We became reflectors of this move of the wider Christian culture, rather than the standard bearers of open, progressive, biblical thought, that were at the roots of this movement. And so we continue to settle today for a closed system, that is afraid to engage with the wider contemporary world, and longs for the "good old days," as evidenced in the above video. Such a closed environment can lead to formalism and a spiritual arterioschlerosis winning the day.

If we can't entertain differing viewpoints and understandings of God, truth and the Scriptures, how do we grow in our faith? I'm not endorsing every idea I see presented here; I strongly disagree with many. But I also cannot endorse the marginalizing and demonizing of those who seem outside the pale. The extreme voices are sometimes the voices that can move the rest of us to positive re-evaluation and change.

As individuals, none of this are above the need of this. Why should the SDA church, our organization, and our belief system somehow be exempt from the same need?

Thanks...

Frank

Frank, If Alex, representing Spectrum, were truly exploring new views, not just Berkeley and San Fran radical ideas, I would be with you 100%, however, look over the last few weeks and see where the ideas come from. To have a church that will take Spectrum seriously, sources are all important. There is no way that the SDA church is going to accept Gay Marriage, so why introduce sodomy as a discussion item, I agree with Cliff, left field idea immenating from a San Francisco University, PSR.

Rev Flunder, made fun of answers to young kids, and Daneen thought it was great topic. What was gained by quoting this San Francisco non-Adventist. What profound idea came forth??

If those representing Homosexuality want their own Blog or Church, why not take Alex's advice and start your own in the market place. Alex, probably would even give some free technical help.

Bob,

I'm not simply referring to Alex and the sources of his "radical ideas." Nor am I referring simply to the articles posted. I'm seeing the value of the wide "spectrum" of ideas voiced in the ensuing discussions from radical right to left and everything in between. It is that type of open dialogue that can be healthy. Granted, way out stuff can be brought to the table. one must sift through the variety of thoghts and opinions, but the alternative of a closed system beyond questioning is far less attractive and spiritually productive, to me.

Thanks...

Frank

Alex, in your last remarks to Cliff, you were right on the money. Thank-you for stating it so well and so kindly.

Frank said:
"If we can't entertain differing viewpoints and understandings of God, truth and the Scriptures, how do we grow in our faith? I'm not endorsing every idea I see presented here; I strongly disagree with many. But I also cannot endorse the marginalizing and demonizing of those who seem outside the pale. The extreme voices are sometimes the voices that can move the rest of us to positive re-evaluation and change."

Frank has stated it very well. I have been an avid reader of Spectrum (both the magazine and on-line version) for a number of years. Reading what others have thought, written and discussed about God, Jesus, Christianity and the Adventist Church has been invaluable to me. Without Spectrum and other sites like it, I would have walked out the door, never to return to the Adventist Church. As a member of a small, conservative, rural church, I struggled for many years, because I just couldn't follow the "party line". I felt like I was the only one in the Adventist Church who couldn't (and wouldn't) understand things the way they were presented. At this point, I am able to hang on to the great things about the Adventist faith, while understanding that there are differing ways of looking at some of the other things.

Thank-you to all who take time to think about, write and discuss things. While I don't have the cognitive or writing ability of many of your regular contributers, I possibly speak for many other readers who never write in. And, yes Cliff, there are many of us out there.

For starters, let us all agree that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, a member of a triune God. He is at once a man a very man and God and very God. Let us also agree we are all sinners and in need of salvation. Furthermore, let us agree that none other than the blood of Jesus Christ can cleanse us from sin. Let us agree that Jesus Christ in now in heaven as our Advocate and will soon return, His reward with Him.

Now let us start arguing about the minor points of the law!

1. Dan 8:14 wasn't written for a few disappointed folk in 1844.
2. Heb. 10: wasn't written for that same group of dear souls. If it releaved their pain, so be it.

But now let us get on with some solid food. Rest, yes we need it; worship yes we need it; healing yes we need it; to tell the story of Jesus, yes the world needs it. To encourange one another yes we all need it. A good diet, yes we need it, a good education yes we need it, church discipline yes that would be nice. A prophet among us, more like a umpire. You know we could all be wrong except in accepting Jesus Christ as a Redeeming and Coming King and still be among the very elect! Tom

Come on guys, quit the patronisation.

As a veteran of Adventist boarding schools and College (age 9-24) going back to 1961, the above listing is far from radical. What ever else one might say about Acadamies, efforts to impose conformity were always counter-productive. Nothing held our fertile minds down, every argument was up for grabs.

I suggest that we make 3 years in an academy dormitory a prerequiste for GC office. Its a great leveller! Only the humorous and humble servive!

Tom said:

Furthermore, let us agree that none other than the blood of Jesus Christ can cleanse us from sin.

This is one of the cliches that we use, and I wonder how many understand. Any time I get blood on my, I feel dirty.

Let us agree that Jesus Christ in now in heaven as our Advocate and will soon return, His reward with Him.

Another cliche? How does Jesus' advocacy work exactly? Does he plead to God in our behalf? I don't think so.

You know we could all be wrong except in accepting Jesus Christ as a Redeeming and Coming King and still be among the very elect!

To this, I can agree!

Someone talked about single-sex boarding schools...

1-why are single-sex schools usually in close proximity to schools for the other sex (I attended a public all girls HS)

2-Leading a sheltered life for the first 16 years of your life only highlights the bad in the world when you eventually see it.

Yeah, the Amish get some things right, but sometimes I wonder if they are they critical thinkers or habitual doers? Do they really examine what they believe and practice?

We want our kids to be independent and stand up for things in the world, but if they don't see the issues they can't fight for them. Aren't they supposed to learning how to make good choices on their own? Sometimes us older folks forget how we learned...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Someone talked about the Sabbath School Lesson. It sure made a comeback for me. I must be one of the lucky few that get to listen and participate in discussions from wiser, critical thinkers who are not afraid to challenge traditional beliefs.

All I can say is, I visit other churchs and feel sad cause its all about trusting in God and following his commandments, but you know what-I challenge YOU to use your resources online and through networking and make it a class like mine. And the point is, meeting the needs of your class and stretching their thinking, but not necessarily turning it into the next Hope Channel.

I might be making you jealous, but next week Cezar Luchian is showing us a DVD and special presentation he put together for us :)

Victor

Name the last ten Presidents of the General Confernece and cite one humorous humble one among them! Oh yes let us pick Neal Wilson as a prime example! He certainly was funny on the witness stand in the M. k. Silver Case.

The best I can name is Sec. Beach. Once at a Loma Linda Board Meeting he commented: " "I am not be always right". To which a lower level General Conference Officer said in a stage voice: "Amen brother." To wich Edler Beach reply: in a tone that put even the bravest down>, " I have a lot better battering average then you have brother!" Very funny indeed!.

Of course there was the President of Walla Walla who tapped me on the elbow and pointed to Dr. Davenport and asked: "Would you buy a used car from that man, Tom?" I said, I wouldn't even take one on consignment!. That was five years before the sorry mess became public. Of yes I took four years at the academy. Of course they know me quite well, they always call for funds, but then never send my an invitation for a reunion. A keen sense of humor.

I have had more humor from prisoners going through the chow line at Georgia State Penitentiaries where I was consultant for the design of health care facilities. The trustee dishing out soup, would see to it that I got all broth with only two small pieces of carrot and then laugh and say: enjoy! We all had a good laugh. Yes Victor, I'd just as soon take my chances with inmates was with the ordianed. Tom

P.s ignore the several typo's like in the last sentence change was to than and and in the third paragraph change my to me. O.K. Tom

Jeannieb43

Bob-2 said "There's no way the church is going to accept gay marriage."

Well, IMHO, there's no way gay marriage *needs* to be accepted by the church. We have a few gay couples in our local churches in this area; they've been quietly supporting the program for many years here. They lend their talents where needed, they donate to various activities and I'm sure (though I don't have any first-hand information) they also return their tithe.

Just because California has now made gay marriage "legal" doesn't mean our church has to do anything at all. I feel sure none of our gay members will ask the SDA church to sanctify their union - nor should they. But if as a result of some ceremony or other they become eligible to receive death benefits from their partner's estate, or they can join their partner's health plan, etc., I say Good for them!.

So. Do we "accept" gay marriage? That, for me, must be an individual decision. I truly HOPE the GC doesn't try to draft a "white paper" on the subject. This event (gay marriage) should pass without comment.

After all, God wants us to use the intelligence He gave us. He doesn't want us to use the heirerarchical method of "asking the priest" or asking for "a dispensation from the pope." We make our own individual decisions. I (as a divorced woman) will never stoop to asking a conference president for permission to remarry. I know my own heart, and I know it was not I who broke the marriage vows. When the right man comes along, I won't hesitate to say Yes to a marriage proposal. Nobody need give me *permission*.

My gay friends are still my friends, as they have been for more than 25 years. I don't really care whether they're "married" or not.

Fair enough; I sometimes write very strongly, and while I stand by my basic positions, I apologize if my tone was unkind. I don't mean to be that way. Sometimes it's so hard to be a judge of your own writings, espeically off the cuff ones as I post here.

I have never meant anything personal; in fact, Alex, it was my interest in you, i/e., your amazing brain, that first got me on here and, as you can see, I'm kind of hooked!

My question about you being gay wasn't to make any judgment about you. It just struck me to ask, that's all. Mostly out of curiousity, nothing else really.

Cliff

Clifford, at 3:57 you wrote:

"You have been interbreeding for so long, Alex, that you've lost touch with what's really out there and where the bulk of Adventism is."

"Interbreeding????" What exactly do you mean by that? Is that typical Adventist lingo to bandy about? It certainly doesn't reflect well on your true Adventist credentials or your moral rectitude to defend the faith.

Maybe I'm way out there, but I don't think this conversation is helped by baseless assertions about the sexual practices of any commenter. If you can't argue with the logic of an fifth-generation Adventist (as Alex is), don't stoop to calling his reasoning based in "interbreeding." Or is it the sexual ethics of his parents you are questioning the purity of?

If you intended that comment as metaphorical, it is in sorely poor taste and would be helped by some clarification of what exactly you mean. Perhaps some "interbreeding" might be healthier for a community than the natural alternative of "inbreeding."

