Ryan, thanks for a very timely essay. Fear is the driving factor in the effort to conserve--batten down the hatches and prevent any new idea that seems to endanger our previous concepts.

When we accept that others may have ideas contrary to ours and that they are also equally children of God, we need not be bothered, secure in what we believe prevents us from worry about what others may think.

Why is it that the agnostic is seldom trying to persuade others and is far more tolerant than the very religious? It would seem that religion and tolerance are antithetical.

Excellent article, Ryan.

Ryan,

Thanks for such an insightful article. Our denomination is indeed dominated by fear.

I appreciated that you pointed out that fear is not only found on the conservative/traditional side. I also appreciated your emphasis on love. As one who identifies more often with the liberal/progressive element, I see the desire to push forward into uncharted territory as an act of passionate love for the God who calls us beyond the familiar. However, as one who has many good friends whose views are often to the right of center, I would like to recognize that the conservation efforts on the right are often also motivated by love. Love for an unchanging God inspires a desire to respect and hold on to the beautiful insights of those who have come before us.

Perhaps if we encourage one another to seek the truth in love from both sides, unity in diversity will become more than a pithy phrase.

Jesus spent a lot of his time on earth walking amongst us showing that the symbolic (and perhaps literal) rest of Sabbath could be taken into the other six days of the week. Once we live this way, the Sabbath does seem to lose some of its edges and blend with the rest of our lives. As long as we stay humble and focus on Christ, this can be a good thing, though our observances will not necessarily look that way to a very traditional Adventist.

Ryan:

One of my all-time favorite quotes is from Saul Bellow:

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

I don't dredge this up as some sort of missle to lob at conservatives. It think its greatest value is when I use it for self-reflection.

Ryan,

Very insightful. (I wish you--I wish lots of us--would starting submitting pieces like this to the Adventist Review, as well to this website.)

You say fear "is pushing us further and further from the center of our faith, which is Christ." That certainly comes through when (on either side) we are dismissive and condescending to those on the other, or are eager to push people out instead of welcome them in. (I am myself not without sin in these regards.)

So I take your article as a personal challenge--to me.

Rich: Thanks for that great quote from Saul Bellow: "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

Imagine Sabbath school classes everywhere asking, at least periodically, What, in the light of the Gospel, are the illusions we--we here today--need to overcome?

Chuck

Chuck, I'm happy to submit it, but now that it's published here, is it "tarnished." And by that I don't mean that the Spectrum label is the tarnish so much as the "already seen by the public" tarnish.

Why is it that the agnostic is seldom trying to persuade others and is far more tolerant than the very religious? It would seem that religion and tolerance are antithetical.

**************************************************************
Elaine...

I believe that this is the typical caricature thrown around about the religious. To me, the reality is that the religious have no real special corner on intolerance and the protection of ideological bases of power. The atheistic regimes of the 20th century, that tried to expunge religion as the 'opiate of the masses,' were responcible for a far greater number of murders, pogroms and persecutions of those looked upon as ideologically deviant, than all the religious persecutions of the previous nineteen centuries combined. And, they were largely spawned out of Marxism, an entirely humanistic, and what is considered a "liberal," philosophy.

I agree that the most shrill and overbearing voices in the American public square often seem to emanate from the religious right. The same can be said concerning the Adventist church. The fundamentalist voices often seem to be the least tolerant ones as well. And it does seem to be motivated by a fear of compromise, a loss of distinctiveness, of morality, of traditional values...etc.

However, the fiefdoms of secular academia and liberal media often play the politics of marginalization and exclusion in reverse. Ask scientists who believe in some form or another of creationism what their experience within the contemporary academic world has been. I've read some of those stories...and they have sounded like the accounts of persecution and blackballing in the garb of a lab coat instead of clerical robes. Additionally, the ridicule aimed at the religious by some who have the bully pulpit within the liberal sectors of the media is no less distasteful than the demonization of the"secular humanists" by the disciples of Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and their ilk.

I would say that it is the overall human desire to gain access to and maintain power that is often antithetical to tolerance...whether it wears religious/clerical robes or not.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank7: The difference between agnostics and the religious is usually because the religious, especially the "right" has numbers and the bully pulpit. Even in Adventism, it is the fundamentalists who are the controllers of the press and pulpit.

Agnostics are rarely "joiners" and prefer not to join any movements. To label Communism and Marxism as agnostic, is only because they had no claim on any god. In that respect, their ideas were born of the Enlightenment when religion ceased being a major power player. Political power is often neutral and devoid of any religious beliefs; at least in the last hundred years or so. Prior to that, religion and governments were not separate.

Within Adventism, as it grows larger, it becomes more strongly political; and politicians always desire to maintain the status quo (their office).

Great article Ryan.

Is it possible that fear is what leads to over institutionalizing (control)? A fear brought on due to an underlying fear of someone else having a differing opinion?

When I was 5, I was afraid of the dark. I had a fear. But what was I afraid of? I was afraid of nothing, but because television taught me there were monsters under my bed I bought into it.

So, as you said (per the Bible): love casts out all fear. Right! Because there is no darkness when we are walking in the light. And if we are in the light, then there is no monster under our beds.

I was brought into this church through fear tactics, I have lived my life in fear for over 25 years in the church (fear of insulting God by claiming assurance of salvation, fearing EGW's much touted 'frown of Jesus' hovering over me, fearing the bully-tactics, judgmentalism and intolerance of the conservatives, fear of falling short of the perfection EGW required)and I will most likely die with the fear that my name came up in the IJ and I was 'found wanting' as EGW puts it.

Oh, and for a bonus, I have the fear of the mark of the beast and my salvation forfeited if I ever choose to leave the 'ark of safety', a cultish fear that the church has perpetuated throughout our history.

There is no hope left for me, but I am thankful for others who were able to escape this cycle of fear during their time in the church.

Some gems from the SOP:

"From what was shown me, there is a great work to be accomplished for you before you can be accepted in the sight of God" (Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 84).

"You have a great work to do. ... It is impossible for you to be saved as you are" (Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 316).

"As you are, you would mar all heaven. You are uncultivated, unrefined, and unsanctified. There is no place in heaven for such a character as you now possess. ... You are further today from the standard of Christian perfection ... than you were a few months after you had received the truth" (Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 465).

"As the books of record are opened in the Judgment, the lives of all who have believed on Jesus come in review before God. BEGINNING WITH THOSE WHO FIRST LIVED UPON THE EARTH, our Advocate presents the cases of each successive generation, and closes with the living. Every name is mentioned, every case closely investigated. Names are accepted, names rejected." The Great Controversy [1888 edition], p. 483

Fear? Oh yes, pleanty of it. It was the stock and trade of EGW and it is still standard operating procedure to keep church members in line whenever they attempt to think for themselves.

Oh, and don't bother questioning the SOP either. She already had that covered and instilled the proper fear of God for any who dared to do so.

"Yet, now when I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You thereby insulted the Spirit of God." Testimonies 5, p. 64.

"In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision--the precious rays of light shining from the throne." Testimonies 5 p. 67.

"If you lessen the confidence of God’s people in the testimonies He has sent them, you are rebelling against God as were Korah, Dathan, and Abriam." Testimonies 5 p. 66.

"The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil. In arraying yourself against the servants of God you are doing a work either for God or for the devil." Testimonies 4 p. 230.

But I suppose these quotes and hundreds of others are supposed to instill assurance and comfort, right?

Yeah, right.

Nightdweller...

I so hear you and so sympathize!!

I also read what you said about Graeme Bradford's book elsewhere. I agree...his balanced attempt to put EGW into proper perspective, warts and all, without simply trying to blow her writings and credibility to smithereens, has still met with a concerted effort to discredit what he has written.

Much of what EGW wrote is edifying for many. But, some of what she wrote bordered on being spiritually abusive. And much of it has certainly been compiled and used in that way. Much damage has been caused that will be hard, if not impossible, to undo for so many who have been traumatized.

I have had to deal with the fallout in my own life and experience as well.

Thanks...

Frank

Fear has been used to control people for so long, but I think it is finally beginning to lose its power. It's time we used the power and example of love instead. For instance, we used to be able to control a lot of premarital sex by the threat and shame of pregnancy outside of wedlock, but now there are fairly foolproof ways of preventing that, and besides, it isn't considered so shameful anymore. Now, we need to teach our young people about the beauty of sex within marriage and what God wants it to mean, and help them deal with the problems involved in delayed marriage ages.

Unfortunately, fear is still the biggest weapon in the hands of those in power, as witnessed by the threats from conference officers made to two pastors who wanted to speak at Kinship Kampmeeting this summer.

I have a very dear friend in the terminal stages of cancer.

He is now on oral chemo and pain killers. He sees his Oncologist on a weekly basis. The tests are always increasingly negative. He is a devout Baptist. He moved prior to discovering the tumor. His support system is quite thin. He always has two questions: 1. How much time do I have left? 2. Will the end be a painful struggle?

The doctor always reassuringly, tells him. 1. I don't know about the time left. The tests tell me you should have been gone by now. 2. The end will not be a painful struggle, you will go to sleep one night and morning will be a long way off. My friend is satisfied, but there remains a gnawing doubt it seems because those two questions keep coming back, and back.

His faith is strong, but doubt keeps raising its ugly head. He is only 69 and 10 months old. It is too soon to say goodbye.

The big question is how does a Christian teach someone to say, goodnight, I'll see you in the morning; with the conviction of Paul?

How come so few have had the priviledge of friendship with the likes of Graham Maxwell, Paul Heubach, H.M.S. Richards, Edward Heppenstall, and now my pastor Leslie Holmes. Or the opportunity to read John R.W. Stott, or Philip Yancey, most of all the Apostle John and Paul.

We all fear the unknown. But Jesus Christ is as a friend well known because of the witness of men who understand what being a Pastor means.

Revelation Seminars just won't cut it. What mankind needs is Peace Like a River not a flood of beasts with horns. Evangelism is preparing people for eternity not for a time of trouble!

The Seminary should spend at least 50% of its time on teaching: Peace Like a River, flows from the Rock that was smitten for me and you!

Otherwise, church is just another Tupperware party. Tom

Amen, Tom!

One of your best, Ryan. A sliver of new earth.

What a joyous peace, a peaceful joy, to live fearlessly.

I just returned from Norway, where at the entrance of Kon-Tiki Museum in Oslo are these words by the great explorer, archeologist, ecologist, and humanitarian Thor Heyerdahl:

"Borders? I have never seen one. But I have heard they exist in the minds of some people."

Nightdweller,
I have been reading your posts for a while now, and you seem anything but the delicate wilting flower that fears.
Do you find so little similarity between your quotes and this one?
Matthew 7:13.: " Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14. "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. NKJV

Why not fear that? Or do you believe your self to be one of the special few who made it through the narrow gate?

One of my life long questions has been why do some people need assurance SOOOOO much? My perspective or personality type must be completely the opposite. I could care less about my assurance of salvation.
I trust Gods promises. I know what he said. And in the end if he finds me not worthy of entry, I will say, thank you so much for the life I was given and the opportunity to know and love my wife, children, mother and father and to have the chance to experience all the things I did.
So who cares about assurance? Not me.
I could tell your your keyboard is going to eat your fingers. DO you find yourself consumed by fear and unable to type anymore? Why not?

Michael,

Curious how "assurance" differs from God's promises.

Is there "no promise and assurance" in Jn.3:16?

regards,
pat

"I have been reading your posts for a while now, and you seem anything but the delicate wilting flower that fears."

Perhaps my aggressive style is a tool to compensate for the crippling fear I do feel.

"Do you find so little similarity between your quotes and this one?

Matthew 7:13.: " Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14. "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. NKJV"

Yes.

Scripture makes it clear that Christ is our Righteousness and our Perfection, that God looks at Jesus' merits, not ours. That is not the message that EGW has, and if it is, she made one hell of a mess muddling it up. Time and again she promotes a bastardized amalgamation of righteousness by faith and merit by our own works with just a touch of Methodist, Weslyan perfection. That perfection is a work left to us before Christ returns. That glorification only changes our physical bodies and does nothing for our sinful natures. I am assuming you cannot be unaware of the spiritual cripples such counsels have left in her wake. Read some of the trainwrecks on Former Adventist Forums and you will see firsthand how she messed up many Adventists who were weaned on her writings and the fear they produce. Unfortunately, minimizing or disagreeing with what she wrote under inspiration is not allowed because:

* We were taught and raised to believe that her counsel was NOT to be questioned-she herself pronounced dire warnings to those who would question or reject them in any way.

