(Ya, that video is me - my hairstyle is called "deforestation")

"I dream of a day when we will no longer pray “Thy kingdom come and thy will be done on earth”, but we will be a people who make it so."

*******
A few things I have read in the last 24hrs, Jared:

"Creating an intentional culture to execute on the vision is as important as the vision itself." -- Dan Baker

"Institutions, like all social contracts, can be rewritten. However, this is not a simple process." -- James Sosnoski

"Though institutions are certainly powerful, they are not monoliths: they are rhetorically constructed human designs (whose power is reinforced by buildings, laws, traditions, and knowledge-making practices) and so are changeable. In other words, we made 'em, we can fix 'em. Institutions R Us." -- James Porter

*******
In my field, we use "myth" not to describe factuality but to describe function. So we can talk about the myths that groups use to create order and direction and focus -- and change.

In this institution, the SDA one, major changes have almost always been driven by the "myth" of a vision. A certain cornfield vision springs to mind. As does another in Otsego, MI. But those who once envisioned thus have been dead for a long time, and we seem reluctant to acknowledge or receive new vision for our time in the same way that our forebears received vision for their time and thrived because they did. Perhaps one lesson we can take from those who study org. culture is that without myth -- without vision -- the people perish, and orgs die. Institutions need vision to thrive.

The Spirit still lives and breathes. So where is our vision? Where are our myths? And where are our prophets?

You ask where are our vision, our myths and our prophets? You will not find any because our God is one of the dead.

It is always left to humans to create myths and they have not failed us.

I would tend to disagree somewhat with the idea that there are no longer prophetic voices (or true myth-makers) among us.

When I hear people advocating for affordable housing for all community members in inner cities, I hear the prophetic voice.

When I hear Adventists decrying human rights abuses like human trafficking, I hear the prophetic voice.

When I hear Adventists speaking and writing (have you read the cover story on the most recent Adventist Review?) for environmental stewardship, I hear the prophetic voice.

When I see male Adventist ministers insisting on receiving the same credentials as women receive, or none at all, I see prophets among us.

When I read books inviting the Adventist community to welcome gays and lesbians with wide, open arms, and individuals fighting to assure that equality means equality for homosexuals as well, I know that the Spirit of Prophecy is still alive and well in our church!

We have failed ourselves, Elaine.
What kind of world are we hoping to see? That is our vision. That's the myth we ought to be building on. That's the future we should be actively creating now.
Remember that game "Rock-Paper-Scissors"? Well, myth beats everything else. That is why we're stuck: we apparently have no sufficient counter-myth, and until we find one I expect it to be "situation normal."

Typing at roughly the same time, Jared :)

I'll affirm my suggestion that the myth-maker must not only persuade others of his narrative but also enlist those prepared to structure their world around that narrative.

The change is not in the voice crying in the wilderness, but in the ones who go ye therefore and turn the world upside down.

I agree, KM, with the idea that Adventism needs not only to hear a prophetic voice, but to be a prophetic people. I think, as I suggested above, that perhaps both happen at times and in various places in our faith community (and of course outside of our faith community as well).

Darius, are you going for an Adventisty take on Nietzsche - "God is dead and Adventists killed him"? I don't entirely follow...

I'm going to take an unpopular stance and say that regarding "and yes neither gay nor straight", we make a severe mistake to conflate sin with biological determinism.

Homosexual acts are sin. That is clear from the Bible. So are heterosexual acts performed outside of marriage. So are many other things that people don't want to identify as sin these days. Sin hurts people.

Homosexual acts are not "the worst" of sins by any means and nobody should be stigmatized for a gay orientation anymore than for a tendency to gossip. However, we should recognize that it is something to be overcome, just as alcoholism is something to be overcome.

Many Christians have made the mistake of attacking the sinner, not helping them overcome the sin. The reaction to that has been to glorify the sin and justify the sinner, rather than helping them. Neither ditch is safe to fall into.

In addition, it is demeaning to the work of Martin Luther King Jr. to equate it with the effort for "gay rights" (meaning, according it a "non sin" status). Certainly, nobody should be denied their rights, gay or straight. However, that does not mean any special status, marriage, etc. should be accorded to gay couples. This is "an abomination" in the words of the Bible, and we are not wise to make it an accepted policy in society, much less in Adventism, which is called to a higher standard.

Let us not lose sight of God's mission of redemption and fall into the world's trap of political correctness, in our efforts to do right.

Beginning with the subjective premise that homosexuality and actions are "sin," how does one begin to help someone overcome that particular sin? Talk is cheap; but what actions would you suggest to help someone "overcome" his sexuality? Has anyone felt it necessary to overcome her heterosexuality? Why is one a choice and the other is not?

Few, probably no one here would be so certain that all things declared sin in the Bible are still viewed as sins today. Actually, the most often used term for many sins was an "abomination." Check a concordance of the KJV (where abomination is used for homosexual acts--not sin) to find dozens of abominations, most of which are simply seen as archaic perception and prohibitions of the time. There was a paucity of medical knowledge, compared to today. Certainly, the Bible offers us moral principles, but the overriding principle must always be love: whatever drives out love is not of God. How can someone who views homosexuality as sinful, love his gay brother or sister? Please, not a repetition of the time-worn cliche: hate the sin and love the sinner, when, if one believes "all have sinned" then who of us is not in the group called "sinners"?