No worries, Cliff. My girlfriend and family got a good laugh out of that.

Some absolute loon already has a blog up lying to hilarious lengths about Spectrum. Unfortunately in an absence of logic, personal attacks come with the territory of creating a space where Adventists who aren't in open places can have their voices acknowledged fairly.

But just think about the folks who don't have the community support or the vocabulary to speak about justice issues without becoming suspect to Adventist elders. The least we could do is try to create substantive conversations without anyone feeling like they aren't as Adventist as us.

Good, Alex, I'm glad we can still jab at each other without it getting personal, because if I remember right, even before we met you did write that little nasty satire on me and I never took it personal. I mean, hey, that satire was how we first got friends.

But you do have a point about my tone. It's like, I don't mean to do it, and in person I'm not that way, but it seems like the moment I get in front of a key board, I start hearing these voices in my head and, as the bumper sticker says, "I always do what the voices in my head tell me to do." Kidding, kidding . . . .

At the same time, too, though, I don't think it's fair to compare the hits here with the hits at the Review. To use an analogy, and it's only an analogy to describe relationship (I stress this because the time I posted on some blog that Ron Wyatt was to archaeology what Joseph Mengele was to the Hippocratic oath, I was attacked for comparing Wyatt to Mengele, but that was not my point). Anyway, to use my analogy, what do you think is going to be more hits from the masses, a Disney site or a Hustler one? Besides, too, you to to pay for get full access to the Review, while here all the goodies are free!!

Anyway, I've probably dug myself in more here that is judicious. The bottom line: the site's great but the content is just way, way, way out there, and that's going to cause a reaction by more conservative SDAs who happen to wander into here.

Audrey--the comment about interbreeding wasn't sexual but intellectual. I was trying to make the point that Alex spent so much time hanging around other lefties like himself that he couldn't see the bigger picture, that's all. It had nothing to do with sex.

The prize goes to those in the arena with the battle, blood, sweat, and swipes against. The servant who goes and does the job is to be praised over the servant with the good ideas who is not doing. 3ABN is doing the job, Spectrum posts offer words, ideas, and armchair quarterbacking. I am grateful for the flawed servant who does the job, seeking and rescuing eternities today since I may be dead tomorrow. What does the future hold -- the flawed servant plugging along or maybe action out of Spectrum ideas? As a (now happily retired) high school teacher, I have always admired the plogger. I've known too many "underachiever" intelligentias. Give me action any day however flawed, is my motto -- even for my life's efforts ;) Lower standards equals action. Higher standards equals talk. I am grateful that those with lower than Spectrum posters' standards reached me ;)

And I've thanked God for his ploggers. 3ABN and evangelism have not outlived their usefulness ;)

Cliff

Your most recent post to Alex falls far short of being a genuine apology.

You write that you "apologize if my tone was unkind."

Either apologize or don't apologize, but don't try to do so in a hypothetical or subjunctive way. You should apologize BECAUSE your tone was and often is unkind, not IF.

And then you write: I don't mean to be that way. Sometimes it's so hard to be a judge of your own writings, espeically off the cuff ones as I post here."

It is my impression that you do "mean to be that way" because it makes and keeps you the center of attention.

No matter what the topic, when you join it the focus shifts from it to you because of the way you express yourself. Are we to believe that this is wholly accidental?

Finally, if you are unable to tell that whether what you are about to post is caustic and sarcastic, then please have someone else go over your remarks before you send them off.

If you are a courageous person, you will make amends where necessary and continue participating in these discussions. If you are cowardly, you will feel sorry for yourself and stop interacting.

I hope you do the right thing.

Dave

JoAnn

I think it is possible for those of us who literally would not have been conceived were it not for Adventism to take it for granted and overlook its many positive features. Your comments remind me of this. Thank you!

Dave

David

I do apologize for those who were offended by my tone. Time and again I try and tell myself that this can be a ministry, but at the same time too, David, I am human and things on here do anger me and I respond to them. I write what I feel and I feel very passionately about what I believe and those emotions come through.

Sorry for being so transparent. Perhaps I ought to just wear a mask.

But, again, my apologies for my tone, at least for those who were offended by it.

Don't worry . . . as the great Ahnawld Schwartzeenneegah famously said, "I'll be back!"

Thanks, Cliff!
Dave

Mr. Larso said:
No matter what the topic, when you join it the focus shifts from it to you because of the way you express yourself. Are we to believe that this is wholly accidental?
----------------------------------------------------------

The problem is that this also tends to be a common tactic by many commenters on the blog.
How did this degenerate into a long slog about "tone"?
As soon as you go about making points that they may be uncomfortable with, they shift focus to your alleged "tone" or the "hate in your words".

This is particularly true of past discussions about homosexuality.

Look them over. They don't get far until bad-faith accusations start flying, and in one direction I might add.

So I tend to put little credit anymore in some protestations about "tone", since the idea that one can tell with complete certainty (because certainly my own interpretations cannot be biased) whether there is "venom" and "bad faith" behind an internet posting is "suspect" to say the least.

I say it is only when you come at text with some strong preconceptions about the writer can you misinterpret (miss the meaning of) Mr. Goldstein's comment about "interbreeding" so completely.
(But that's just my opinion, as they say.)

I think the real reason "the focus shifts from it to you" is because as I said above, many people here--I believe--use Mr. Goldstein as a proxy for "The Church" (een though he represents himself only by his own words), and that is one institution that they are not shy about ascribing bad motives to!

Were this a live debate, there would be no complaints about "tone".

In customer service, there is a saying Alex, "Listen to the complainer, to get to the complaint." From my experience, the complaint may be true, no matter the tone. IF you dismiss the complainer because of his tone you may miss an opportunity to improve your service, product or blog. Eh?

I am glad to have conservative voices on the spectrum blog. However, please don't question my motives for being a part of this as a member of the Spectrum Advisory Council.
One of Eisenhower's beliefs about great leaders was that they did not question the motives of their subordinates. I think this holds true in any effective interpersonal interaction.

I am committed to this church and the ideas put forth in these ongoing discussions feed my soul. I have 3 children in Adventist education (two of which are in boarding school). My husband and I are active in our local SDA church in the south where I am chairman of the finance committee and my husband is an elder.

If we had not developed an expanded, more comprehensive view of our denominational beliefs via Spectrum----we would be worshipping with another denomination.

I am happy to discuss beliefs (ie mark of the beast), just don't impugn my motives when my beliefs don't match yours.

PS--I loved the list---the Sabbath rest from media (internet?) caught my attention in the original list in the Atlantic Monthly.

Cliff simply does not have the experience that we 2nd-4th + generation SDA's do. He did not live though the 70's and 80's in our church.

For that I will give him slack. He also needs to know that the original Spectrum in the first years did not contain much of the present agenda. It was truly an outlet from a false view of salvation being presented by the church of those days in my opinion...one yet clarified and focused on in my opinion.

pat

Cliff,

You may want to consult the dictionary before you are accused of breaking the 3rd commandment. Miriam Webster online has the following definition and etymology:

Main Entry: egad
Pronunciation: \i-ˈgad\
Variant(s): or egads \-ˈgadz\
Function: interjection
Etymology: probably euphemism for oh God
Date: 1673
—used as a mild oath

Perhaps you intended to recite the classic hymn, "Egad our Help in Ages Past" but got distracted by the Beast and didn't finish the sentence? ;-)

More seriously, just a comment on your observation that Spectrum doesn't represent 98% of SDAs. You may be correct relative to current members. I do wonder, though, how many former Adventists are no longer members because of issues like those discussed in Spectrum.

I, like Gail above, attribute my continued involvement in a small conservative church to the support I received from Spectrum and analogous publications. They helped me believe that I could/should consider myself Adventist even when you and Pipim and others questioned why I should.

In a sense, then, Spectrum not only speaks for Adventist "Spectrumidiots" (as you can't quite bring yourself to say), but it also speaks for a fraction of former Adventists. Many of these were educated in SDA academies and colleges, so the loss was keen among high potential leaders of the church. I think the fraction lost from my academy class is probably on the order of 50% and I don't think that is atypical. Certainly these were not all lost over issues that Spectrum seeks to deal with, but I think a significant fraction were. You are certainly aware of the large apostasy rate (SDA terminology) among Adventists. So while Spectrum may be irrelevant to 98% of those remaining, I suspect it could be/could have been relevant to many of those that left the church.

If I'm right--and I have no statistics to back up my hunch so it is speculation on my part--then one could argue that the church's failure to embrace Spectrum as a supporting ministry (after the first few years) may be responsible for the loss of members who could have hung on had they been supported by Spectrum (or AT or other publications that filled this role in the past).

Spectrum to me wasn't just a magazine. It was a living connection to Adventist professors, pastors and even administrators who were willing to share informed, creative thinking about the contradictions facing many of us as we compared our traditional beliefs with the conclusions of science, archaeology, literary analysis, sociology, etc. -- especially when these confronted us in a particularly forceful way once we left the Adventist ghetto and commenced our life's work in "the world".

The Review rarely filled this role for me. It was too apologetic, and thus not fully trustworthy. The absence of investigative reporting into church scandals did nothing to strengthen the skeptical reader's confidence in its role as anything but a mouthpiece of the church and its strongest traditions. It did not present multiple perspectives on an issue, which Spectrum usually did. It wasn't a dialogue. (It openly said that it didn't see that as its mission). While I read the Review to learn what the church was promulgating, it was not as useful for dealing with personal faith questions.

So, while I think Spectrum's intellectual approach itself limits its appeal (98% of SDA's don't read the ATS journal either! In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if 50% of SDA's read no significant religious literature, including their Bibles, but instead gather their information from church services, videos, tapes and 3ABN), I suspect that the number of people that would resonate with and benefit from its "liberal" analysis as a rational contrasting voice to traditional publications is higher than you are allowing for by only considering current members.