* The official fundamental belief still holds her published materials as a source of authourity that is not to be questioned anymore than the Bible, thus chaining any who want to remain an Adventist to her words as incontestable truth, no matter how nonensical, contradictory to Scripture or scientifically untenable her claims may be.

"Why not fear that? Or do you believe your self to be one of the special few who made it through the narrow gate?"

The Bible is clear that it is only because of Christ in my place that I am going anywhere near Heaven. Unfortunately, while it is clear EGW blatantly contradicts that whole idea with the 'IJ to see if you are worthy to save' premise, it was also drilled into my brain that she never contradicts Scripture ANYWHERE, and if it seems like she does, the problem is with ME not HER. Diabolical. It's the ultimate mindscrew! And it never fails to make a cognitive dissonant mess of anyone who is trying to reconcile her grand claims with what Scripture says.

"One of my life long questions has been why do some people need assurance SOOOOO much? My perspective or personality type must be completely the opposite. I could care less about my assurance of salvation.
I trust Gods promises. I know what he said. And in the end if he finds me not worthy of entry, I will say, thank you so much for the life I was given and the opportunity to know and love my wife, children, mother and father and to have the chance to experience all the things I did.
So who cares about assurance? Not me."

That is complete nonsense.

"I could tell your your keyboard is going to eat your fingers. DO you find yourself consumed by fear and unable to type anymore? Why not?"

Not even remotely the same thing.

I would advise to not even attempt putting lipstick on the pig with me. I have been around the Adventist block long enough to know that is not working.

The stylized EGW dream died long ago, but the Adventism just keeps dragging the corpse around, trying to breathe life into dead lips. Heck, the White Estate has even done the hair up, dressed it nicely and propped it in the corner of the church to make it appear it is still alive and relevant. Better that we just admit she was wrong and stop the useless EGW apologetics which pretty much are the equivalent of trying to patch a mannequin together that continually has parts falling off that need to be re-attached.

But of course, she never left us that option, did she?

I have also noticed that lately it seems the SDA church has steamed ahead full throttle in trying to stem the tide of defections and apostasies. Never before have I seen the church go into damage control mode so quickly and collectively marshall her forces in an attempt to clot the steady flow of membership hemmorraging. They try to do everything possible to keep people in, and more and more of them just keep heading out the back door. For every convert they win, Dale Ratzlaff, Mark Martin, Sydney Cleveland and the Colleen Tinker drag three more out.

Just lately we have had Bob Pickle's book A Response To The Video: Seventh-day Adventism-The Spirit Behind The Church, Graeme Bradford's books More Than A Prophet, People Are Human, Prophets Are Human, Don McMahon's book Acquired Or Inspired, Herbert Douglass's book They Were There, Leonard Brand's book The Prophet And Her Critics, the Ellen White Summit seminars complete with George Knight and Jon Paulien pleading with the church for a more realistic understanding of Ellen White and her ministry, Doug Batchelor's book Advindication, Alden Thompson's book Escape From The Flames, Clifford Goldstein's attempts at IJ/1844/Heavenly Sanctuary apologetics in a recent Sabbath School Quarterly and his book Graffiti In The Holy of Holies as well as his article in the Review Blood In The Holy Of Holies.

Amazing Facts recently had the Here We Stand seminars, reaffirming the pillars in the face of intense attack from the opposition.

And now, just recently released, is Skip MacCarty's book In Granite Or Ingrained? dealing with the question of the two covenants.

GYC continues to put on yearly meetings with the intention of retaining the youth who have chosen to stay with the ship, and the EGW Estate desperately targets the children with a magazine with the purpose of solely promoting and selling EGW to the next generation in the church.

It's a full-on campaign to keep and retain the sheep that are left and somehow win back the ones that have already bailed.

On the one hand, you have to admire them for at least acknowledging there are serious issues that need to be dealt with. They are attempting to respond to the criticisms. But really, what choice do they have now with the advent of the internet and a much more savvy, aware membership in the pews? They have been pushed into a corner far enough to the point now where minimizing or denial is no longer an adequate or acceptable response, so this is the only option left in the face of individuals leaving left and right. Many in the church see the problems for what they are and are trying to meet them head-on. This is a good thing.

On the other hand, I can't help but wonder how many fingers are going to be available to desperately plug the holes in the dam of Adventism until the water of dissent brings the whole thing crashing down around them. The cracks are already showing, the wall is groaning under the weight and pressure of the tide waters and it is becoming too much to keep up with the problem areas. Heaven knows that church apologetics (especially Ellen White apologetics) is a line of work even some Adventist Pastors and scholars are not at all keen on undertaking for obvious reasons. Many SDA ministers would rather just preach Christ and Him crucified, and leave the rest of the baggage for someone else to deal with. So it is left to a few (valiant? brave? incredibly stupid?) souls to plunge into the lions den of criticism and charge into battle raising the tattered EGW flag high.

President Jan Paulsen recently affirmed all of the church's historic stands on the fundamentals. I wonder if he realizes just how much manpower, effort and energy is being expended into sustaining and maintaining this bold proclamation as a reality?

Even Fritz Guy, a prominent Adventist scholar and professor, shakes his head sadly at the display. He went on record as stating that the 1800 Adventist paradigm will not be sustainable much longer in the 21st century.

It is an interesting human drama, worthy of a Hollywood production...

A church can only go for so long being insufferably dogmatic and arrogantly certain about every little theological/spiritual thing under the sun, to say nothing of demonstrating time and again that they are completely unwilling to admit errors or inconsistencies in their belief system or exalted prophetess.

Maybe we are finally beginning to see it come back to bite us on the behind...

"One of my life long questions has been why do some people need assurance SOOOOO much? My perspective or personality type must be completely the opposite. I could care less about my assurance of salvation.
I trust Gods promises. I know what he said. And in the end if he finds me not worthy of entry, I will say, thank you so much for the life I was given and the opportunity to know and love my wife, children, mother and father and to have the chance to experience all the things I did.
So who cares about assurance? Not me."

That is complete nonsense.
Posted by: Nightdweller (not verified) | 24 June 2009 at 2:04

Your fearful reaction is nonsense to me too but Your answer is non responsive. Why do you need assurance so much?

Michael,

Curious how "assurance" differs from God's promises.

Is there "no promise and assurance" in Jn.3:16?

regards,
pat

Posted by: pat travis | 23 June 2009 at 11:58

Exactly, Why fear? To have fear because someone told you something at the exclusion of how one knows Christ is or what the scriptures say is nonsensical to me.

Paul himself talks time and again about the assurance of our Heavenly reward and how if we are not resurrected and have nothing to hope for after death, if this life is all we have to look forward to, we are worse off than unbelievers.

Doesn't sound much to me like he is saying salvation and Heaven are a non-issue. Sounds more like he is saying that it is something to desire and hope for.

Since it is something Christ died to secure for us, is it not a tad insulting to just say; "Meh. Whatever. If I have it I have it."

Furthermore, those who are lost and looking in from outside the New Jerusalem will be caught up in unbearable anguish until fire from Heaven consumes them (of course, not until they have burned for a while based on how much sin they have in them according to EGW.)

I hardly think that translates to shrugging one's shoulders and saying; "Well, thanks for everything God, at least I had a good run. Do your thing!"

"To have fear because someone told you something at the exclusion of how one knows Christ is or what the scriptures say is nonsensical to me."

Unless, of course, that 'someone' is an inspired, message infallible prophetess whom you were raised to fear, obey never question on pain of God's dissaproval and wrath.

Sort of changes the dynamic there a little, wouldn't you say?

Nightdweller,
Have you read the book "Foreskin's Lament" by Shalom Auslander? It's a memoir written by someone raised ultra-orthodox Jewish. He was a very bright precocious boy and never really bought it though and so his troubles. The book is quite profane so I don't recommend it to those easily offended but it is a fascinating (and very very funny) look into how damaging a system of religion can be to some people. It might be oddly comforting too to remember that even though you had it bad, it could have been worse :)

Paul himself talks time and again about the assurance of our Heavenly reward and how if we are not resurrected and have nothing to hope for after death, if this life is all we have to look forward to, we are worse off than unbelievers.

**************************************************************

Michael...

I believe that what Nightdweller said here is right on. To say thanks to God for what he gave me here even though he's deemed me fit in the end to only go into eternal oblivion, would be almost tragi-comic, especially in light of what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15. And according to what Jesus says, there won't be people thanking God for the nice life they had here and now, if they are excluded from the kingdom in the end...there will only be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." Will you be the exception if that happens to you?

The hope of resurrection, and an eternity beyond our greatest expectations, is built into the core of Christianity. The assurance of that, based upon God's promises in Christ and the downpayment of the Holy Spirit to us in this present age, is what has buyoed and continues to buoy up the faith of believers in the midst of all kinds of suffering and struggles that we must endure in this life. Without that assurance, and the encouragement that comes from it, the "heart would be made sick," to paraphrase the Proverbs.

And, such assurance is part of the big three that Paul constantly refers to... faith, hope and love. While love is the greatest, he never jettisons hope as being something that is of more minimal consequence, as you have seemed to do. And the meaning of the word hope can be roughly translated into the term assurance. Paul and the NT writers make a pretty big deal of the need of it. So much so, that he essentially says that if our hope in the resurrection is a farce, then why bother with all of this? "Let us eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

What I get from Nightdweller and have struggled with in my own experience, along with many others who have been fed a strong diet of the SOP in their Adventist experience, is that assurance has traditionally been looked upon as being presumption. And, in traditional Adventist circles, EGW has been the authoritative source used to hammer that home...that one can never be sure that their "name is in the book," that one should never say, 'I am saved,'" etc. Whether she was taken out of context or misquoted, or that there are many other instances in her writings that seem to balance out such tough sounding statements is not the point. The damage has already been done. And it has robbed many people of the joy, creativity, and life giving hope for the future, that the gospel brings. For many, it has essentially ripped the guts, and the good, out of the good news.

Has the reaction within Adventism tipped to the other extreme? Probably. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It seems that we have been travelling through a prolonged reaction to what was a climate of uncertainty, fear, and spiritual hopelessness for many Adventists. Thus, the need for an emphasis on eternal assurance.

In the end, there is no denying that those who have been so scarred need to hear Jesus' promise to the dying theif as if it's an assurance meant for their own ears and hearts today, "...you will be with me in Paradise." Given your regard for God's promises, I think you would agree with this, Michael.

Thanks...

Frank

Thanks for your thoughts Frank expressed better than my abilities.

regards,
pat

I do agree with you FRank.
I believe nightdweller and yourself have focused on different points than I have.
My point is that if I dont get to heaven it wont be because of Jesus restricting me causing me to worry endlessly about if I am saved now. How about now? How about now? It sounds like a silly verizon commercial.
If you know Jesus and his promises you dont need constant re assurance.
That is my problem with people and their endless fear about assurance. They view it as minute to minute instead of how I do as Gods promise and he is as good as his word. He doesnt need to constatly reassure me that he's telling the truth. God said it I believe it and thats good enough for me.
If I dont get in it will be because of choices on my part.
I have not jettisoned hope. I simply wont blame Christ if I dont make it, I will blame myself. I knew better, had plenty of chances etc.

Nightdweller has had some experiences as a kid that affected him to this very day. I have had a totally different life experience. Fear doesnt control me. I dont have that for an excuse in my christian experience. My flaws are in totally other areas but I still have plenty of them.

So do you understand what I said as I intended it better now?

I have a close friend, retired from high office in the SDA church. His wife and chidren are no longer maintain SDA church membership. Until recently, due to his wife's health, he traveled up to 150 miles one way to try and find a SDA church in which the pastor had anything to say worth the trip and the day.

I have introduced him to John R. W. Stott and others. He faithfully attends the local SDA church and spends the afternoon's reading Stott etc.

We meet for Bible study and prayer when his wife's health permits.