Alex--a quick "referee comment"--if your comparison of Spectrum and Review websites and readership growth rates is to be credible, you shouldn't try to slide the 98% growth rate past your readers without comment, much as it seems to strengthen your argument for Spectrum's relevance. If most of that growth is due to the pastors' wives video from Florida Hospital, that is a one-hit wonder and will reverse itself next month. It undermines your credibility to single out that one month for comparison. Spectrum and the blog has been enough of a success that you don't need to misrepresent it (if in fact that is what happened). Other than this point, I agreed with your argument and like its tone. Thanks.

It's really great when the collective commentariat helps police tone and tactics--that's how a healthy online community works, so thanks to everyone for pitching in. I'm glad Cliff is here. Although I realize he speaks as an individual, as a columnist for the Review and the editor of the Sabbath School quarterly, his personal opinion does carry more weight for me as being representative of the official church view. I appreciate it when anyone delves into issues rather than just tossing out flippant remarks that are the equivalent of a drive-by shooting.

And I'm afraid the ideas discussed here on the Spectrum website (which is a different outlet than the journal) do tap into the core issues that many Adventists do want to talk about. This is a safe space while their local church might not be. I know many Adventists who would fit Cliff's ideal of a traditional, we've-always-believed-this Adventist who enjoy the conversations here--even if they don't comment regularly. The stats Alex just posted attest to that: 7,000 to 9,000 unique visitors a week--that's a week--attest that this content isn't as left-field as Cliff would like to think (although maybe from the context of his GC offices that seems more true). And, those visits come from all over the U.S. (and the world, actually), I don't think Berkeley is even on that map and San Francisco is half way down.

And, having taught at one of our Adventist institutions, I can attest to the fact our next generation is asking these questions in even louder tones. Isn't it healthier for them to know that there is a place in their church where it's okay to ask their questions? One of the biggest reasons I stayed was having mentors in my life who modeled that I could still call myself an Adventist while having big questions about the we've-always-believed stuff--that's the beautiful and very Adventist idea of present truth.

Aage and Elaine,
You are mistaken on Catholic atrocities being both protestant and Catholic before the 1600's when you said,

"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.

Posted by: Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 21 June 2008 at 10:02
reply 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."
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 21 June 2008 at 11:40

You have of course forgotten the Waldensians.
Many historians say their may have been as many as 100,000 functional members at any one time before the Reformation. Yet when one considers that they existed in some force for almost 350 years before the reformation began, it is evident that many generations, and therefore many times their total were affected.

They are only the most well known of the non Catholic Christian groups preceeding the reformation.

To say there was only 1 Christian church till the main reformation in the 1600's is completely wrong.

Robert,

That was a very helpful and insightful comment you shared. Thanks for that!

Tom

Being one of those bloggers living in the remote part of the blogosphere, my opportunity to know or meet GC presidents is low. Indeed, obsession with the GC 'who's who' seems to be an American phenomenon. 98% (the current mystic stat for most) of Adventists dont give a hoot about who's who at the local Conference, Union or Division let alone the GC.

However I observed Robert Pierson when we lived in the same town in Africa. I knew he was conservative and earnest but I did rate his humility. I have lived in the same ghetto as the current President, he has a well developed sense of humour and a common touch.

Any corporate HQ has its share of stuffed shirts, but my experience with many missionaries, ministers and administrators includes barrels of laughs.

My general critique of Spectrum is that all administrators are typecaste through Glacier View lenses. In truth, most of us were in college ourselves during that debacle. Maybe we could all moderate our type-casting.

Cliff,

You should apologize that you apologized. Every word you wrote was true. This website is, for many who write here, the watering hole for disenchanted Adventist and former Adventist. You are one of the few voices of reason and clarity. You should continue to warn these rebels just how far they have wondered from the truth. Many leaders in the Church will not even give these people the time of day. If you don’t speak up, and show them you care, who will?

I appreciate your comment, Robert,

With your care to detail, I wouldn't want to be biz-as-usual evangelist assigned to your church!

Granted that online comparison tools - from whence I got those numbers - are not as fine-tuned as our embedded stats and you're right that we received a considerable uptick from the viral nature of the Pastor's Wives video.

For a little awhile there it actually increased our unique views over 2000 a day, but that's settled down to a more sustainable trend that's lasted for the last 4-6 weeks, the overall trend is that Spectrum has about 100% more daily unique viewers as we did in the first three months of the year.

Our homepage and any hot topic threads (like this one) and the SS Lesson all get more views.

So we basically went from about 500 unique visitors a day to an average of over 1500 during the height of the viral video forwarding and now we're riding along with just over 1000 a day.

I was worried that it might be a flash in the pan, but it appears, at least for now, that some of the folks who received the forwarded video have stuck around - which follows that pattern of good viral stickiness.

We're definitely working to broaden our interaction on the cultural fun level, not just theological and ethical aspects of being a part of the Spectrum community. In fact, it's looking like the Pastor's Wives team is planning something for our famous Sat. nights at the Spectrum conference this Sept.

JB, that's so factually incorrect that I challenge you to a friendly wager.

You said "for many;" I say "for few."

Let's wager either $500 or $1000 to ADRA's work in Burma that an overwhelming minority - less than 20% - fall into the disenchanted or former Adventist stereotypes. I've been working with Spectrum for almost four years now and it really blows me away how much almost everyone involved in the production and conversation cares about the church and cares deeply about interlocking their faith and reason.

You owe something here, since you made a false accusation about a whole part of the church. Are you willing to submit your statement to empirical analysis? We can easily poll visitors to this site with attendees to the Spectrum conference.

It's really incredible how badly a few Spectrum-unaware souls want to dismiss and mischaracterize the voice of the majority of graduate educated Adventist laity.

OMG: we talked about homosexuality! As happens in every ethics class in Adventist colleges and universities. It's pretty bad when adults act worse than most teens on this subject.

But hey, it's been clear over the last week once again, that when some can't even produce scriptural arguments - like on Sodom, they resort to personal attacks and "radical" dismissal without even attention to the truth about their fellow believers.

JB--

I apologized for the "tone" only. I will never apologize for my view that many of the positions here are completely alien to even the most basic Adventism of any kind, and as long as they keep holding them and promoting them, Spectrum will remain on the fringes of the church.

Folks kept on implying that I was someone out of touch because of being so long at the GC. Let me tell you, when I get out in the field, I am at times amazed at how very conservative many of the churches are. And if I find the stuff promoted on here to be over the edge, to quote, HR Haldeman (of Watergate fame)--"how would this play in Peoria?"

I have little fear that this will ever take hold in the church, other than the fringes. If if were to, the church would cease to exist, because the movers and the shakers and those who support the church--which are the moderates and the conservatives, not the libbies--would stop supporting it and there's be nothing left. If anything, the trend in the church now is to move ever more conservative than it had been in the past. These views are for the most part completely alien to most anything Adventist.

Alex

Thanks for coming back with a clarification of the Statistics. Sorry to see that you had to use a fun clip to knock London of top spot, but I am glad you used a fun clip.

As a former Math Teacher I have been contemplating doing a spoof on the misuse of statistical inference on this site. The use of 98% and claims about majority/minority positions is getting up my nose. If we could get a cluster of Mathematicians on here with the ardour of the ethicists and theologians we could have some fun. Couple of red lines through some nonsense wouldn't go amiss!

We have had a few contributions on 'tone'. Sarcasm is hard to defend, but I am up for a bit of satire and rhetoric. I am saddened rather than annoyed however by the 'jilted lover' tone that comes through from some of the frequent contributors. It does become wearysome after a while.

Cliff is an amazingly travelled guy and attracts his accolytes which probably distorts his view of the distribution of Adventist thought. LBGT loading aside, I dont believe that we are as un-searching as he suggests.

The statistics as you infer, correlate well to Adventist Clusters in the USA, with London and Sydney somehow creeping in. There are millions of Adventists in Africa, Latin America and Southern Asia whose views don't register here. Humility requires that those who bandy claims inclusive of all these people be a little more tentative.

For those who live in the Tofu built Babylon, there is another world out there.

Your ability to keep the posting going is remarkable, power to your elbow.

What started as the basis for a substantial discussion has become a crying towel. To change the analogy if this is Spectrum it is at the lowest level of light.

,the issue Alex raised are substantial and need reasoned discussion. Even Cliff's! How does one measure humility? Certainly not by a "walk about." Try him in the board room!

Of course there was a little tongue in cheek in the list, but the issues are real. Let us try and find some real answers the next generation need that much from us. Tom

Certainly if we never heard from Cliff we would never know what not to do! Tom

Cliff,

I have noticed a "commonality" between SDA "conservatives/traditionalist" and SDA "liberals." Can you Guess what that might be?

A de-emphasis of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone...whatcha think of that?

pat

An idea that will soon have to change is the idea that people in the third world will forever welcome mass evangelism perceived as being in exchange for humanitarian aid. It will have a lot more to do with changing individual hearts.

http://www.religiousliberty.tv/2008/06/proselytism-and-religion-hinduism...

Not to beat a dead horse here, but David--now that I have apologized--don't you think you owe one to me? I mean, how could you possibly know my motives for posting on here as I do? But to say that I do it for "attention" is not only harsh, it's judgmental and, for what it's worth, dead wrong.

Cliff

Cliff,
Just read your comment. Wow. You do realise of course that Spectrum has diversity within itself right? Your move to cast it as ideologically homogeneous seems necessary for your argument that we're irrelevant.

You're wrong on both counts.

Not only are we quite diverse within ourselves, we are very relevant and active across Adventism's ideological, geographical, theological, gender, ethnic and linguistic boundaries.

Gracias :)

Cliff
I don't see any reason to impugn your motivation, and I'm not sure that that was Dave's point either. What is incontestable is that your love of provocation ("loving, faithful sodomy")keeps making your person one of the most commonly debated issues on this forum. Ideally, people who try to advance a particular point of view should be transparent, like a window, so that focus remain on the argument and not on the debater. When people begin scrutinzing the windows, its usually because they obscure what they're there to reveal.

SEEMINGLY HORRIFYING IDEAS THAT COULD HAVE POTENTIAL

- Combine the Gen Conf Sabbath School and Education departments in one Christian Education dept; production of the Sabbath School Bible Study Guide will become a function of the new department's curriculum committee.

- Organizational restructuring minus the 13 divisions of the Gen Conf; and replacing the current local and union conferences with union of churches in each country or state. This will eliminate needless intermediate administrative offices and officials, while at the same time increasing the current pool of talented, veteran Adventist clergy who would be available for appointment as church planters and pastor-evangelists.

- A grievance committee composed of qualified lay people and church officials at the appropriate level of organization. A member of the committee may be assigned and authorized to hear, investigate, submit a report, and recommend action on a case that has been brought to their attention.

Alex said
"It's really incredible how badly a few Spectrum-unaware souls want to dismiss and mischaracterize the voice of the majority of graduate educated Adventist laity."

This statement is just your opinion. Certainly no more impirical than the ones you rail against.

Hope Spectrums health package covers shoulder injury due to self back patting;)

Toms critique between Spectrums subject matter at the start and now is quite correct.

Spectrums subjects now tend toward the sensational and contentious. Its funny to see that packaged as the "voice" (viewpoint) of the majority of graduate educated Adventist laity.

One post above used to call it his link with Adventist Professors, Pastors and Administrators. Now scholarly articals are a fraction of the content with the wide eyed "know it all" graduate students providing the bulk of the programming.

Joselito: "A grievance committee composed of qualified lay people and church officials at the appropriate level of organization. A member of the committee may be assigned and authorized to hear, investigate, submit a report, and recommend action on a case that has been brought to their attention."

Good luck with getting this one off the ground--and I actually do mean that, for this would be a great step forward. Currently in the church system concepts of the investigation of evidence, natural justice, and due process are conspicuous by their absence.

If we are to be be taken seriously, and wish to truly be "a spectacle to angels and to men," then we will need to get our act together in the way we operate, especially in the administrative sphere.

Best, Jonathan

To those who questioned my reference to the one Christian church until the Reformation, the Waldensians, like other groups throughout Christian history, dissented from the one church. However, they were "Christians" and as such, until Protestantism began, they were still under the huge umbrella of "Christendom."

The Eastern-Western schism early in the second millennium, did not remove them from Christianity. The greatest split, at least in Western Christianity, occurred with Luther's denouncing the papal indulgences, as well as the political power of the church over the states.

What was the impact of the Waldensians? Objection to the Roman Catholic church was never an official proclamation, as I understand it, and they were unable to publicly declare
their separatism for fear of further persecution. I have visited the church, north of Turin and purchased one of their hymnbooks. It would seem more fitting to call them "Separatists" of which there were others during these times.

Cliff, you wrote:

"If anything, the trend in the church now is to move ever more conservative than it had been in the past."

Are you simply making an observation, or are you lauding this as a virtue? Our church, while aspiring to be a culture changer, has truly been a reflector of societal moods and shifts, at least throughout the past century.

From an American viewpoint admittedly, as the wider evangelical Christian church moved towards a more literal fundamentalism in the early 20th c., so did the Adventist church. As they began championing a strict model of biblical inerrency, so did we (in practice, if not in theory), especially concerning the writings of EGW. As the winds of social change blew in the 60's and 70's, and as the across the board level of education rose in society and in our church, so did the questioning of traditional and long held values and beliefs. It was no longer good enough just because our elders, or the organization, or the powers that be said so. The church mirrored the liberal movement of society. And as our society took a sharp right turn during the Reagan years, and has continued down that road all the up to GWB, it seems that the church has retreated back into a very conservative stance on many issues of faith and practice. Now it seems, once again, like the winds of change are beginning to blow in the opposite direction in the wider world. I wonder in which direction the church will be moving over the next 20-25 years?

An anything goes, "du-jour" theology is certainly not a healthy situation, as you have rightly pointed out. But neither is a stultifying conservatism. If I remember correctly, Mrs. White had lots to say about the type of conservatism that is unwilling to question, and is content to rest on, "this is the way we've always believed." She pointed to this as leading to the condition of "you believe you know not what."

Thus, is it not the responcibility of each new generation to define and appropriate for itself anew the "faith of our fathers?" This requires close questioning and reading of the biblical text, real dialogue, much prayer, and sometimes uncomfortable, and maybe to some, bewildering change.

And the reality is that our capacity and inclination to go through this does not occur in a vacumm. We do seem to reflect the liberal or conservative climate of the world around us in the trends of our own attitudes and praxis, and our willingness and ability to genuinely engage in this process.

So maybe, it would be more helpful, instead of placing such labels and value judgements on each other, to acknowledge our inter-connectedness, with both the wider world and each other. For want of better terms, liberals and conservatives, "righties and lefties," need each other. Instead of lauding liberalism or conservatism, and pounding each other as is done in the political world, we need to laud the need of all voices being heard. Because, we need each others' voices for balance, for moderation, for humility,and for courage, as we seek to discern God's plans and purposes for us as his people and as his body in this age.

Is God looking at us either/or, or both/and? Can we look at one another in the same way?

Thanks...

Frank

Thanks, Frank, for giving a voice for reason.

Spectrum is the official organ of Adventist Forums, recognized by the Seventh-day Adventist Church through the Review. Spectrum-on-line is an extension of that organ. Its purpose is to invite considered discussion on topics of interest to a church body living in a rapidly changing world. Alex offered readers (bloggers) a list, some serious, some trivial, and others tongue in cheek as a mechanism to widen the discussion--even provoke a few. What he got instead is "Bughouse Square".

Certainly the fundamental question before us all is "What thing ye of Jesus Christ? Whose Son is He?"

When God said: "Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness"--He also anticipated the jabber of Spectrum and provided a Redeemer who would serve also as our example. Not to hush us up but to focus our minds and hearts on issues of eternal importance. Maybe Alex should ask us all--is there any thing on which we can all agree beyond our own opinion? I for one serve, or at least attempt to serve a living Savior. To that extent I call all kin. Within that family of Christ, I have a few critical differences of opinion. I am glad, Spectrum gives me the opportunity to express them and to read rebuttals in the spirit of kinship. No I am not a Seventh-day Adventist, I believe I am a Christian of some years of study and expeience. I have been grieved by recent posts as unworthy of Christian dialogue. Of the ten finest Christians I personally know, one was a Jesuit Priest. Of the ten most vindictive people I have met more than half have been Seventh-day Adventists. Shame!

A Forum should be just that a discussion group among kin.
I would like that. Tom

praise music:: usually just bad or even terrrible. people leading out cant sing. They close their eyes in some kind of dreamy whatever. It turns me and most others off. Sorry but I'm for more uplifting music in church.
Lance Hodges

Cliff,

The probative value of the truth you wrote out weighted the prejudicial effect of your tone. Do not be intimidated by the complaints of “friends” or enemies. No war is fought without friendly fire casualties. Let your friends be the judge as to whether the action was worth the cost.

Jeannieb43

Visiting the Waldenses' church in Torre Pellice....

Your mention of it brought back memories of my trip there in 1975 with a Columbia Union Conference European tour just prior to General Conference Session in Vienna.

When we tiptoed into that small, old, wooden church in Torre Pelice, our group of about 30 Adventist workers all spontaneously burst into song: "Faith of our fathers, living still...." It was such an emotional time.

The mountains were still there, where the Waldenses used to hide in the caves while fog rolled in and protected them from being found and arrested. ... The memories of their distributing pages of the Holy Bible which had been sewn into the hems of their garments.... All of this came rolling back into our memories as we walked where the faithful ones had walked, so many years ago.

Thank God for those who have gone before us. May the memories of our generation prove to be as inspirational to our great-grandchildren.

Alex,

I would take you up on your wager except I am afraid, you not having the money, will borrow it from your girlfriend. She, eager to please you, in the hopes this will in some small way bring you to the altar with her, will gladly loan you the money. In addition, I do not believe in taking a man’s money and his pride at the same time.

My accusation was not false. I said the writers on this website. Take 100 of any posting on this website submit them to a cross section of Adventist Churches. Ask the fact finders, yes or no, is the doctrines presented here acceptable Adventist beliefs and practices and the answer will be a resounding no. Cliff has already provided you with the answer. He is a man of experience. He visits the church the world over. He has the right type of mind and he is in a great position to make the call of a fair evaluation.

Cliff stated a great truth when he told you your view is myopic. Your appeal to poll the site and Spectrum attendees is like a Republican going to Fox News for fair and balanced reporting.

You are bottom fishing when so much time is spent on discussions concerning homosexuality. The reason why Christian parents are dismayed by the discussion is because they realize just how low society has sunk. They perceive their naive children buying into the steady diet of propaganda from a decadent society.

It is not that there are no texts in the Bible against sodomy. It is not the clarity of the text; it is the dullness of the mind that is the problem. The serious nature of these issues are clear when you recall that Lot and Samson both thought they could hang with the Sodomites and Philistines without any negative consequences. Against good advice they both had to learn by hard experience, the one by losing his wife and goods, the other by being made blind, before he could see.

Thanks cliff for your comments;
I listened to a great conversation about email & blogs & tone on NPR not long ago - and its crazy how we can get carried away and not really intend to.
You made some comments I read on another post that bothered me because they seemed nasty...So I appreciate your candor here.
Don't go away -
k

"Loving our Neighbors as Ourselves"
what a concept;
If only all the "christians" in my local church (myself included) would live this way, we'd change the world.

JB

If I remember correctly, the Christ whom you claim to follow said to leave the tares in the field, as the danger to the wheat in uprooting them was too high.

This same Christ said that not a bent reed would he break, nor blow out a sputtering flame.

These statements are so far from authorizing "friendly fire casualties" that I can't think of anything that could be farther.

You and Cliff take your weedwackers to the bent reeds, put the dimming flame in a wind tunnel, cover the field with 'weed targeting' herbicide, and then call your actions "following Christ." Perhaps you should consider planks and specks again.

JB:

To cast aspersions about a person's finances and claim to guess the motives of someone's close friends is without warrant and civility. This behavior is particularly baffling in the same comment in which you complain about how low society has sunk.

If it's not clear why, perhaps ask, do unto others. . .

Would you like someone in getting out of a wager by talking about those you love and your financial situation rather than the issues?

This is the third personal attack I've received by same-gender skin touching in a sexual way opponents in the last three days.