He of course sees the end of time. I see the demise of the SDA church prior to that time. The giant are gone--No longer--Dare to be a Daniel---now it is find the middle ground! Middle between what two shores? The church is already a shrinking island! Tom

If I could trace the beginning of the destruction of my Adventist experience to one person, it would be Joe Crews. He was a legalistic, dangerous man who proffered false, bankrupt sinless pefection theology like it was going out of style. He also deified EGW. He was the cause of many shipwrecks of faith in people I personally knew who left the SDA church in discouragement years ago, unable to live up to his hyper-conservative dogma. He, like his successor Doug Batchelor, was able to present his spiritually lethal teachings in such a user-friendly and non-threatening way that people who were not discerning could not detect it's danger, much like cyanide in Kool-Aid.

He was not and is not respected by a large segment of Adventism, especially those who categorically reject his ultra-conservative propaganda. You will never, ever find any of his pamphlets in the literature racks of non-Traditional SDA churches. In fact, I knew of a few liberal SDA churches who will take disciplinary action against any who try to leave his literature or books anywhere in the foyer.

I, personally, was so repulsed by his soul-destroying books Reaping The Whirlwind and Creeping Compromise I had to throw them in the trash where they belonged. They were nothing but guilt-ridden, fear-mongering tirades against non-essential, non-salvational issues such as jewelry, wedding rings, drama, meat-eating, sports, CCM, dancing, movies, cross-gender swimming, etc. Crews majored in minors and always made it abundantly clear where those Adventists who disagreed with his rhetoric were headed.

He left a legacy of ruined souls and an army of legalistic, right-wing fundamentalist terminator Adventists who, long after his death, are carrying forward the work of corrupting and destroying the joy and assurance we are meant to enjoy as heirs to the promise. Most of those TSDA's who specialize in camp-cleansing and detecting (who they percieve to be) tares who are to be torn out of the church will cite Crews as a major influence in thier gestapo-style Adventism. How many SDA's have been psychologically damaged by his propaganda we will never know until all is revealed.

His influence in the church is proving next to impossible to uproot from the church in the 21st century, especially with the older membership who virtually idolize the man. Condemn, judge and finger-point, the keystones of his ministry are still carried out today with abandon.

Traditional SDA's always ask us why we choose to stay in a denomination where we have so many issues. I wonder if they ever thought of asking that question about Crews? Personally, I believe the man was one step away from leaving the mainline church for an independent ministry. Most likely the only thing that held him in was EGW's foreboding admonishments against those who take that path.

Funny how people like Crews can get around such statements by spouting the same divisive rhetoric against the GC and the mainline body as independent ministries, just short of actually condemning the church as Babylon, and still think they are in line with her counsel. They may not verbally say it, but mentally they consider the mainline church to be in apostasy and pretty much Babylon or well on her way to it. The attitude and spirit of Shepherd's Rod is in many Traditionals, they just haven't officially and physically removed themselves from membership. Only the words of the prophetess keeps them from doing so, or they would be gone before you could say 'the Standish brothers'.

Still, today, you will see people majoring in minors, forcing others to see things their way on issues better left to one's individual conscience. So many fall for it and allow the nit-pickers and hair-splitters to consider things sin that are not even remotely that. I often wonder about this. Is it really conviction speaking to a person, or is it just an emotional, natural reaction to propaganda that is being hammered into a person's psyche? If one is told enough times that something is wrong by a person they consider authouritative, even when there is nothing remotely morally wrong with it, a person can be convinced quite easily if it is drilled hard enough into them. This tactic is quite effective, especially when the person condeming something claims to be speaking for God. It is a tactic commonly used in cults also. Seems to me that once you can change a person's moral outlook on non-essentials and get them to regard them as tests of Adventist integrity, you have exerted quite a bit of control over them.

I don't think I even want to know how much spiritual manipulation has been allowed to and is allowed to go on in Adventism. The statistics must be mind-boggling!

Sinless perfection was also a belief that corrupted my spiritual life with crippling fear. It just boggles my mind that some SDA's still cling to it in this day and age of Adventism.

What is it about the sinless perfection heresy that so many TSDA's find so appealing? Is it a power thing? A control issue? A need to play some part in thier salvation? Is it to make up for a sense of inadequacy in thier spiritual life?

We know that Ellen White embraced and endorsed this Wesleyan belief whole-heartedly. It stands to reason, as she was a strong, choleric, controlling personality.

However, I have observed that it is more prevalent in choleric males than any other sub-group. It kind of reminds me of the spiritual warfare/power ministry many Evangelicals are involved in, which really amounts to nothing more than John Eldredge-fuelled, testosterone-soaked, chest-thumping theology.

I have endured so many ridiculous charges from the sinless-perfection mongers in the SDA church, I still wonder in amazement at thier audacity and arrogance. They branded my God as 'weak' and 'useless', unable to 'empower' me to 'overcome' my sins in this lifetime, unable to 'deal' with the sin in my life. They called me a sin-loving, poor excuse for an Adventist, totally absent of the 'victories' which can be gained 'through the grace of Christ' of course (that little catch phrase has to be added to make things sound kosher and acceptable to the untrained ear.)

What absolute horse feces.

But anyway, they went on like blowhards, boasting of the 'overcoming' power potential thier God had to offer.

In retrospect, it seems that perhaps this theology fills a void that is lacking in some individuals. Just as 'proving one's manhood' is an ingrained response mechanism in most males, deluding oneself into thinking they can attain sinless perfection this side of Heaven may also feed the carnal need for some semblance of control in one's spirital life. Most rational Christians believe the mantra 'God is my pilot'. Many Adventists have altered it to say 'God hands the airplane controls over to me and 'empowers' me to be the pilot.' Adventists sing about 'giving all to Him', 'I surrender all' and 'all to Thee I give, nothing will I withhold'-but the fact of the matter is that the prospect of truly giving it all to Him allowing His perfect life, His law-keeping, His righteousness and His good works to stand in the place of thier own is an absolutely terrifying one to many SDA's. They claim that it just sounds too easy and it just cannot be true.

Here we have the living testimonies of such men as Robert Brinsmead, Martin Weber, George Knight and many others who took the principal of sinless perfection to it's disturbing logical conclusion. Of course, they crashed and burned completely according to thier biographies. Do the 'power' Adventists learn from the experience of others? Nooooooo, of course not. They plunge ahead into the mire of this anti-Gospel understanding full bore. It's as if others had not 'been there, done that, failed miserably and bought the T-shirt'. When presented with the tragic case studies of men who actually attempted such an impossibility, they merely brush it off with the claim that those individuals were doing it 'in thier own strength'.

I completely give up.

So what psychological need is met by willingly embarking on a journey that is doomed from the start? Why do so many Adventists insist on this riding this theological kamikaze straight into eventual discouragement?

Matthew 1:21 for He will save His people from their sins." Why would God promise something he can't deliver? 1John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. {why would God lie? It is impossible for God to lie.} Jude 24- Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present [you] faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.

God can and will do what he says. We just have to let him.

Abide in him John 15:4-7

Horse twaddle. I don't see the doctrine of sinless perfection before glorification anywhere in those verses.

So many prooftexts used to support a belief they are in no way supporting. One of my favourites is the story of the woman caught in adultery whom Jesus admonishes to 'go and sin no more'. No regard whatsoever for the immediate context of the scenario, which was the issue of adultery specifically. The very sin Christ was advising her to avoid repeating again. No, the sinless perfection brigade seizes upon that one proof-text and shoves it in our faces, holding it up as proof that she was being told she had to go and achieve some flawless pinnacle of sinlessness. Like we are supposed to believe she walked away that day and never fell into any sort of sin again whatsoever. Okay, whatever.

Christ had no propensities towards sin, He had no bent towards sin and He had NO SIN IN HIM. He was God in the flesh, born of the Holy Spirit, spotless and undefiled. The only thing he took upon Himself at the incarnation was our physical, human, flesh and blood appearance, prone to sickness, physical decay and innocent infirmities.

He did NOT take our fallen, sinful human nature with it's tendencies towards sin. That is utter blasphemy!

Christ succeeded where the first Adam failed, in the same nature Adam held before the fall.

Truly the TSDA's will stop at nothing as they denigrate and drag down our Lord to thier level in thier attempts to micro-manage the sin problem.

Disgusting. Apalling. But this is where sinless perfection theology ultimately leads and it is a terrible thing to behold. I have witnessed it time and time and time again in the church.

Perfect holiness and perfect righteousness are the only way eternal life is granted, and that comes through Christ ALONE and what HE did. Forgiveness, righteousness, justification, sanctification, perfection were all accomplished by Christ on our behalf. He was/is perfect and anyone in Christ has already been forgiven, already been made righteous, already been justified, already been sanctified, and already been made perfect by the merits of Christ. That's the Good News! That's the Gospel!

We are slaves to righteousness now, joined to Christ with his Spirit living in us. There is no greater guarantee of his promises, and there is no greater news for lost humanity than that. God came down and rescued us while we were still against him. And some distort the Good News by claiming that we are required to 'DO' something in order to attain or at least maintain salvation, which puts us back to relying on ourselves and in the same sinking boat we were in before.

Maybe some think I am too harsh in my unmerciless treatment of this belief and those who promote it. Maybe they think I should cut them some slack.

I didn't see any slack being cut when this theology drove some of my family and closest friends out of the church in discouragement and despair. I didn't see any slack being cut when thier assurance of salvation was cut off at the knees and they were subjected to a treadmill of trying to measure up to an impossible standard and failing time and again-then being told they were weak because they weren't 'gaining victory' over sin. I didn't see any slack being cut when I saw people in the church crying out for Christ and the rest He offers from our own works, and what they got was a shotgun blast of EGW pefection quotes and Joe Crews/M.L. Andreason trash salvation theology.

I will show people all the slack they want, and have never done otherwise. But this corrupt, destructive theology will be shown no quarter. None. I have seen with my own eyes the souls it has ruined.

http://www.amazon.com/Used-Be-Perfect-Study-Salvation/dp/1883925312/ref=...

http://www.amazon.com/Pharisees-Guide-Perfect-Holiness-Salvation/dp/0816...

1John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

**************************************************************

The Greek text gives the idea of continual action. IOW, whoever abides in Jesus will not continue to practice a lawless/rebellious way of life that turns a deaf ear to God, or deceptively looks to skirt his moral claims on his/her life. This is in keeping with John's definition in the same letter of sin as lawlessness, and with the nature of the heresy that he seems to address.

It absolutely does not contain the idea that Christians will achieve some sort of flawless, sinless perfection in this lifetime. This is classic, traditional Adventist prooftext eisegesis that is superimposed onto the text, totally disregarding its context.

I agree with Nightdweller, it is a damaging, deceptive teaching that masquerades as gospel...but is anything but. The casualties that have left in discouragement and despair on the one hand, and the false spiritual arrogance that it can breed on the other, is proof enough.

Thanks...

Frank

Nightdweller
Perhaps you have had some long term confusion that played a part in your experiences.

For instance you say,

"They branded my God as 'weak' and 'useless', unable to 'empower' me to 'overcome' my sins in this lifetime, unable to 'deal' with the sin in my life."

"But anyway, they went on like blowhards, boasting of the 'overcoming' power potential thier God had to offer."

Which is it? It cant be both. Seems a little dyslexic.

Then when Richard Holbrook says, "God can and will do what he says. We just have to let him. Abide in him John 15:4-7"
You reply,
"Horse twaddle. I don't see the doctrine of sinless perfection before glorification anywhere in those verses."

Did he in any way mention sinless perfection? Please.
Do you say the bible doesn't say that or are you claiming in his few words he interpreted the verses as sinless perfection? I would say his general statements were non prejudicial.
I realize one gets on a roll on issues important to them but really,, try some calming technique like repeating goosfraba.

Perhaps if your personal theology was more winsome you might sway opinions.

"For instance you say,

'They branded my God as 'weak' and 'useless', unable to 'empower' me to 'overcome' my sins in this lifetime, unable to 'deal' with the sin in my life. But anyway, they went on like blowhards, boasting of the 'overcoming' power potential thier God had to offer.'

Which is it? It cant be both. Seems a little dyslexic."

So what's so hard to understand? Obviously I was implying that I and the fundamentalists are serving different interpretations of who God is. Their fire-breathing god demands sinless pefection of his people and my God offers His perfect life and law-keeping as a substitute for my own.