My girlfriend and I would appreciate an apology.

Furthermore, so you're saying any 100 posts on this site. . .I'll take that wager. Will you back up your words?

The rest of you, thanks for sticking to the ideas.

Wow Alex.

I bet you dont throw out so many hot potatoes at once again.
Let me offer you an easy one, nobody picked up on.

Soy Milk is not available or easily producable in most economies of the world, so we can knock that one off!

Maybe its time to close this chapter and get some clarity on items one at a time. The arguments are getting too personal and too messy.

I think that you're right, Victor, that soy milk may not be available in many parts of the world, although during my two years in Thailand, it was readily available there. But the point is not so much that everyone needs soy milk so much as the fact that it is coming back into popularity in some places where it is readily available.

And just a fun little factoid - it takes far less land and resources to grow soy than it takes to grow dairy cattle. Which means that soy milk is a much more efficient and environmentally sound to produce than is real milk. For what it may be worth. :-)

I accept the ecological argument for sure and there is a resurgence of the stuff on super market shelves. Not sure that adventism can take much credit one way or the other on this. I can't imagine a Baptist site rating Soya Milk as a church innovation.

(I've got a bug about Soya at present having gotten food poisoning from Tofu in Loma Linda restaurants last month.)

I only took a pop at it because it was at the top of the list and many contributors are making sweeping statements in issues from Soya Milk to Historic Orthodoxy all in the same thread.

I am trying to offer the Webmaster the opportunity to seperate the threads. I cant see us getting sassy about Soya Milk after all!

If you pick up on the likes of Tom, he's trying to redirect the drift. Catch the hint.

Fine point Victor. Thanks for your high-minded comment to get us back on track.

Of course diets differ by region, but for those who remember the clunky old Soyagen cans, the slick packaging and sustainability advantage of new brands of soy milk influenced its inclusion under the comeback heading.

These are not categorical imperatives, merely a list of ideas about which folks can make up their own minds.

The drift above has been about what most adventists do and don't do. Wild claims about those who are in are out, left and right, and worse epithets, based on the full list above.

My centring point is that Soy Milk is not the big deal for as many adventists on a world wide basis as though who purport to speak for us all suggest.

To be pointed, Tom is reminding us that Jesus Christ is our main talking point and not Cliff Goldstein.

Jemand

Did you ever consider that JB and Cliff might just be the bent reed and smoking flax and you could inadvertantly be the weedwacker?

It is not unusual for a person with the zeal and passion of a Cliff to "burn-out". Let us neither encourage nor discourage his passion. Maybe the Lord can make an Apollos out of a Paul. In the meantime let us appreciate his reason--he does offer some very cogent comments. "Just a little bit of sugar would make the medicine go down!" Tom

For you old-timers out there
I've always wondered what was in that dreadful concoction marketed as non-dairy cheese in the 1970s. It's big selling point was that it did not offend against EGW's ban on the real thing, but like so many other well-intentioned products from back then it offended against everything else. (My tastebuds still recoil in horror at the memory.)

JB,

I believe personality attacks occur when we have nothing of content to offer.

We should attempt to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

I have appreciated some of your comments. Sometimes we get to much into the conversation and it is good to reflect that our anger and pride does not promote God's righteousness.

Reflect and return.

pat

Hi Cliff!

You are absolutely right: No one has the ability or right to judge the motives of others. One hardly understands one's own!

I think that this is why I wrote, "It is my impression......." This IS my impression and I own it; however, I'm ready to move on.

Many thanks!

Dave

Not having reworked my way through all the comments, I don't recall if we mentioned the SDA view of God, which makes love primary and power secondary, as also important in the "Ideas we've always stood for and now their coming back."

All over the theological world, not just in process thought, the ancient "heresy" of patripassionism--roughly that the First Person of the Trinity "feels" what we feel--is being adopted as "orthodoxy."

Many reach this conclucion on Wesleyan grounds, as they always have. But thinkers from other schools of thought are in their own ways moving in these directions.

Like all other theistic communnities of faith, in the end Adventism rises or falls on its picture of God as expressed in words and deeds. Everything else is secondary at best.

Thanks!

Dave

Thanks, Dave...

And the ultimate picture we have of God in word and deed is the NT picture we have of his Son..."If you've seen me, you've seen the Father."

Thanks...

Frank

Dave,

I don't differ with you on the idea, " I don't recall if we mentioned the SDA view of God, which makes love primary and power secondary."

However I guess it all comes back to one's definition of Love and what it incorporates.

I do appreciate this comment from EGW which mirrors the idea expressed by some other conservatice theologians I have read.

"Love is dwelt upon as the chief attribute of God, but it is degraded to a weak sentimentalism, making little distinction between good and evil. God's justice, His denunciations of sin, the requirements of His holy law, are all kept out of sight. The people are taught to regard the Decalogue as a dead letter. Pleasing, bewitching fables captivate the senses and lead men to reject the Bible as the foundation of their faith. Christ is as verily denied as before; but Satan has so blinded the eyes of the people that the deception is not discerned."GC558

I suggest law, justice and even "wrath" when God deems necessary using force is Love.

regards,

pat

Alex,

Everyone knows when the pitcher throws the ball high and tight not to turn to the Ump and complain, “He tried to hit me in the head.” The Ump is just going to say, “If he wanted to hit you in the head we would have.” “Did you come to play the game or did you come to whine about the pitcher.” This is why the proverb is still valid, Strain a gnat and swallow a camel.

Pat wrote:

I suggest law, justice and even "wrath" when God deems necessary using force is Love.

So God punishes sin in the end? He tortures sinners in the flames, some longer than others? What is God's wrath? Matt 21, Jesus drove out the moneychangers and those buying and selling. But immediately, the blind, crippled, and children came to him. Interesting wrath. Romans 1, the wrath of God is revealed (present tense), God gives them up. Just like Deut. 32. Sure, whom God loves, he disciplines, Deut 8, Prov 3, Hebrews 12. Zech 4:6, NOT BY MIGHT or POWER, but by my SPIRIT. The Wages of sin is death, not punishment by the hands of an angry God. Must God punish every sin?

"Every sin must meet its punishment, urged Satan; and if God should remit the punishment of sin, He would not be a God of truth and justice. {DA 761.4}

So Pat, must you Love God, or else, he will kill you? How else can I interpret what you are saying?

Unfortunately, JB, you can't tell the difference between a player and the ump, and you just got yourself ejected.

Spectrum has always worked to foster thoughtful discourse. Several community members find your personal attacks and lack of substance destructive. Me and mine find your assumptions about us pretty funny, but there is a larger community principle of respecting the rules in order to create a safe space for good conversation. This requires standards of behavior.

Of course you can come back with a different online identity which is fine, because we're not about excluding individuals, only behavior that corrupts good conversation. Our editorial team has concluded that JB will no longer be allowed to post. We do not attack people in the Spectrum community. Period.

Alexander Carpenter and the Spectrum Web Team

JB:

Your apology to Alex is certainly in order. If you can't offer a substantial rebuttal, just don't post. We'll forget about your weak arguments soon enough, and maybe we won't read your next posts with suspicion. Don't stoop to attempts at character assassination. Even if Alex can laugh at the ways you pick on him, it's not fair to others who want to post to let them think they may be subject to such attacks if they venture an idea. That is not opening conversation, that's silencing it.

I just have to ask this. Women's ordination is an old idea staging a comeback?

I'm the first to admit that I'm not up on the latest church ins and outs but it seems to me the final position has been - wait until the older generation retires or dies. And this may or may not work depending on who moves into leadership positions. I've been hanging around on this blog for months now and have hardly heard a peep about it. It's like everyone just kind of accepted that the church wasn't going to do it, had no pathway to do it, and didn't even want to talk about it anymore. And so conversation moved on to other interesting things.

Although there are many reasons, this issue is a large and glaring chunk of why I left the church. SDAs are in the proud company of the most fundamentalist of denominations over this and it was just too humiliating to admit I belonged to an organization that still treated women like that. I listened to myself try and explain to incredulous friends one too many times and finally had to agree that it really was just not something I could swallow. It's a trump card that overshadows any creation care or vegetarianism or whatever of which SDAs can be justifiably proud. They may do good things but they don't ordain women and that is just not ok.

And changing it now would help only slightly because then women would be expected to be oh so grateful for something that should have happened decades ago. Once one gets so far behind the times the damage gets done and the church will be living with that damage, even after women are finally ordained.

Maybe someone who understands the history of it all a little more could shed some light on what is going on. I understand why it should be an issue but I don't understand why it's not an issue. Is there outrage on college campuses? Anything?

A.way.

To start with I suggest your understanding of the DA quote is out of context...you see it did receive punishment by the death of Christ and that is what makes satan's accusation that "if God remmited sin" in your quote false.

Scripture kind of says it for me:

The LORD watches over all who love him,
but all the wicked he will destroy. Ps.145:20

All the ways of the LORD are loving and faithful
for those who keep the demands of his covenant. Ps.25:10

The good news is that Christ kept the covenant perfectly for us and those having been justified by faith... and, abiding in Him we have peace with Him.

I think He will make the correct decision on how long one suffers because He knows what the correct amount of vengeance is His and our God of Love will repay.Heb.10:29-31.

I realize this is dreadful to you but non the less what my Bible says.Perhaps you are more righteous than God?

pat

Beth, the refusal to recognize women as ministers, equal to men, is another reason some of us no longer wish to be associated with such a gender-discriminating organization.
It makes no difference whether they call it "commissioning" or any other term they wish to use, it still does not change facts: the SDA church is not an "equal employer."
No, they are "above" or "behind" in the civil laws, but they are way behind the times and the women who still study theology, hoping against hope, and with no reason to believe anything will change, or doomed to disappointment.
Girls: wake up and realize the church has no place for you except as an understudy, always waiting in the wings.

I think it important to discuss the nature and character of God because nothing is more central to any community of faith.

My question is whether we SDAs have a distinctive emphasis in this regard. I think we do. This is that God's love is the principle by which we understand God's sovereignty, power or wrath and everything else we say about God.