I do not serve the impatient, dictatorial, petty, intolerant, ill-tempered god of the Phariseeical SDA right who mercilessly uses the IJ to look for loopholes and angles to keep us out of Heaven and waits to lower the hammer on us for any little infraction. And I never will.

Richard didn't have to explicitly mention sinless perfection in his post. Anyone who has been in the church for any significant amount of time dealing with this insidious belief knows exactly where he is going with his reasoning, for it is the only logical conclusion.

Next, he will most likely come back with the verse which says 'be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect' or one of the other proof texts used to bolster perfectionism. The only way you can use this line of reasoning is to claim the Bible is saying something it is not, which is something Richard will have to do wether he likes it or not - if he wants to make a case for sinless perfection before glorification that is.

Nightdweller

Thank you,

I have struggled with the Sermon on the Mount for years, until it dawned on me that that sermon was Jesus's Mission Statement. The key's are found in Matt. 5: 17, 18, 48

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets, i am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fifilled."

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

In each of these, as in the entire Sermon, Jesus Christ fulfilled the requirements and lived the ethics and ethos He preached. In fact, He declared at the end: "It is finished" or "It has been accmplished". We live, move, and have our being under the "finished work of Jesus!" Covered by the Robe of His Righteousness" we stand before the watching universe as perfect in the sight of God, because of what Christ has accmplished for us.

"Peace like a river attended my way!"

(How often have I heard: "Be ye therefore perfect" thundered from the pulpit enough to make strong men weap and quake with fear. Often from a preacher who didn't even turn in an honest travel statement. If it were not so tragic it would be hilarious.)

I delivered the daily paper to every officer of the Lake Union Conference for years as well as the entire faculty of the Department of Religion at E.M.C. They talked the talk better than they walked the walk--yet few had pity in the pulpit.

A few had their double lives fully exposed late in their careers. Unfortunately that eventual "truth" drove many fearful souls even further away.

"What a difference it could have been if only the words of Paul were repeated at every Chapel> "I know in whom I have believe, and I know that He is able!"
Tom

Thankfully the majority of SDA scholars and theologians abandoned this sinless perfection nonsense years ago. Desmond Ford, George Knight, Edward Heppenstall, Raymond Cottrell, Hans LaRondell, Steven Mosley, Frank Phillips, Martin Weber and Roy Adams were some of the main Adventist thought leaders to debunk and cast this idea into the trash heap where it belongs. Even Clifford Goldstein (hardly a paragon of liberal Adventist thought) calls it for what it is. HMS Richards senior himself had no part of it. Questions On Doctrine made it clear that Christ having a sinful nature is a heretical belief, which is in full harmony with the Reformation position. Leroy Froom also rightly claimed that those lunatic fringe elements who still hold to it are in the minority and against where the church stands in regards to Christ's divinity.

On the question of certainty:

Dogmatic

dogmatic/dogmatic theology

Main Entry: dog·mat·ic Pronunciation: \dȯg-ˈma-tik, däg-\ Variant(s): also dog·mat·i·cal \-ti-kəl\ Function: adjective Date: 1660 1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts (a dogmatic critic) 2 : of or relating to dogma synonyms see dictatorial

I find that the older I get the less dogmatic I want to be concerning Biblical things. I managed to avoid this phenomenah for the most part when I was new in the church. However, I have seen many SDA's fall victim to it. You know how it is: The new on-fire convert, fresh from a prophecy lecture series and straight from the baptismal tank, goes out to indoctrinate the world armed with all the 'correct' Bible texts. They usually begin with thier Catholic family and friends, never missing a chance to tell them they are worshipping the antichrist beast power. Makes for wonderful family reunions.

I will be the first to admit that entertaining new ideas, staying faithful to the journey and remaining open to the search for truth is almost impossible in a denomination that applauds, encourages and nurtures dogmatism. Let's face it. This is a church that:

* Claims she has the right understanding of every Scriptural issue known to man, from the creation account right on down to the second coming

* Claims she has the correct interpretation of every verse in Scripture

* Outlines the 'correct' interpretations and conclusions one must come to on any theological issue

* Adores black and white thinking and denies any presence of grey

* Has no tolerance for any understanding that contradicts EGW in any way

* Prides itself on having the TRUTH and the final word on all matters spiritual-period

How can an open and free thinker flourish in such an environment? I know some formers will answer: "You can't, and that's why I left."

Well, that's one solution. I guess those of us who have been left behind will have to find our own resolutions to the problem.

This is the approach I feel is the safest to use when dealing with any doctrinal issue:

For now we see things in a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now my knowledge is in part; then it will be complete, even as God's knowledge of me.

But what does one do when thier church gives the impression that the glass is not so dark after all?

Let's be honest here: Any world-wide organization where people are free to explore and come to thier own understanding through open and honest unfettered study would not have the whole church body coming to the exact same conclusions on 28 fundamental beliefs. That is a mockery of what a spiritual journey is all about.

And yet this is what Adventism takes such pride in.

So why this dogmatic certainty that pervades our denomination? Why does our church have all the humility of Donald Trump? Becuase we have allowed EGW to dictate everything from beginning to end. Note this from James White:

"There is a class of persons who are determined to have it that the Review and its conductors 1.) make the views of Mrs. White a test of doctrine and Christian fellowship. What has the Review to do with Mrs. White's views? The sentiments published in its columns are all drawn from the Holy Scriptures. No writer of the Review has ever referred to them as 2.) an authourity on any point. It's motto has been, 'The Bible, and the Bible alone, the only rule of faith and duty.' Every Christian is therefore duty bound to take the Bible as the perfect rule of faith and duty. He should pray fervently to be aided the Holy Spirit in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth, and for his whole duty. 3.) He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts. We say that the very moment he does, he places the gifts in a wrong place, and takes an extremely dangerous position. The revival of any, or all of the gifts, 4.) will never supercede the necessity of searching the Word to learn truth." (James White)

Okay, fine. So then:

1.) Why, then does our church have included in the 28 fundamentals that the SOP is a continuing source of authourity for Adventists in all matters, including, it is assumed, doctrinal?

1.) Why, then, does our church include acceptance of the SOP in the baptismal vows?

1.) Why, then, do so many Adventists test all doctrine by the SOP and why does Adventist doctrine find its validity in being 'confirmed and verified' by Ellen White's visions?

2.) Why, then, do some in our church consider the SOP as equal in authourity with the Scriptures?

2.) Why, then, do some Adventists consider the SOP as canononically inspired as any of the books of the Bible?

2.) Why, then, does our church regard the SOP as authouritative in every area of study, including theology, education, history, medicine, science, geology, health, etc.?

3.) Why, then, do so many Adventists keep almost every aspect thier spiritual understanding, theological understanding and personal and public lives strictly in line with the SOP if we are not to learn our duty through the gifts?

4.) Why, then, does every discussion, Bible study and Sabbath School lesson study always end up refering to the SOP as the final and authouritative word on any matter?

4.) Why, then, is every doctrine and belief filtered through the SOP before it is accepted as valid (even if it is in conflict with the Scriptures) if the SOP should never supercede the Bible?

4.) Why, then, is traditional belief as laid out in the SOP always accepted by default over clear Scriptural teaching?

Either James White was blatantly deceptive with his position in regards to the SOP or the Adventist church has violated and broken every single known rule, principal and advisement of the pioneers with respect to proper use of EGW's writings.

The SOP has and is being grossly abused and misused and, unfortunately, many of Ellen White's own dogmatic proclamations have contributed, encouraged and aggravated such inane, cultish misuse of her works. She then further contradicts, muddles and confuses things by speaking out of both sides of her mouth in regards to Scripture vs. tradition.

Ironically, James White is virtually condemned by his own wife if his above position is true, as she claimed full and complete authourity in her writings by virtue of the same Spirit that inspired the Bible writers and prophets of old.

"The testimonies of Sister White 1.) should not be carried to the front. God's Word is the unerring standard. 2.) The testimonies are not to take the place of the Word. Let all prove thier positions from the Scriptures and substatiate every point the claim as truth from the revealed Word of God. But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain 3.) the Bible, and the Bible only, as the only standard of all doctrine, and the basis of all reforms. 4.) Before accepting any doctrine or precept we should demand a plain 'Thus saith the Lord' in its support." (Ellen White)

1.) Why, then, is the SOP given primary importance on par with Scripture?

1.) Why, then, is the SOP given far more prominence than Scripture, even to the point that it is used to settle doctrinal disputes?

2.) Why, then, are so many behavioural/lifestyle restrictions imposed upon Adventist membership simply on the basis of 'thus sayeth the SOP' with not one shred of Biblical support?

2.) Why, then, when a doctrinal position cannot be supported Biblically, Scripture is trumped in favour of tradition and SOP endorsement?

3.) Why, then, does all Adventist doctrine have to have the SOP approval before it is accepted, even long after it has been supposedly proven from the Bible?

3.) Why, then, have so many segments of Adventism made it quite clear that the standard of all Adventist doctrine is the SOP first and formost?

3.) Why then, when a doctrine is proven to be Biblically indefensible (even by some of Adventism's own scholars!) the church refuses to relinquish her hold and would rather find solace in tradition?

4.) Why, then, when the true principal of Sola Scriptura is upheld, the church immediately goes on the defensive and condemns this practice as 'abandoning the SOP' or 'undermining the authourity' of E.G. White?

4.) Why, then, is the Bible and the Bible alone principal only tolerated in the Adventist church insofar as none of the 'pillars' are challenged?

4.) Why, then, if the church claims it has nothing to fear from close examination of its doctrines, do they refuse to acknowledge the possibility of being wrong when such close examination discloses serious flaws in some of its beliefs?

Sometimes I wonder who we think we are fooling as a church. We pay lip service to Sola Scriptura and yet I have not seen one ounce of evidence this has been practiced in its pure form in my 20+ years in the church! What else can we expect when we have EGW who on one hand heartily endorses making sure Adventist doctrine is Biblically sound, and then in the next breath dogmatically states that not one pin is to be removed from the doctrinal pillars that have been verified and confirmed through inspiration and the visions, and woe be to those who attempt it, thus stifiling, strangling, suffocating and murdering any future progression in theological thought.

So basically, no matter how often an Adventist doctrine is proven false it will never matter one iota, because it has the E.G. White seal of approval and that is all that will be considered thank you very much-and be damned with Sola Scriptura, we have the more sure word of the SOP.

When Mrs. White was confronted with the pointed challenges to the Heavenly sanctuary doctrine brought on by A.F. Ballenger, how was his research refuted? Sound, honest, Biblical exegesis? Not quite. The final court of appeal was not to be Scripture at all, but the visions she had which 'confirmed' this doctrine. She appeals to her prophetic experiences as the final authourity for the teachings of the church. She is condemned by her very own counsel!

In the Adventist church today we need to have Scriptural integrity, Biblical fidelity and away with allegiance to tradition. However, it seems the final authourity will always be the SOP, no matter how much some might want to deny it. The church administration stands by and watches silently as men like Colin and Russell Standish, Doug Batchelor, Larry Kirkpatrick and Kevin Paulson gleefully attack Luther's Biblically solid teaching of justification by faith.

"Whenever the people of God are growing in grace, 1.) they will be constantly obtaining a clearer understanding of His Word. This has been true in the history of the church in all ages, and thus it will continue to the end. But as real spiritual life declines, 2.) it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of truth. 3.) Men rest satisfied with the light already recieved, and 4.)discourage any further investigation of the Scriptures. 5.) They become conservative and seek to avoid discussion." (Ellen White)

1.) Why, then, has our church stalled and stagnated, theologically rotting in neutral, content to not accept any new understanding of Scripture if it conflicts with traditional interpretation?

1.) Why, then, when a scholarly, qualified men like Ford and Cottrell thoroughly debunk a key doctrine, they are systematically silenced, terminated or forced to wait until retirement to make thier conclusions public? Is this 'constantly striving to gain a clearer understanding of His Word?'

2.) Why, then, has it been made perfectly clear in Adventism, over and over again, that 'truth' is not something to be gained through honest Bible study, but a pre-manipulated process whereby all conclusions fall into harmony with the SOP or it is declared heresy?