I don't think we should think of ourselves as having a unique picture of God; however, I think it should be distinguishable from many others because of the way we make divine love the measure of everything else.

This is directly related to the issue of ordaining women. In the end the question amounts to what God's loving fairness or fair lovingness suggests.

I believe that the General Conference session in Utrecht, at which our community of faith officially decided to discriminate against people on the basis of gender, was the last straw for many educated SDAs. Since then there have been many who, like Beth, have had to leave as a matter of conscience.

Our church, like many others, is swiftly growing among those who are not yet well educated, though our church will help them in this regard.

But it has discredited itself in the eyes of many thoughtful people in the regions from which Adventism originated. They cannot condone official discrimination on the basis of gender--male or female--any more than they can on the basis of race or nationality. To ask them to do otherwise is itself immoral.

So, we here at Spectrum, like many other SDAs around the world, desperately hanging on and praying for a better day.

Ethically speaking, we are going through a dark chapter in our denomination's history and none of us should pretend otherwise.

I can understand and respect those who decide to leave; however, some of us need to stick around and try to be a postive influence. Either path is honorable. Permanently accepting our denomination's status quo with respect to women is not honorable, I suggest.

Thank you!

Dave

Beth, Elaine, and others interested in the comeback being made by women's ordination -

I am not an ordained or licensed minister. I'm a volunteer who oversees the collegiate ministry at a large-ish church in Southern California (one with a female senior pastor, I'm pleased to say). But in any case, getting hired as a full time pastor is a concern for me in a time when the economy is flagging, tithe is down, and Southeast California Conference is not hiring new pastors at present. They are filling vacancies with other conference-employed pastors, but not bringing in new pastors.

I found out on Sunday that SECC, in addition to not hiring new pastors, is looking particularly for women to fill vacancies. They are actively pursuing women to serve as pastors. Good news for women, bad news for me (but I'm still very supportive of the move).

That's one, progressively-minded conference, but it is happening!

Contrast that with the Washington conference where a friend of mine was promised a job upon returning from Andrews. She got to Washington and the conference began trying to place her in a church. Repeatedly the answer from congregations was "we don't hire females". My friend is highly qualified, very energetic, very godly, and unemployable because of her genetics, at least in Washington. She finally was employed on the East Coast.

So there are two sides to the coin, it seems.

Pat - I suggest you read the context. And when you do, read the following quote and fit this into your understanding:

We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. The sinner brings the punishment upon himself. His own actions start a train of circumstances that bring the sure result. Every act of transgression reacts upon the sinner, works in him a change of character, and makes it more easy for him to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death. {1888 1576.1}

Many times, God is portrayed as the doer of that which he allows. He will allow us to have our own choice. And choosing to sin, we kill ourselves. God does not have to do execute sinners.

It appears that you have an interesting picture of God. By beholding we become changed, applies both good and bad.

In Adventism, the time has come to tell the truth about God. Even when he thunders on Sinai to get the peoples attention, Moses says:

(Exodus 20:18 GNB) When the people heard the thunder and the trumpet blast and saw the lightning and the smoking mountain, they trembled with fear and stood a long way off.
(Exodus 20:19 GNB) They said to Moses, "If you speak to us, we will listen; but we are afraid that if God speaks to us, we will die."
(Exodus 20:20 GNB) Moses replied, "Don't be afraid

Beth

I sense your disappointment and grievance, and can only try to share some of that pain. Short of a literalistic proof text argument there is no rational answer that will satisfy you, but your appeal for understanding communal behaviour is sincere.

For myself as an employee of 33 years, I have always resisted suggestions of 'orders' in the local church and beyond. I just do my job. My only title is described in the 6 letter name my mother gave me. I won't pretend that this is in sympathy or protest, but I do argue with some of my vociferous bretheren that they should not accept privileges not available to others, if they are of such strong conviction. I havent found the absence of a title inhibiting, on the contrary it is liberating.

This is one of these areas where generosity beyond parochial priorities becomes important.

On a world-wide basis, patristic, chauvanistic societies do prevail and national culture does seep into religous culture. To make life worse many of these people resent progressions that might described as West Coast imperialism.

Nations who guide cruise missiles into crowded cities for whatever reason are always going to struggle with hearts, minds and justice arguments.

The pain that these people feel is palpable and exceeds I am sure the awkwardness of career progression of cosy people in comfortable neighbourhoods. Global actions have unintended global consequences. Others do not relish our proclaimed moral high-ground.

The church did try to amend its position in Toronto, I was there and followed the debate. Having encouraged the primacy of democratic voice to the majority now outside western thinking, we can hardly ride rough shod over it.

It seems to me that for the present we may have to accept that the opportunity for overall development in emerging nations constitutes the greater good.

2000 years from the Cross, it is clear that God works his purposes out in epochs beyond our life spans.

If, as Jared says, "tithe is down," did the church never consider that even the act of discriminating against women
might result in a law of unintended consequences? Those of us who feel any institution, particularly a religious one, that disciminates, does not deserve our support, both physical or financial. We can both speak with our voices and with our pocketbooks.

A-Way,

Does scripture say that God destroys the wicked or not?

I am aware that we choose our direction and as well we may choose to respond to the Spirit and repent. Our eternal death at the judgment is not spontaneous combustion or the natural effect of sin...sorry.

Neither does God relish the necessity of in love for His creation of personally destoying sin and sinners.

pat

Pat, are you sure God doesn't relish it? There is certainly Biblical evidence that He may actually enjoy it.

In Deutoronomy 28 God lists all the various terrible things He is going to do to the Israelites if they don't keep the law, culminating in personally sending enemies who will starve them and make them eat their babies. And then verse 63:

"And just as the Lord took delight in making you prosperous and numerous, so the Lord will take delight in bringing you to ruin and destruction: you shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to possess."

If you read the list of things that God says He'll do to them, it makes a mercy killing at the end of time seem pretty mild. If God enjoys the revenge earlier, whose to say He wouldn't be enjoying it later?

Taking the male/female pastor issue into the smaller church arena, maybe it would be well for the church hierarchy to actively encourage the practice of female elders. Give churches the tools (arguments) to move in that direction. Educate women to see themselves in that position. Along the same lines eliminate the terms deacon and deaconess. Find a better gender neutral term and let male or female follow their interests and use their talents where they fit in serving their church.

This "Sunday worship as the Mark of the Beast" thing would have to include actively fighting the idea that the whole world is out to get us and will, some day be persecuting us for the Sabbath. It has been so ingrained that with most Adventist you can't even talk current events for very long before they start connecting the dots and always end up with some sort of persecution scenario. It is so unhealthy. I tried to talk to some one just two days ago about concerns for religious liberty abuses with the FLDS. Their main concern had nothing to do with the outcome of FLDS children but that the courts may use the same practices to take SDA children away. This constant paranoia leads to panics that the church is following the Great Whore and videos circulate "documenting" the slide of SDAism into apostasy. Large numbers of Adventist, because of their constant dwelling of the imminent return of Jesus which of course would be preceded by torture and persecution, have little way of sorting through the absurd and the genuine concerns for human rights.

If one was inclined to believe the simplistic view of women ministers, one might believe those who say that everyone who doesnt want a woman Pastor is discriminating as we have basically heard above. Including the "dark days of our denomination" fluff.

No one considers that the Pastoral labor force is tied to the increase in members needing to recieve Pastoral support.

Our seminary's pump out graduates not based on jobs needing filled but by the fact that someone has paid them money to get a degree.

I have experienced many young would be theology graduates thinking that they would be assured a lifelong employment with the denomination that would supply them with 70K per year and benafits including health, dental, vision, continuing education money, mileage vouchers, per diams and FAT discounts of up to 70% on tuition for their kids education.

Some especially educated ones we've had to deal with even manged to talk their local church to buying cellphones and pay for the monthly airtime minutes for themselves, their wife and their 2 kids. Quite a bunch of entrepreneurs these Pastors are.

The problem is that unless their is growth and new churches being planted you cannot hope to hire whoever gets a degree and wants a job.

If the local congregations look at 5-8 candidates and dont choose the girl everytime, it doesnt mean they are discriminating in the Washington Conference.
It's patently unfair and verifyably ignorant to make the assumptions I have read above that it's the educated people who champion the womens ordination thing and it is the country hicks and 3rd world countries that oppose it.
It's more complicated than that and placing a woman in a local church because it fits someone elses idea of equality is not the way to create a vibrant and unified outreach to their community.
Congregations who find a particular woman candidate a perfect fit can have one. Thats not peanuts.

Hi Beth,

God takes pleasure in fulfilling His will in covenant. He takes pleasure in ultimately destroying sin...but maybe this answers your question.

“Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live? Ez.18:23.

Regards,

pat

Beth and Elaine
Don't you think that the real problem is that the SDA church has never embraced democracy? I assume the church is still run by clerics (Vatican light). If the church members got to vote on issues such a women's ordination, I would imagine that women long ago would have been ordained.

Of course, "vote" and "democracy" are damnable words to many hierarchs (I know, Victor, not all think this way) because they assume that church members have little or no investment in theological correctness and would always choose the easy way out. Contempt for the perspicacity of the laity was strong back in my day; it may have changed.

In the developing world religion is often defined as a man's concern, as are most things of importance. I don't see the opposition to women's ordination in that part of the world primarily coming from biblical literalism and conservative exegesis but from a general disregard for women period. A Norwegian friend of mine who grew up in a third world country, told me about the local conference president (this was the 1960s) speaking about sanctification to a camp meeting crowd. As evidence of God's work in his life, he mentioned that he no longer kicked his wife. Thanks to the Holy Spirit he now limited himself to the occasional smack.

Power corrupts and absolute power--well, you know what it does, even in church.

Aage, the biggest mistake made by the church on women's ordination was in Utretcht (date ?) when they decided to let the world church decide on women's ordination: IOW, only if all the world memership wanted women to be ordained, would it be passed on. Naturally, the third world was against it, so the first world countries surrendered their own prerogative for it to be decided by divisions. Also, by leaving it to literal biblical interpretation, they turned their back on Paul's message that there was no difference in male & female, etc.

The third world countries are now the tail that swings the tiger. Good-bye democracy.