2.) Why, then, is it lost to some Adventists that thier denomination long, long ago 'ceased to advance in a knowledge of truth?'

3.) Why, then is the mantra constantly heard that "new light must never contradict old, 'established' light" if Adventists are to 'advance in the knowledge of truth'? Should not common sense and reason dictate that if an honest search of the Scriptures is throttled mercilessly, the organization has indeed 'ceased to advance' and 'rested satisfied'?

4.) Why, then, if further investigation of Scripture is not to be discouraged, does the Adventist church claim to have a corner on 'ultimate truth' and not one other interpretation or result of study on any point of the 28 fundies will be tolerated?

5,) Why, then, has the church demonstrated time and again that it will not openly, honestly and squarely deal with valid objections to thier beliefs, choosing rather to 'avoid discussion' by impugning, maligning and destroying the questioner's reputation (Desmond Ford and Albion Ballenger anyone?)

The Adventist church leadership has no right whatsoever to speak out against the Catholic Church practice of clergy interpreting and establishing Scripture for the lay people, nor does it have any right to condemn Rome for exalting church tradition over the Word-for they have done and are doing the exact same thing. The pillars established by the SOP are sacred and woe be to those who dare question them. One practices anathema the other removes ministerial credentials and disfellowships.

The Jews chose Barabbas over Christ. They chose a pretender to the throne over the real Messiah. They chose a man who was the antithesis to the true Gospel over the Word Himself. Likewise, Adventists face the same choice. Godly men within the denomination who dare to question, challenge or make any attempt to bring the true Gospel of the Reformers forward are cast aside, and heretics in the ultra-conservative segment are tolerated, nay embraced, and thier corrupt, bankrupt perfectionist theology continues to be a stench in the nostrils of God. Men like Doug Batchelor are able to instruct and train thier employees to refute and undermine Luther's salvation theology at every step with impunity, and the dungpile of Joe Crew's beliefs are permitted to permeate and contaminate the atmosphere of Adventism unabated.

1.) "The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that 2.) they may not clearly be discriminating between truth and error. 3.) When no new questions are started by investigation of Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure that they have the truth, 4.) there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition, and worship they know not what." (Ellen White)

1.) Why, then, does not the Adventist church consider the possibility that the reason there is so much division, agitation, unrest and doctrinal controversy within thier ranks could, just maybe, be because some of the doctrine may not be sound and may even border on heresy? WOW what a concept!

1.) Why then, does the Adventist church not acknowledge the fact that any absence of controversy within its ranks only comes about as a result of theological bullying, spiritual extortion and a deliberately created cultish atmosphere of dread and fear to keep the rank and file firmly in line with the SOP?

2.) How, then, can we trust spiritual discernment that makes the SOP the standard of all truth, twisting and forcing the Scriptures to align with the obviously false, outdated theological, scientific, historical and medical claims of an 18th century Puritan, Victorian woman who was highly influenced by the surrounding climate of her environment?

2.) How, then, can we trust spiritual discernment of that continues to stubbornly hold to 1844 when it has repeatedly been debunked, even by some of thier own scholars, from every standpoint possible? When half of thier own clergy and scholars privately do not believe it and almost half of the Australian division also has discarded it long ago? Why do they insist on holding to the tired, company-man apologetics of Clifford Goldstein and Bill Shea? Can they not see that the amount of effort and theological gymnastics that go into trying to save this shambles of a doctrine should be evidence that something may not be correct here? Just maybe?

3.) Why, then, do many continue to put on this charade that they are 'seekers of truth', 'progressive in thought', 'willing to accept sound Bible truth', 'tolerant of differing theological viewpoints', 'receptive to questions' and 'accommodating to seekers' when thier history has shown just the opposite? HELLO??!!

4.) Why, then, is tradition the order of the day in Adventism?

4.) Why, then, are the traditional interpretations, written by the finger of God in stone through super-legalist Uriah Smith, heralded as the be all end all, not to be challenged by any other conclusions borne out through honest study?

4.) Why, then, when Samuele Bacchiocchi happens to come to some different conclusions in regards to prophecy than what SOP has set forth, is he viciously slandered, lambasted, maligned, persecuted, called a 'heretic' and 'a Jesuit spy' by his own fellow church members? His studies on the little horn power retracted swiftly and completely due to severe internal pressure and the crushing, iron fist of the Biblical Research Institute? Is this evidence of a church that is tolerant, open-minded and Christian in charity, patience and love?

Give me a break! The Adventist church has been stuck in a rut since the 1800's and they are perfectly happy there, angrily lashing out at any who dare to rock the boat, challenge the status quo or rock the world where all truth is packaged in nice neat little proof texts and pre-prepared study results.

"The Spirit of prophecy was 1.) not given-nor can it ever be bestowed-to supercede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that 2.) the Word of God is the standard by which all testing and experience must be tested." (Ellen White)

1.) Why, then, has the Adventist church continually insisted on doing exactly this all throughout its history?

1.) Why, then, do so many Adventists consider SOP counsel to be as completely binding and authouritative as Scripture itself?

1.) Why, then, is it the tendency of the Adventist church to immediately assume the the SOP has correctly interpreted Bible truth by virtue of the assumption that her writings are the SOP?

1.) Why, then, is it considered alright if the SOP ever contradicts Bible teaching, but if Biblical understanding deviates on any point from the SOP, all hell breaks loose?

1.) Why, then, when I was visiting a conservative SDA church prayer meeting certain individuals who did not like my stance on the SOP stood up waving a copy of the Testimonies wildly and shouted savagely at me: "This IS the Bible mister!!!!!!"?

3.) Why, then, has it been consistently demonstrated time and again that Adventist doctrine, teaching and experience must be tested by the SOP and this is considered even remotely a proper hermaneutic for Biblical interpretation?

3.) Why, then, when an impartial observer looks at the Adventist belief system and subculture, it is clear to them that these things are based and shaped almost entirely around SOP counsel first and foremost?

It has become increasingly clear that there are very few observable cases of an Adventist coming to honest conclusions in direct and complete opposition with the SOP while still remaining in the church in good standing (that is, assuming the individual freely goes public with thier conclusions and does not keep it quiet or hide it in any way.) Those who have attempted to do so on any scale are either no longer in the church or have waited until retirement or death-bed confessional to do so. Any who have ever considered broadcasting thier findings while still active in the church will inevitably be intimidated into not doing so in order to avoid persecution, verbal attacks, banishment, disfellowshipping or termination of denominational employment. They know very well that thier days in the church are numbered once they gain a reputation as one who challenges 'the voice of God Himself through the SOP' on any point of doctrine or lifestyle issue.

That the church membership has been led to believe any honest search for truth and any Bible study with integrity can be accomplished in this sort of oppressive atmosphere, is testimony to the sad state of affairs we are facing.

"1.) Our bretheren should be willing to investigate, in a candid way, every point of controversy. 2.) We should all know what is being taught among us; 3.) for if it be truth, we need it. 4.) If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation, it is time that we knew it. 5.) We must study the truth for ourselves, no living man should be relied upon to think for us." (Ellen White)

1.) Why, then, has the church, time and again, engaged in obscurantism, censorship, and a constant strangling and stifling of free discussion amongst it's membership and clergy?

1.) Why then, is the Adventist Review so biased and one-sided, choosing to only publish those articles and letters which support and validate the Adventist agenda, keeping the unwary membership in a sedated, theological stupor, believing they 'have all the truth' and that all of the pillars are solid? Why have they not published one single letter I have written to them, honestly and genuinely inquiring about the future of the church and the wisdom of hanging on to certain cherished doctrines? And why are those forums and websites which encourage free thinking (Spectrum, Adventist Today) forced to go at it independently, without the support of the official church? And why did William Johnsson and the rest of the administration crush out the Adventist Today forum when the discussion got too 'open' and 'free'?

1.) Why, then, are the SDA clergy (who are far from 'free to dialogue on any point of doctrine' no matter what anyone says or thinks), threatened with disciplinary action and possibly even termination of employment if they dare to question the validity of any doctrine or fundamental?

1.) Why, then, has the reaction of the church in the past given ample proof that they are not at all 'willing to investigate' anything, least of all the very real possiblity that they may be wrong on the IJ/1844/Heavenly Sanctuary doctrines?

3.) Why, then, is a questionable doctrine such as the IJ elevated to superior cult status (whereby many claim that if it is discarded 'the whole church will fall apart') when it is clear that many Adventists have been living this reality out for years and thier Adventism is still alive and well, WITHOUT the IJ in thier belief system?

4.) Why, when a doctrinal 'truth' is revealed to have serious flaws and problems, do so many Adventists act like little children, plugging thier ears and shouting "LA, LA, LA, LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!"?

4.) Why, then, when at Glacierview a doctrinal pillar was shown to not have withstood close investigation and scrutiny, the church reacted in such a way as to indicate that they not only did not want to know it, they were willing to systematically silence and terminate anyone who implied as much?

4.) Why, then, if the church is supposedly 'ready to know it if they are in error', has no one ever refuted either Cottrell or Ford's research or agreed to engage in a debate with Ford on the matter?

5.) Why, then, do so many Adventists let EGW and the SOP do thier thinking for them?

We mock the Roman Catholic church membership for letting the priest do all the Biblical interpretation on thier behalf, but the fact is that many in the SDA church take for granted a doctrine is true only because EGW 'said so' and that is good enough for them. Some SDA scholars have taken this position in order to preserve Biblical integrity and still keep thier jobs with the church. They admit freely that the IJ/1844 cannot be supported through honest Biblical exegesis, but yet they still hold to the belief because EGW validated it through vision!

This is dishonest and traitorous to honest Bible hermaneutics!!! It is a slap in the face to the principal of Sola Scriptura

Nightdweller:

Just some friendly advice. The quantity of words you expend and the shrillness of your rhetoric will start (if it hasn't already) to diminish the effectiveness of what you want to say. You make some valid points but I think these are counter-balanced to a considerable extent by the 'take-no-prisoners' way you communicate them. IMO: less is more, and toning it down will allow you to speak more eloquently.

My $.02.

Nightdweller

I think Rich offers some sound advice. You use dogma in its most negative terms. As do many from the SDA pulpit and in this web site.

It is just when that dogma interjects fear rather than hope and assurance that I believe it is a failed mission.

Those areas are well known and adequately challenged. I am sorry I encouraged your extended response.

In the main, North American Seventh-day Adventists are without a shepard, more often just a barking sheep dog.

A pity. I must honor many SDA pastors and theologians who have helped me find salvation. They seldom find administrative posts.

Since, we have found assurance, let us spend the rest of our days in bringing that Good News to others, even through Spectrum--generally an open venue for honest civil opinion. Tom

"Those areas are well known and adequately challenged. I am sorry I encouraged your extended response."

That may be so Tom, but as of this date, not one single conservative in the church has even acknowledged there is a problem in these areas, much less offered any acceptable or satisfactory responses to those questions. We continue to deal with a church that shirks and outright ignores the the issues.

And we are supposed to be okay with that?

Nightdweller,
You seem like a very angry and dissatisfied person. I'm sorry.
If I had the power to help you I would, but of course I don't have the power. Only God has that. Judging from the way you seem to despise Adventism and Seventh Day Adventists in general, I can only assume you are an ex-Adventist.

I don't claim to have sinless perfection in my life. No,far from it. But what I do have is a willingness to be made into what ever God wants to make me into. (since he is supplying all the power) Even the willingness is not my own. He had to supply that too, because I didn't have it. (I won't have it tommorrow if I don't ask for it and if he dosn't give it.)

With God all things are possible. The Bible says so. {Matthew 19:26 and Mark 10:27} If God says he can do it, I believe he can do it. Can a normal person walk on water? No, That's impossible. But Peter (a normal person) walked on the water when Jesus told him to.

Correct me if I'm wrong, (and I'm sure you will if I am) but it looks like you are saying The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy are causing souls to be lost. If you really believe this in your heart, and it seems that you do. Why would you want anything to do with SDAs? Why would you communicate with them at all? I don't understand.

I want to leave you with one text, and I know you've already said to believe this is blasphemy, but this is not me talking. It is the inspired word of God.

Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.

(Not Adam before the fall)

"Nightdweller,

You seem like a very angry and dissatisfied person."

For good reason.

"I'm sorry. If I had the power to help you I would, but of course I don't have the power. Only God has that. Judging from the way you seem to despise Adventism and Seventh Day Adventists in general, I can only assume you are an ex-Adventist."

No I am not an ex-Adventist. I am a member with many, many years invested into this denomination who wants to see some change and reform happen. Christ was not satisfied with elements of Judaism and Luther was not satisfied with elements of Catholicism. But they both went to their grave Jew and Catholic respectively. Leaving is not an option for me. The church has not allowed it as an option if I want to be in Heaven.

And no, I do not 'despise' Adventism and Seventh Day Adventists. If that is all you see, then I am wasting my time talking to you. You obviously cannot deliniate between a cry for reform and antagonistic hatred.

"I don't claim to have sinless perfection in my life. No,far from it. But what I do have is a willingness to be made into what ever God wants to make me into. (since he is supplying all the power) Even the willingness is not my own. He had to supply that too, because I didn't have it. (I won't have it tommorrow if I don't ask for it and if he dosn't give it.)"

Nonsense and blather. You are trying to candy-coat perfectionism and make it palatable, but it isn't going to work with me. Neither has it worked the countless times conservative SDA's in the past have tried to put lipstick on the pig for it to be accepted.

Some of our own prominent theologians and scholars have rejected the idea. Will you still cling stubbornly to it? Be my guest. But don't think for one minute I am going along for the ride.

"With God all things are possible. The Bible says so. {Matthew 19:26 and Mark 10:27} If God says he can do it, I believe he can do it. Can a normal person walk on water? No, That's impossible. But Peter (a normal person) walked on the water when Jesus told him to."

More nonsense and blather. Sugar on the rat poison, that's all it is.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, (and I'm sure you will if I am) but it looks like you are saying The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy are causing souls to be lost. If you really believe this in your heart, and it seems that you do. Why would you want anything to do with SDAs? Why would you communicate with them at all? I don't understand."

Then you have not read my pointed questions closely enough. I am saying that misuse and misinterpretation of the Bible and SOP are the problem. It has always been the problem.

"I want to leave you with one text, and I know you've already said to believe this is blasphemy, but this is not me talking. It is the inspired word of God."

More like your interpretation of the Word of God, one which I am not obligated in any way to accept.

Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.

(Not Adam before the fall)"

Sorry, that is speaking of lineage and family lines. It is simply saying Christ was human being and as such, had human descendants. Nowhere does it indicate he took our nature corrupted with sin. That would have disqualified Him from being the perfect, unblemished Sacrifice required for the atonement of our sins.

Nice try though.

Richard

If you are implying from your quotation from Hebrews that
Jesus had the same sinful nature as Abraham--then you are a perfectionist. In the mould of M.L. Andreasen, F.D. Nichols, Ken Wood, Don Neufeld, and Herbert Douglass et al.

It certainly doesn't square with Romans or with E.G.White
(sin excepted)

I do not agree with at least four of the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I do believe, that through their educational system and their medical and health
messages and institutions they have made a great contribution.

However, their outreach in evangelism is based upon fear and doubt and not on hope and assurance. They sing Blessed Assurance in the Sweet Bye and Bye.

There is the rub. The title of this thread focused on that issue. So it must be said without anger or venum that the SDA Church feeds on fear and doubt at least to the same degree that Luther challenged the Roman Catholic Church in his day.

Fortunately, a significant body of thinkers within the Church
have been able to reach hundreds and more with the Gospel. I thank them for the light they gave me.

Institutionally, the Church is dead, if it continues the path since the 1980's. President Jan Paulsen's last appeal did little to reassure me that he has the vision and courage to proclaim: By Scripture alone, By Christ Alone, By Faith Alone! Tom

Nightdweller said,
"Leaving is not an option for me. The church has not allowed it as an option if I want to be in Heaven."

Since you dont follow much else the "church" says (according to your own rantings) why believe leaving is not an option for you? Why believe what you think they tell you on that account any more than everything else you have been told and rejected? More dyslexia?

You took what olive branch Rich extended and as much as spit in his face. You are uncouth and incite needlessly where you could have had conversation.

If your perceptions were given straight from Gods mouth, you still would not sway anyone with the disgusting way you have presented yourself and your positions.

"Since you dont follow much else the "church" says (according to your own rantings)"

Really? And you get that from where pray tell? Where have I said I have outright rejected any fundamental beliefs? With the exception of wanting the 1844/Heavenly Sanctuary/IJ doctrine revisited and reformed and EGW to be put in her proper place, there is not much more I have issues with, except for some of the cultural, non-salvational areas. And yeah, I can do without the legalism, Phariseeism, hypocrisy and bullying, but who wouldn't? So your 'don't follow much else' comment is based purely on your own skewed perceptions.

It's apparent you regard calling for reform and questioning things as something threatening that needs to be crushed out. But, no matter. It's far more comfortable for you to just write me off as simply an angry individual who hates the SDA church rather than deal with the substance of what I post, I understand. Your preconcieved notions are obviously set in stone and not much I say will dissuade you from what you want to believe, so I won't bother.

"why believe leaving is not an option for you? Why believe what you think they tell you on that account any more than everything else you have been told and rejected? More dyslexia?"

It's obvious you have no concept of how much the church can mess a person up nor do you have any idea of the extent of damage spiritual brainwashing can cause. You honestly think a person can have it drilled into their head for over 25 years that leaving the church will bring the mark of the beast and eternal damnation and they won't believe that to some extent? Are you for real with your naivete?

"You took what olive branch Rich extended and as much as spit in his face. You are uncouth and incite needlessly where you could have had conversation."

Olive branch? Trying to present sinless perfection as anything other than the discouraging, soul-crushing belief that it is? Thanks, but no thanks. I will call it out, stomp it into the dust and send it straight back to Hell where that cursed theology originated.

"If your perceptions were given straight from Gods mouth, you still would not sway anyone with the disgusting way you have presented yourself and your positions."

I guess I forgot the memo that informed me that I was supposed to be here just to tickle your fancy and soothe your ears. Sorry, but there are issues at stake here that are far more important than easily-offended sensitivities. You have also demonstrated that you are not above sarcasm in your own posts, so you'll pardon me if I laugh at your hypocritical attempts to climb the pedestal of self-righteousness to admonish me.

The conservatives in the church have bullied and had their way with me for years. No more. What goes around will surely come around.

Karma is a wonderful thing, ain't it?

Nightdweller,
The church won't allow it as an option? That sounds catholic to me. The church can't keep you from going to heaven. Only you can do that.

I quoted some scripture, you called it rat poison!
I relayed the story of Peter walking on the water. You called that nonsense and blather. Nuff said.

I notice you don't use any scripture to back up your beliefs. I guess you wouldn't want to poison yourself. I have to agree with Michael.
Thank you Michael for your comments. Goosfraba? Now that's funny.

It is amazing how well Jean Vanier's three elements, when inverted, capture the spirit of liberalism, both political and theological. I think they capture it perfectly: First, “the certitude that our group [nation, religion] is morally inferior, possibly even cursed by God.” The second element is a “refusal or incapacity to see or admit to any possible errors or faults in anyone other than our group [nation, religion].” Thirdly, a refusal to believe that our group [nation, religon] possesses the truth or has anything valuable to contribute. Yup, that's liberalism.

"The church won't allow it as an option? That sounds catholic to me. The church can't keep you from going to heaven. Only you can do that."

Than you are denying a basic tenent of Adventism that says those who leave the fold have placed themselves in danger of Hellfire. Do you deny what the church teaches? Your statement says that you do. I hardly think you expect me to buy the malarkey that Adventism doesn't hold that those who once knew Adventism and left it are lost. That is precisely what Adventism believes! Come on! That is Adventism 101!! The church most certainly, through the prophetess, has pronounced dire warnings to those who leave the faith of Adventism.

"Those who have heard and rejected the light of the advent doctrine are given over to strong delusions. Such will not have 'the travail of soul for sinners' as formerly. Having rejected Adventism, and being given over to the delusions of Satan, 'the time for their salvation is past.' This does not, however, relate to those who have not heard and rejected the doctrines of Adventism."

"It is a fearful thing to treat lightly the truths of our movement which has convinced our understanding and touched our hearts. We cannot with impunity reject the messages which God in mercy sends us. A message was sent from heaven to the world in Noah's day, and the salvation of men depended upon the manner in which they treated that message. Because they rejected the warning, the Spirit of God was withdrawn from the sinful race, and they perished in the waters of the flood. So, too, those who have had much light bestowed upon them and reject it by leaving our ranks."

Oh, don't be afraid, EGW has no power to keep you out of Heaven. Yeah, right. The church only uses her words to indoctrinate and keep members in fear of ever leaving the 'ark of safety'. These are only a couple of the many quotes where she basically says that those who leave the church would wish they had never been born.

You can spin it all you like and use all the mind games you want, but it won't work. I know the score all too well.

"I quoted some scripture, you called it rat poison!
I relayed the story of Peter walking on the water. You called that nonsense and blather. Nuff said."

No, I called YOUR interpretation of Scripture rat poison, not the Scripture itself. Get it straight and please don't misrepresent my words.

"I notice you don't use any scripture to back up your beliefs. I guess you wouldn't want to poison yourself. I have to agree with Michael."

There are many verses in Scripture that destroy your putrid perfection theology. Find them yourself, don't expect me to do the work for you. I am not here to dazzle or impress you by barfing out a whole page of cut and paste Bible texts.

Try reading the whole book of Romans, that would be a good start.

Hello Nightdweller,

I agree with so much of what you say.
I see passion - someone who cares about his church and has enough love and energy to promote change. I also see frustration caused by unsatisfied passions.

Sometimes fighting the status quo is hard and futile. Sometimes it takes a generation for change.
Let's try to provide guidance and good cheer to the youth that are being raised in the church now. Let's help the youth see the blessings of the church, but also help them to avoid the pain you have suffered.

Let's pray that the Holy Spirit will allow us to reflect the character of Christ. I will pray for you, me, and the church.

God Bless You,
paul

Nightdweller

I left the SDA Church on my own accord. I still fellowship with many SDA friends. I have them in my home as dinner guests, as weekend guests, for Bible study, and just pure friendship. Traveling evangelists have visited me in the hospital and at home. I have found them to be very nice intelligent people. I have also attended a number of their power-point lectures. It is here that I was appalled. What a difference in tone, in style, and in content. It was very unsettling.

Your gushing sounds like you have had too many power point lectures. Try a little quiet reading. Phillip Yancey would be an excellent start and then Fred Craddock--he is retired but even the Southern Union Conference invites him to be on their panel discussions. There are great Christians out there, many within the Adventist Church.

Their out-reach evangelism--is in terrible disarray--it seems that has gotten to you. I strongly suggest you take some calming reading like Yancey and work on up. Even get some of Graham Maxwell's tapes or reprints from Pine Knolls in Redlands, Calif. You can find it through Google.

I have visited many Churches and have even taught Sunday School in at least 4 different denominations in Augusta. Frankly, Churches of all types are dying for the want of the Gospel. There are about as many Gospel preachers in Adventism as in any main-line churches in America. It really is a theological jungle out there. But the Lord has his own--it is up to us to find them. The first place to look is Paul.

Salvation is of the Lord not the Church. find your peace in Him. Tom

David Reading wrote:

Yup, that's liberalism

As a real-life liberal, I of course can't resist making a few comments.

1 Liberals generally feel quite good about themselves, they just don't feel the need to constantly assert their supriority. We find it gets in the way of open communication (another liberal fetish)

2. Liberals do assume that faults and errors exist in groups outside their own. We simply want obey Jesus and practice the golden rule of treating others as we want to be treated by them. When pointing out flaws in another group we generally include a suggestion for remedying the situation which invites dialogue. (Ya, the liberal fetish thing again)

3. Liberals are quite certain that we do have the truth. We just don't attempt to stuff it down the throats of those who we suspect of being in error. Our historical observations of this strategy convince us that little is gained by this approach. We much prefer open and honest communication.

Ryan has provided us with an outstanding essay about some of the causes of our little civil war in the Adventist Church.