Actually, the Adventist church was structured much like the Roman Catholic church, which in turn, was structured like the Roman government at the time--no democracy there. Allowing members to have a voice would mean surrendering control--one of the thing most feared by those in power.

Pat wrote:

Does scripture say that God destroys the wicked or not?

I am aware that we choose our direction and as well we may choose to respond to the Spirit and repent. Our eternal death at the judgment is not spontaneous combustion or the natural effect of sin...sorry.

Neither does God relish the necessity of in love for His creation of personally destoying sin and sinners.

Let me ask a question in return: Is Man immortal or mortal? If Man is immortal, then yes, God would need to kill sinful Man off to wipe out sin. If Man is mortal, then why step in and kill? The wages of sin will do that.

Read the following, and see all the things that God is going to do. But in the end, what really happened?

(Deuteronomy 32:22-30 GNB) My anger will flame up like fire and burn everything on earth. It will reach to the world below and consume the roots of the mountains." 'I will bring on them endless disasters and use all my arrows against them. They will die from hunger and fever; they will die from terrible diseases. I will send wild animals to attack them, and poisonous snakes to bite them. War will bring death in the streets; terrors will strike in the homes. Young men and young women will die; neither babies nor old people will be spared. I would have destroyed them completely, so that no one would remember them. But I could not let their enemies boast that they had defeated my people, when it was I myself who had crushed them.' "Israel is a nation without sense; they have no wisdom at all. They fail to see why they were defeated; they cannot understand what happened. Why were a thousand defeated by one, and ten thousand by only two? The LORD, their God, had abandoned them; their mighty God had given them up.

Yep, God did all those things. But what really happened, is God gave them up. Just as in Romans 1.

As for the fires in the end, there are two types of fire. One that is psychological and one that is physical. The physical burns up the stubble, the chaff, the dead bodies of the sinners. They are already dead when they burn. The other, is the psychological. We see this many places.
(Song of Solomon 8:6 NKJV) Set me as a seal upon your heart, As a seal upon your arm; For love is as strong as death, Jealousy as cruel as the grave; Its flames are flames of fire, A most vehement flame.
(Romans 12:20 GNB) Instead, as the scripture says: "If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them a drink; for by doing this you will make them burn with shame."
(Romans 12:20 KJV) Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
In Revelation 14:10, the work sometimes translated brimstone is "theion", the light of God. And where does this brimstone, the light of God get poured out? In the presence of the angels and the lamb. The same light is life to the righteous, and death to the wicked. No difference except which group you are in. Is this something inflicted on just the wicked? All are in that light, but to the sinner, it is a consuming fire. The sinner sees how he is out of harmony and I see this as the torment, a mental torment when they understand their sinfulness.

It is still interesting to me that the final result is the same. But you need to have God be the destroyer, the executioner. Where I see God like a father, not wanting to get his child go, but the child is bent on leaving, and in the end, God sadly lets go and the natural consequences take over.

Well A-Way it is about as “natural consequences” as the fire that came out of the holies and consumed Nadab and Abihu or the fire that destroyed Sodom.

I don’t have to have a God who destroys. I just accept a Bible that says He does. I don’t feel the liberty to create a God of my own desires.

pat

"The third world countries are now the tail that swings the tiger. Good-bye democracy. "

This is precisely the mind-set that is offensive to many non-Americans. How did you get to see yourselves as the Tiger?

I suggest it comes by virtue of cultural history that sees itself as being 'chosen' leaving behind in Europe dreadful oppressors etc. Not many places are quite so vocal about seperation of church and state, yet have the national leader repeatedly vocalise 'God bless ... my nation' and write on their coins 'In God we Trust'.

Believe me... The rest of the world does not swallow Tiger talk. Change agents need to understand how counterproductive it is.

(Aage - I think I know your friends from Africa, I don't doubt their story. Strange things happen. The Pastor's wives clip from Florida reminds us that we have a way to go also.)

Getting back to the original issue. Explaining rather than justifying - leadership arrangements.

I accept that the argument is more deeply embedded than votes at Utrecht and Toronto. But acknowledge at least that the subject was discussed and put to the vote.

The issue is not quite as simple as discrimination. The issue has been hot in a church close to me recently. Ordination of Women is as likely to be opposed by Women as by Men.

One of the ways I use to get my head around things, (ok its not theological) is to view the biblical narrative as an ancient pageant, which we try to re-enact. I know it doesn't help people that want to act in a different story, but I do think that this is what we are doing. Drama of the Ages.. etc. Sadly some people treat it like the Pantomime of the Ages.

Another observation. Our local church used to have respective roles for deacons and deaconesses. They decided to degender simple things like taking up the offering.
The effect: men who had been role bound stopped showing up. I suspect that on average men are more role bound? Maybe the story is about jobs for the boys to keep them on board? I know that cuts the other way for job aspiring ladies.

Be patient - it doesn't justify - it may explain. Some of us administrative types have to survive in the world of primitive compromise, we don't have the luxuries of idealistic minded academics.

Before the theologians get too high minded - Organisational Sociology is an academic discipline too!

I know we've had this discussion many times before...but does God limit his gifting by gender? If he could gift either gender with the prophetic gift..which our church likes to point out as "higher up" the "hierarchal scale," then why could he not gift a woman with the pastor/teaching gift as well? And if he can and does, then no matter what concerns drive our voting and decision making against officialy recognizing such, at whatever GC conference one can name...we have a real problem.

And it's not simply in the developing world. Next week we have a woman coming to preach in our church in the GNYC. One of our members began questioning another about what he thought about a "woman preaching"... negative implications being implied. I find it quite ironic that this person, a huge EGW "fan," can't see the inconsistency of his own thinking. I would estimate that EGW preached hundreds, if not thousands of messages in her lifetime? But I guess she is the only woman that gets a pass.

Thanks...

Frank

Thanks

Actually, the Adventist church was structured much like the Roman Catholic church, which in turn, was structured like the Roman government at the time--no democracy there. Allowing members to have a voice would mean surrendering control--one of the thing most feared by those in power.
Posted by: E (not verified) | 24 June 2008 at 6:15

For what it's worth, my view from a developing (2/3) world perspective: Actually, the Adventist church has been patterned after the American federal government with a president and a cabinet of administrative associates all the way from the GC, down to the unions and local conferences. Division headquarter staff administer the overseas trust territories (colonies?). The judicial function and, to a large extent, the legislative role, however, have all been subsumed under the executive power of the clergy.

How about AA? "For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority, a loving God as he may express himself in our group consciense. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern." (Tradition Two of the Twelve Traditions)

One could add biblical reference to this for the church's purposes, but if this were followed, what do you think it would do to our organizational philosophy?

Just a thought...

Frank

Pat, no that doesn't answer my question, it just complicates it. Now what we have is dueling Bible verses. I see your Ezekiel and raise you a Deuteronomy.

You were getting on A Way for what you perceived as ignoring some inconvenient verses. Then you concluded that God doesn't relish destroying the wicked. I'm just pointing out that perhaps, by saying that, you too are ignoring an inconvenient verse.

Deuteronomy 28:63 doesn't say God enjoys fulfilling His covenant. I have to say that sounds like a rather squishy liberal interpretation :) It says He will take delight in making their lives a living hell. Yes there are other verses that contradict that but so what. We can't pick and choose can we? Otherwise we are creating a God of our own choosing.

Just trying to keep you on the scriptural straight and narrow here ;)

Thank you to all who have commented on women's ordination. Victor I've especially enjoyed your voice in this and I think you are right that our USA arrogance has cost us in both foreign policy and in the church.

I'm still in the dark about what is happening on SDA college campuses. Is it still being debated with people arguing pro and con? Is it considered simply a no brainer and of course they should be ordained and we'll just bide our time till it happens? Is it a non-issue because it's just too painful and exhausting?

Sorry if this is ripping off scabs but I used to do some organization consulting and I am really curious about how things are being processed. I'm also interested from a personal and moral standpoint so it's not just intellectual for me.

For a church that affirms the priesthood of all believers, it is an oxymoron to deny full ordination to women.

I want to hear a message not a messager Tom

"The third world countries are now the tail that swings the tiger. Good-bye democracy. "

This is precisely the mind-set that is offensive to many non-Americans. How did you get to see yourselves as the Tiger?"

Yes, I made those statements, but I was implying that the NAD (not America as in the government) is the one supplying the largest part of monies to the third world countries. IOW, we pay for most of their mission and evangelistic work but because of numbers, we have little say about policy.
It's comparable to taxation without representation.

Tom, it is surely an oxymoron to claim to believe in the "priesthood of all believers" and yet deny that priesthood to more than half of its members.

Elaine

Would you, or someone else, kindly document how much and for what purposes (uses) the monies from the NAD are being spent on third world countries? The answer to this may have to do with the GC's oversight of its trust territories (colonies)!

Thanks!

Beth and Others

As a church administrator, I have to smile at all these illusions of power, conspiracy etc, being the subject of ogre-isation! True, there are those pompous beyond there paycheck. I have to say that I see myself as an ordinary working bloke doing the best I can to keep the Advent ship sailing in 'Old Blimey'. I wake up in the morning wondering how I will bring a bit of fun into a few peoples lives. I have no paranoia about beasts and affliction. There are interesting interpretations and life goes on.

I am sure that Elaine does not believe that morality can be bought? That argument doesnt work with my kids. Dads right because he pays! My daughter would have my guts for garters!

Our challenge as westerners in the last century is that we have become absolute individualists. The rights of the individual takes precedence over the rights of the group. In more communitarian societies, rights of the individual sometimes to have to be sacrificed for the good of the group. For them, this is ethical!

I grew up in Southern Africa, labelled as rascist by the liberal fraternity. Life is different when the third world lives on the other side of the railway track. One has to think very hard about ones motives. I had to modify my expectations (rights) in deference to those whose opportunities were limited.

Last year I visited my Son in Southern Sudan who was working on a project to further Primary Education for the girl child.
I saw their pain and felt it. Only 1 in 5 primary school children was a girl, we managed to get that up to 2 in 5 in areas where they worked. Be cyncial about ADRA if you want, but take a look a poverty close up before you pontificate.