How did you understand his suggestions for resolving our conflict?
What are your criticisms of those suggestions?
How do you propose we work to resolve them?

Martin Schratt

Ryan,

I deeply appreciate your thoughtful and well-written article. The thoughts you have expressed here have been running through my mind too. I believe you have hit the heart of the issue in your emphasis on humility and looking inwardly at ourselves. It is awfully easy for any of us to criticize others without knowing the complexities or the mitigating circumstances that shape the behavior we see. It takes humility and effort on our part to withhold judgment and review our own mistakes. There is a studied phenomenon in Psychology called "the fundamental attribution error," I believe, in which we are quick to label someone who does something wrong or stupid from the standpoint of enduring characteristics but attribute only momentary mistakes to our own behavior (i.e., if someone cuts you off in traffic, he or she is a jerk, but if I cut someone off, I was just having a bad day). We all do this -- especially in cars. I think understanding this phenomenon can help us make more realistic judgments about what others do.Thank you also for your use of first person plural, which serves to strengthen your point about humility! I wish with my whole heart that everyone directly involved in the current controversy over how Adventist educators should deal with clashes between culture and doctrine will read this article with a spirit of openness to what it has the power to reveal to all of us.

nightdweller,
Now your quoting Ellen White to me. You don't even like Ellen White. You said before, she needs to be put in her place. And you said:

"The stylized EGW dream died long ago, but the Adventism just keeps dragging the corpse around, trying to breathe life into dead lips. Heck, the White Estate has even done the hair up, dressed it nicely and propped it in the corner of the church to make it appear it is still alive and relevant. Better that we just admit she was wrong and stop the useless EGW apologetics which pretty much are the equivalent of trying to patch a mannequin together that continually has parts falling off that need to be re-attached."

You don't believe anything the woman ever said. And now you're telling me that this corpse is the reason for you staying in the church? WOW!!

The fact is, you turned your back on the truth a long time ago and have been given over to strong delusion. The only thing you're hanging on to is the name, which makes no sense at all, because just calling yourself an Adventist won't get you into Heaven.

You heap ridicule and shame and all manor of insults on this woman, and then turn around and say she's the only reason you havn't left the church. PLEASE!

If that's not delusional, I don't know what is.

I know I haven't helped you at all, but you have certainly helped me. Thank you

I really am sorry that tonight is the first time I have had to enjoy Ryan's essay and the many contributions. I share much of what Ryan has given us.

Regarding "assurance"--much of what I read above surely does not represent EGW's understanding. Context, context, context. That is why I finally wrote, "Should We Ever Say, 'I Am Saved.'"

When I joined the Adventist Church, I never looked back. And I never, for a moment, had any of the fear I see expressed above and the fear that many have shared with me. When I have had the opportunity, whether in the classroom or in speaking appointments, I turn fear on its head. The God's promises and presence of the Holy Spirit has been my source for joy--joy that I have seen down through the years who truly understand the relationship of "abiding in Him and He in us."

I have seen so many, many, who have turned from their sorry lives and found peace, strength and joy in Jesus and the grand theological drama of the Great Controversy Theme--something that is persuasive from Genesis to Revelation.

I truly agree with many that we have not always emphasized the positive when we focused on negatives. I too share with many who seem to minimize the biblical emphasis on the overcoming life. It often has been explained in stiff terms outside of placing the emphasis on Jesus as our Redeemer and Example. We can't have one without the other. His example is precisely what the book of Hebrews emphasizes.

Nicodemus heard it straight: We are not lost because we are sinners. Men and women are lost because they "love darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. . . . But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have 'done to God.'" John 2:17-21. May the conversation continue. Cheers, Herb

"nightdweller,
Now your quoting Ellen White to me."

I did so to prove my point about the belief that those who leave the chruch are lost. I rest my case. If you say I am able to leave the church and still be saved, you are in direct contradiction to the prophetess and the church, to say nothing of Jan Paulsen himself. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Deal with it.

"You don't even like Ellen White."

Attributing negative motives and intentions to me that are not present. Nice try. Not going to work. I never said 'I didn't like her' anywhere. You bear false witness. Comandment broken.

"You said before, she needs to be put in her place. And you said:

"The stylized EGW dream died long ago, but the Adventism just keeps dragging the corpse around, trying to breathe life into dead lips. Heck, the White Estate has even done the hair up, dressed it nicely and propped it in the corner of the church to make it appear it is still alive and relevant. Better that we just admit she was wrong and stop the useless EGW apologetics which pretty much are the equivalent of trying to patch a mannequin together that continually has parts falling off that need to be re-attached."

And your point is? How does the above quote mean I hate her? You bear false witness a second time. Commandment broken.

Did it ever occur to you that I was referring to the idealized, false image of EGW and not the woman herself? Yes, she does need to be put into her place, which is far below the Bible in authourity. I am not the only one in the church who believes this. Will you condemn all of them to Hell as well?

"You don't believe anything the woman ever said."

False. Where did I ever say that? Nowhere. You bear false witness a third time. Comandment broken.

My approach to EGW is the same as Graeme Bradford outlines. Test the prophets, hold fast to what is good, discard the rest. If you don't like that approach, tough. It works for me.

So, no, I don't 'disagree' with her on everything.

"And now you're telling me that this corpse is the reason for you staying in the church? WOW!!"

It was drilled into my head since I was young. Of all the things she warned about, this was the one that embedded itself into my psyche and will never leave me. It is what it is. The church has brainwashed me well in that regard.

"The fact is, you turned your back on the truth a long time ago and have been given over to strong delusion. The only thing you're hanging on to is the name, which makes no sense at all, because just calling yourself an Adventist won't get you into Heaven."

Lies. More cultish mind games. Typical conservative hate and abuse tactics. Those who question anything in the church are the walking damned, condemned to Hell.

Thanks for proving my point so well.

BTW, you know nothing about what I believe in regards to all 28 fundamentals, so why bloviate as if you do? I would wager I still hold to a lot more of the FB's than most of the Spectrum contributers here. So until you have all the facts, you would do well to keep it shut.

"You heap ridicule and shame and all manor of insults on this woman, and then turn around and say she's the only reason you havn't left the church. PLEASE!"

I have done nothing of the sort. You bear false witness for the fourth time. Commandment broken.

I am attacking the papal, venerated image of EGW that the White Estate has perpetuated, not the woman herself. Get it straight.

"If that's not delusional, I don't know what is."

Sentence deleted - website editor. Nightdweller: COOL YOUR TONE - if you want to continue participating on this forum.

The image of EGW that is being proferred in many circles of Adventism will never hold up to scutiny. My attacks are squarely against that misconception which has turned her prior supporters into her most bitter enemies. If certain narrow-minded individuals had followed my posts more closely, they would have seen that. Instead, they imply I have hateful motivations and 'don't like' the woman herself. No, I have no problem with EGW as the fallible human messenger who made mistakes-but that realistic image is NOT what is being pushed onto the church at large.

This black and white, all or nothing understanding of inspiration is nonsense. Both the EGW venerators and EGW rejectors alike have fallen for the same White Estate lie.

I do not, nor have I ever had that dogmatic understanding of her gift. And it is not a new understanding that originated with Bradford either. George Knight has been advocating a subdued version of this for years. Alden Thompson kicked the door to balance and reason open with his book Inspiration. Bradford just fleshed out the issues more and crystalized the matter.

People criticize it as the 'pick and choose' method, but I say that reason and common sense require, nay, demand that sort of approach. If we hang up our common sense, discernment and personal judgment at the door with regards to the scope of her numerous materials, that places us in a very precarious position. God never meant for us to swallow everything wholesale from any mortal human being nor put aside our natural filtering processes which is needed to sift the wheat from the chaff.

I will not hang my judgment and discernment out to dry for anyone, including Ellen White.

Test all things and hold fast to that which is good is an ideal principal to keep in mind. And if you come across some statement regarding meat-eating, beautiful people on Saturn, amalgamation, masturbation, wigs, etc. which you know is not accurate, bear in mind that was the understanding of her time, she was WRONG, and move on with life. And this goes for doctrinal areas as well. EGW relied heavily on Uriah Smith for her theological resources. If anyone wants to contend Uriah Smith was infallible and inerrant in his theological formulation, be my guest. The same goes for Kellogg as well, from whom many of the medical and health claims were based.

Bottom line: There is no reason to discard the whole thing in totality because EGW had obvious limitations. In her writings you will find discrepancies, contradictions, false information, limited understanding, culturally influenced ideas, imperialistic claims and sometimes embarrasing and immature formulations.

You will also find a fallible, flawed instrument who God worked through inspite of these things, someone who most definitely did have a supernatural gift.

Friend Nightdweller: Incidentally, that is an interesting moniker! You mention the discrepancies, etc., that we all find in EGW writings as well as in the Bible. Just human instruments. Have you read MESSENGER OF THE LORD where I focused in part on such obvious items? After all, I could not start or finish that college/seminary text book if I was not aware of the topics you mention. Keep smiling. Cheers, Herb

"After all, I could not start or finish that college/seminary text book if I was not aware of the topics you mention."

Interesting that you mention requirements for your educational pursuit. Before graduating from the Jesuit university I attended, there was a requirement that all candidates must write a spiritul autobiography: their personal pursuit of truth and where and how it had led them. It made no difference if they were atheist, they had to outline and explain their position.

Are SDA university, and especially Seminary graduates required to do something similarly? It should be mandatory, IMO, that they define their reasons for where they are at that point in their life. Our instructor explained that he would not accept any textual arguments for any particular religion. It was not an easy task then, and it helped refine and coalesce my thinking like nothing previously.

Damn those Jesuits! Look what they did to our Elaine. ;-)

Aw, Donna, that response is classic wit! Elaine has nailed something absolutely essential for everyone, academic or otherwise. I have emphasized this in some classes I have taught. At this moment, everyone should take an hour and write out his/her philosophy of life. Problem: So many try to sound original and it rattles off into philosophical stratosphere. Surely there will be a distinct difference between a person who has no relation to Jesus and those who permitted Him to change their lives. But they again how do we define that difference. Pure opinion normally doesn't get a passing grade, I guess that is why we all face a judgment some day. Sooner the better. Cheers, Herb

"...everyone should take an hour and write out his/her philosophy of life."

I would not consider an hour enough time anyway. Now if you want my philosophy on life but care not for my opinion, well, you have not received a passing grade from me either.

Ryan said: "Underneath most debates is a desperate desire to find and assert our identity ... like an adolescent trying to find herself. The problem is that we’ve been in this adolescent phase, as a church, for going on 100 years, by my rough estimation."

*******
This was interesting to me because it's as if all of the issues boil down to the idea that it is not "enough" to be human. If it is not enough to be human -- to be what you are -- then you have to find ways to be what you're not... and you need to ask/buy/beg to become what you're not... and you have to like it... and if you have to, so does everyone else: they are not enough either.

It may be a crude reasoning structure -- but I have seen both doctrine and dogma like it. It is difficult to reject that doctrine and dogma if you have always learned that what you are is not legal tender. Difficult, but possible. It takes time and patience to unlearn that, and to remember the sense of wonder and contentment with God's creation that you had when you were very small, before you were "trained in the way you should go."

It is also common for people around you to resist this unlearning and remembrance very strongly. I have felt that. I suspect the only way to demonstrate its value is not by arguing (and I won't), but by being. As I have changed, I have debated less. I have recast some relationships, because they were not sustainable in their older forms. And I've redeveloped my communities, which are larger in some ways and deeper in others.

I have lost the easy comfort I once had, but now I've seen more and am aware I know less, I don't think I want back what I've lost. I respect those who remain where they were, and tell them often. I still love them; they're still my siblings.

One thing I'd suggest to Ryan and others is that situating oneself in the context of humankind isn't a one-off act. While we can hope that the church grows out of its adolescent phase, it will then have to play catchup with its quarterlife crisis, overtaxed thirties, frantic forties, fifties' rebellion, sixties' irrelevance, seventies' senility and so forth. Haven't we seen some sort of major denominational or theological shake-up about once every decade? I think that's normal. The church, as long as it's populated with people and resident in society, has to grow while we grow. It may grow slower, but it still has to grow. It may creak, but it still has to stretch. And since it doesn't do yoga, lol.... the stretch is likely to be painful every time.