The third world perspective is not as bigotted and naive as we glibbly suggest.

There are many causes of poverty. Transient and migrant parents being one of them. It results in infidelity at home and away. Hoards of foot loose men, (and women). The cry of thinking people in some of these parts is 'For God's sake, lay some responsibility on these men'. To the extent that voluntary associations encourage this, it is seen as valuable. Calls to cut men loose are not progressive!

I used to regard politics as a dirty word. I learned at business school, that it is really about the way we get things done. For sure the checks and balances need to be there. But doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people, the utilitarian principle is the unethical stream in which we have to swim. It has it casualties for sure, dont believe that we are insensitive to those hurt by hard decisions.

Beth,
Thanks for asking about how women's ordination is viewed on college campuses. While I will leave it to the people on those campuses to be specific as to what is happening there, a few observations from someone else who cares a great deal about this subject. Many of the ordination services that have taken place in the years since Utrecht, and there have been quite a few, have taken place at or near college campuses. The first was at Sligo, followed quickly by La Sierra, Loma Linda, and Victoria--those last three all being in the area near LLU and LSU. The Women's Resource Center at La Sierra keeps close tabs on all of the ordinations, if you want specific data. But what encourages me is to see those ordinations moving beyond the colleges. Just within the past month in Carmichael, California there was an ordination/commissioning service which is the terminology that is used to equalize things. And unlike some of the early services where conference officials did not want to be present even though they knew very well that the services were taking place, the Carmichael service saw very active participation by the local conference.

So change is taking place from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. It began with Sligo showing the way. Other churches joined in. Now we have conferences that are seeing the light. In Southeastern California Conference over 10% of the pastors are women. Perhaps the vote that will someday take place, will be the vote acknowledging the fact that has always existed. Women minister very effectively.

Beth,

"Just trying to keep you on the scriptural straight and narrow here ;)"

What was the motivation for it pleasing Him? This was given as a warning for disobedience and it's results. It is not inconsistent to look in other texts for amplification to meaning. I suggest also looking at Lev.26:14-46. This is not improper exegesis or "slip sliding away."

He "will take pleasure" in fulfilling covenant but He will also bring them out of captivity when they repent to honor His covenant.26:40-45.

They have ignored His longsuffering and reap the consequences. He is pleased to fulfill His covenant...so?
See also Daniel's explanation of God's activity in Dan.9:4-19.

Thus also the consistency with EZ.18.

It did please Him to destroy and separate the wicked among them Dt.29:19-21....but "the righteous will live by His faith." Hab.2 also gives us context to the mind of the Lord in His actions.

You see, I believe God hates sin and it pleases Him to destroy it. If one refuses to repent God sees that person as sin...they have become inseparable.

Regards,

pat.

PS. I suggest there is a "separation" motif continued in the NT in 2 Cor.6:17 and Rev.18:4

Pat wrote:

"You see, I believe God hates sin and it pleases Him to destroy it. If one refuses to repent God sees that person as sin...they have become inseparable."

Huh, you mean that up until then God sees sin as something separate from people? I mean if they have become inseparable then until they became inseparable they must have been separated. I have always wondered about people strange notions of sin, sayings like "love the sinner hate the sin." As if they were separated at all. Maybe I just need someone to point me to sin, that so far illusive sin that exists apart from a person then I can understand the rhetoric. Maybe when they can really "call sin by it's right name" I will begin to see that it is not in fact found in the attitude of people.

" you mean that up until then God sees sin as something separate from people?"

Good question. If we have been declared sinners by the mere fact of being born (Original Sin?) how can any human on this earth be separate from sin? Is it like our skin?
Is it inherent in humans? Would someone please explain what sin really is and stop pretending that we should all recognize and know what and who sins. Is sin an act or a condition? How can we expect to rid ourselves of such a permanent condition? Will we not be free of sin until we die? Will we take it with us to the grave?

If we are to hate sin, doesn't that imply self-hatred? Why not? It DOES make a lot of difference if we think of ourselves as sinners or as loved children of God. How many sins are there? Or, do we invent them on a daily basis? Is an abomination the same as sin? There is a long list of abominations found in the Bible. Are they all to be considered sins? Today?

Here is a picture of a Lady Pastor being commissioned by a Union President at Camp Meeting in Britain a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.adventistpictures.org.uk/gallery/2008/NECcampmeeting08/slides...

It would be interesting to hear from a female perspective, thoughts, gestures and symbolism that would enrich this kind of service.

We had some interesting discussions on how to make it unique and special.

rc & Elaine

Perhaps I did not word that as well as I could have yet I believe it to be correct.

God is in the activity of saving/redeeming sinners in attitude and deed. If they refuse to repent there is no way to accomplish change in them. They have in attitude never acknowleged their sin...nor will they thus He will destroy the wicked...the wicked being those who refuse to repent and there remains no remedy.

pat

Pat

Does it read better this way?

God is in the activity of saving/redeeming (his children) in attitude and deed. If they refuse to repent there is no way to accomplish change in (his children). (His Children) have in attitude never acknowleged their (hurtful behaviour)...nor will (his children), thus He will destroy (his children)...(his children) being those who refuse to repent and there remains no remedy....(They are no longer his children?)

If we seperate behaviour from belonging we have a dreadful time with our believing.

Sorry victor, but there is a sense that they are his children in that He created all.

But... scripture says, "11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.John 1:11-13.

Belonging as children is a result of "believing/receiving" Christ not just hanging out with a community.

John 1:11-13

May I commend Peter Block's recently published 'Community; The Structure of Belonging'. Belonging is a bit more than 'hanging around'!

Seriously reccomended to all Spectrum searchers.

Pat
We use 'they' too freely. Try replacing 'they or them' in your statement with 'I or Me'.

Its me, Its me Oh Lord, Standing in the need of Prayer.

We are all sinners. Period! For sure we need to come into relationship, but I am afraid our behaviour will always fall short. I have no illusions about that. We all need God's grace 100%, that's the gospel.

Here is a piece written for my colleagues last month, as a taster:

May 25th, 2008

Dear Friends

In my travels I have just had the luxury of reflecting on God’s guidance with some old school friends. People with whom there can be no façade, only truth telling. Such are precious. Having shared the same mold; we seek to discover whether we have grown into the possibility space that God intended us to occupy?

Peter Block, one of my favorite sages publishes a book this week entitled: Community: The Structure of Belonging. Given our debate on the priority of belonging in Christian becoming, it is a ‘must read’. Here are some initial gems:

“Community is built by focusing on peoples gifts rather than their deficiencies…. Go to an association or group of neighbors and tell them what you can do and they become quite interested.”

“Systems are capable of service but not care….voluntary associations bring generosity back into a neighborhood.”

“Possibility is distinguished from vision, goals, purpose and destiny. Possibility is a declaration of what we create every time we show up. It is a condition we want to occur in the world”.

Social Capital can be divided into “bonding” and “bridging”. Bonding networks are composed of people of like mind, usually inward looking. Other networks embrace people of different kinds, they tend to be outward looking. A society that has only bonding social capital becomes segregated into hostile groups!

“The real task of leadership is to confront people with their freedom.”

The context that restores community is one of possibility, generosity and gifts rather than one of problem solving, fear and retribution.

The core question that underlines each conversation is “What can we create together”.

It soon becomes clear that belonging is not about being ‘in or out’, it is about becoming co-constructors in the possibility space that we usually refer to as ‘God’s Kingdom’.

Please be assured of our appreciation of your capacity to realize the gifts latent within our church and the community it services. I trust that you will find the opportunity to ask the question “What can we create together”.

May God continue to bless the care you share.

Best regards,

Victor,

Your comment: "Pat
We use 'they' too freely. Try replacing 'they or them' in your statement with 'I or Me'.

Its me, Its me Oh Lord, Standing in the need of Prayer.

We are all sinners. Period! For sure we need to come into relationship, but I am afraid our behaviour will always fall short. I have no illusions about that. We all need God's grace 100%, that's the gospel."
---

Victor, I use that terminology because the Bible does. "We" who believe in Christ are promised to be children in the Kingdom of God.Jn.1:12-13.

Those who will not receive Christ or His Words "they" are the children of the devil.Jn.8:42-44.

Those who really understand Justification by Faith alone understand better than any that our behavior will always fall short thus our need of the saving Righteousness of Christ...Thus the needed humility in confessing our sins by the prompting of the Spirit and receiving the saving grace of Christ.

Just saying we need Grace is "not the gospel." The Father has offerred us Grace in His Son for all who will repent and receive Christ. That is the Gospel...and those who receive Him are the children of the kingdom.

"Children of Satan" refuse to come to the light/Jesus lest their deeds be exposed thus no remedy of saving grace. Jn.3:19,20.The wrath of God remains on them. Jn.3:36.

pat

me and my husban are adventist,and we are wondering if oral sex is exceptible by god we're too embarresed to ask our pastor or anyone for that matter.we've search though the bible and we can't really find anything that says it is but we do know that sodomy is wrong and in the webster dictionary oral sex is listed as an act of sodomy I'm so confused?? please help me I dont want to make the lord froun on me.

Curious

Under the thread: Adventist Ideas whose time as come: I reviewed the list and found the "Cliff Wars" "Stay with the Stuff!" A refeshing reaffirmation of outlandish dogma. Then I read your last plea. Without an answer. The closest Paul comes to answering conjugal questions is the isolated text that reads in the KJV. The marriage bed is undefiled. I would assume that leaves the resolution of your question up to you and your spouse.

In upper middle class "courting" oral sex is recommended as a way to pleasure a man while "protecting" one's virginity.

Which seem to be a distinction without a difference. Using KJV language: it seems that one pretty much "knows a man" or a "Woman" if such an encounter as occurred.

I would say that Paul was a very wise man. Tom

I'm a year late, but would it be strange if I were to say that Spectrum has led me *back* into Adventism?

Because, well, it has.
Sam Sukaton

I agree with the "sunday worship" NOT being the mark of the beast...the issue with the mark of the beast will be whether persons acknowledge that Sunday is the Sabbath or not. There is a difference between saying "Sunday Is The Sabbath" and worshipping on Sunday.