We can make it easier on ourselves. If you embrace both what you know and what you don't, and accept that what you are sure of could be upended by just the right information/revelation gifted at the right time... you should be much less likely to string up your brother for not holding the same opinion you do. I have come to prefer the intimate company of the uncertain because they recognize the bounds of their experience, they do not fear loss of face for saying "I don't know but I'm willing to find out," and they are willing to trust that even if everything falls apart, something new will emerge in its place or they will gain room to build. Such people have been exceptionally gracious to me. I guess we thrive in an atmosphere of grace and care. Kind of like plants.

This is totally insane.... fear??? What nonsense! This is a typical reaction by people like Dawkins. Who ever does not agree with them must be stupid, uneducated, dishonest or evil. The fact is Naturalism and Creationism are mutually exclusive. One cannot believe in both at the same time unless you are schizophrenic like Gould's nonsensical NOMA.

Each individual has limited knowledge and limited abilities to reason from that knowledge.

Each individual has a capacity to deceive themselves and others.

While it may well be true that Allen's definition of Naturalism is incompatible with Allen's definition of Creationism, that does not mean that my understanding of the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with my understanding of what it means to be a Christian.

But I do understand why Allen is scared of people like me.

/Bevin

An hour for writing one's philosophy of life is ludicrous! It should be a soul-searching endeavor, consuming weeks or more. Such superficial philosophy is as useless as a cup of warm spit (FDR's VP evaluation of his office). Also, if it had to meet the criteria of an astute instructor, it could not be passed off in such a cavalier manner. My instructor said few in his class of more than a dozen were ever able to have their essay qualify on the first try, How many have done this, and how many are willing to undertake such a most important activity? Not to know the essential goals and direction of our lives is to be destitute, IMO.

Elaine. I look forward to your comments. Those of us who have had to summarize hundreds of pp for an abstract know that a seasoned scholar could do it in an hour or two. If a doctoral student couldn't, his/her instructors would have reason to be suspicious of how much the writer knows compared to how much he/she has quoted but not digested. Of course, anyone with any writing skills can make a book out of his/her philosophy of life. But if it cannot be abstracted carefully and logically in a few pp, then the philosophy is still something he or she is groping for. I surely am not against anyone, young or old, working out for days or months, his/her philosophy of life. The sooner, the better. But I was referring to mature adults who get involved in areas where they really don't have any thought-through basis for what they write about. So we treat each other gently, respectfully. We have a great Model who has shown the way. Right? Cheers, Herb

Herb, comparing doctoral students with the average person is not really comparable. The students should have developed writing and skills of explaining his opinions for years.

However, when writing about very personal sentiments is quite different that abstracting papers, is it not? Yes, students at that stage are few and far between in the general population and do not have comparable skills of expression.

Do you think it should be a requirement for ministerial graduates (if it is not already)? Theory and personal feelings are not the same.

Elaine and Herb.

I gave it a try:

Life is a gift. Gifts should be appreciated, cared for, preserved, and put to a proper use. One should thank the giver. It is not by chance that the first commandment of civil responsibility is towards one’s parents. Just as the first four are responsibilities towards one’s Creator.

My philosophy stems from the first commandment given to man: “be fruitful and multiple.”

The fruitful aspects of life encompass the core of my philosophy of living. God was saying what every father intones: “Boy, make something of yourself!” Or as the Peanuts cartoon would have it: “Learn a trade, you won’t be cute forever!” The Scriptures describe it best: “He grew in favor of God and man!”

Just as a tree grows until it dies so should a man. That growth should be in intellectual, social, and in Spiritual understanding and application, as well as in physical well being. The implication of God is akin to the popular song of decades ago: “Take care of yourself, you belong to Me!”

If life is a gift, it should be lived by sharing. “Freely ye have received freely give!” That certainly implies that one must have acquired something worth the giving in the realm of knowledge, skill, understanding, and grace. Thus, learning is not only the first, but the continuing prime objective of living; for one cannot share what one has not acquired.

Since no one has the capacity to be all things to all people, there must be a focus as well as a purpose to one’s learning. One of the first lessons of life, is that some of the most enduring are those that come the “hard way”. Like, sidewalks don’t bleed as easily as knees!

Teachable moments arise when the body is “ripe”, the self is ready, and society demands it. Each teachable moment is built upon the preceding. Failure in one can and does make the following moments more difficult and often traumatic and some others propel the readiness of self! An example from midlife, came when a friend took me to a driving range for the first time. He began to instruct me on stance, on grip, and on address. I interrupted and said, “Please, I can’t hear a thing as long as I am sure that I can take this great big club and hit that tiny ball clear out of sight. So let me have at it. If I hit it out of sight, I won’t need your lesson, If I don’t, I will be willing to listen!. I took a might swing, topped the ball, and it dribbled about 10 feet about 30 degrees off center. Now, I was teachable!

Having acquired knowledge, skill, and understanding, might it be said, as it was of Jesus. “He went about doing good!” The learning part of life is preparation for the giving part, the sharing, with the Kipling admonition: to “fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds of distance run.”

The prophet Micah summed it well “To do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.” In so doing, may there be in departing, a lonesome place against the sky.
Tom

Herb and Elaine,

I am enjoying your conversation. It is making me think.

I can do a one liner philosophy of life, which would be a simple expression somewhat vaguely conveying my current outlook. Or I could drill right down into it for ages trying to capture all the nuances - groping for the language that I don't yet have. You Americans have apple pie, I like that.

I have just been reading a bit about fideism and the catholic response to it intrigues me as well. So much to learn, so little time. I feel like a dwarf among giants, life what an exciting prospect, just like apple pie.

Tom,

You beat me too it. I love your sense of priority.

I just remembered the first time I played golf. I was somewhat like you, ready to try. My very first hit ever, the ball went sailing for hundreds of yards, beautifully. The next 10 or 20 shots were miserable attempts at repeating that amazing first shot. It ended up taking me longer than it should have to get over my initial arrogance, which was fed by the fluke.

Before graduating from the Jesuit university I attended, there was a requirement that all candidates must write a spiritul autobiography: their personal pursuit of truth and where and how it had led them. It made no difference if they were atheist, they had to outline and explain their position.

Are SDA university, and especially Seminary graduates required to do something similarly? It should be mandatory, IMO, that they define their reasons for where they are at that point in their life. Our instructor explained that he would not accept any textual arguments for any particular religion. It was not an easy task then, and it helped refine and coalesce my thinking like nothing previously.
________________________________________________________
Elaine,

This is an awesome suggestion! No, when I attended Andrews University and the SDA Seminary in the 1980s, it was not a requirement, but it certainly should be!

Dear Ryan,

Thank you for your thoughtful article, and I agree with you that fear is misplaced. Nevertheless, your article left me with some basic questions: 1) There are occasions when "liberals" are convinced that the old ways/views are in error and are very harmful. Is it wrong for them to promote their new convictions and work for change? 2) There also occasions when "conservatives" are convinced that the new ways/views are in error and are very harmful. Is it wrong for them to work for the preservation of their convictions?

My questions are not merely academic. My fundamental desire is to be a disciple of Christ and to believe His gospel. But I find that my Christ-centered convictions often get me into trouble with both conservatives and liberals. As a result, I don't identify strongly with either faction within Adventism. In fact, my real identity is not even bound up with Adventism itself. It is bound up with Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Perhaps in this sense, the walls of identity are already broken down for me. But am I mistaken to find my identity in Christ? Do you believe I am wrong to stick up for Him when the ideologies of left or right threaten His kingdom?

Bob

I really enjoyed your last two posts. However, I always bristle at the labeling of liberal and conservative. I much prefer to use "some people disagree" and accurately define their disagrement, if possible, either right or left. Classification is a prejudiical act. I strongly agree that one's identity is not institutinal but Christ centered.

I try to steer away from global condemnation or approval but attempt to focus on issue by issue. It has gotten me into lots of trouble among "brethren" but I sleep better--knowing that I at least attempted to make a specific case.

Globally, one might challenge the Revelation Seminars and the exclusivity stated or implied.

Jesus, Himself strongly suggested that the focus of evangelism should be on the Feast at Simon's House and the loving act of Mary.

This far from the Tree of Life, I think we should heed that counsel. I need the best Advocate I can get. Tom

Dear Tom,

I know what you mean, and I apologize. These terms have become quite common, and that makes them very easy to use. However, the are prejudicial, and I'm not always sure what they mean.

As a matter of fact, I don't see much difference between those who distort scripture to teach legalism and perfectionism and those who tear the heart out of scripture by allowing the evolutionists and higher critics to do their thinking for them. Both groups have mutual disdain for Christ and the gospel. Martin Luther would probably say of them what he said of the Papists and the Anabaptists: "They are like Samson's foxes. Their noses point in opposite directions, but their tails are tied together."

Dear Bob!

Just Great. Thank you. You spoke my heart. Tom

God bless you Tom. Your love for Christ comes through in your posts.

Ryan, one of the things you have made clear to me in this study is that every time I, as a former church administrator, used fear to try to motivate people to get involved, work toward a shared goal, etc., I was violating Scripture, the will of God! I ask forgiveness for that. I confess. It is easy to use fear to try to manipulate people, especially when confronted with a situation where everyone seems to like to talk and almost no one wants to invest blood, sweat or tears in doing God's work in the world. Thanks for that. Now help me (us) find new sources of motivation. We do have a largely stalled bus at the moment.

" Now help me (us) find new sources of motivation. We do have a largely stalled bus at the moment."

A good mechanic would be the first one to consult if it were a bus.
If a church, consult the patient--the church.

A good physician must take a good history and physical; inquire of the patient her lifestyle and chief complaints and order tests before being able to prescribe treatment.

Too often the administrator, as you have done in the past, wish to prod the patient into "doing something" without any consent or desire on the part of the patient. First, a desire to change or
improve must be shownn. The remedy, or treatment must be based on the diagnosis; the assent of the patient, and full compliance.

Perhaps it's because the cart has been put in front of the horse: trying to motivate without first determining if there's assent to the problem and a desire to change. Plus, the change must be engineered from the ground up not the top down--which is nearly always the case. All pastors can tell of weekly "programs" and plans mailed them for all sorts of endeavors, whether or not they have any meaning to a particular church but have been issued from the GC or Union office in a promotional endeavor.

More innovation can always come from the grassroots and they can best determine what type of program is best for their community.
(Another reason to save money by dispensing with the huge administrative overhead.)

Bob,
Reading your comment above, it would be very easy for any theistic evolutionist, me included to understand you as saying we have a disdain for Christ and the gospel. Perhaps you meant atheistic evolutionists.

And perhaps you really did mean me and my fellow theistic evolutionists in which case I would have to say that's a mighty harsh characterization wouldn't you say, based on. . . what? Disdain for Christ??? Wow.

What is the definition of "theistic evolution"?

Elaine

I don't know the definition: it is either an oxymoron or it is another name for deism. Tom

There is no hard and fast definition but generally it means someone who is a theist - someone who believes there is a God, that God was the Creator, and that God intervenes in the created world. They may or may not be Christians but they aren't deists because they believe in a more active God than deists.

It also means someone who accepts that evolution is a natural process within that created world and it accounts for the diversity of life. Theistic evolutions generally, but not always, agree that evolution is sufficient to account for that diversity without the necessity of God interfering. They don't say God didn't interfere, just that we have no way of knowing since the mechanisms of evolution are sufficient themselves. Those who think interfering was necessary tend to fall more in the ID camp. All theistic evolutionists believe in God as Creator, they just think it happened differently then as outlined in Genesis.

Dear Beth,

I don't know all your views, so I cannot comment for certain on whether you are trusting in Christ alone for salvation. I hope you are! And if your faith is in Christ as your Savior, then you are certainly a Christian in the truest sense of the term. And you are also my sister in Christ! What is more, I hope that as a Christian theistic evolutionist, you can accept a Christian creationist like me as a brother in Christ.
Obviously, our views regarding origins are very different, and we cannot both be correct. One of us is mistaken. But praise the Lord, we are not saved by perfect knowledge. We are saved by Christ, and Christ's imputed righteousness covers a multitude of errors.

However, there is a small element in the Adventist Church that has committed itself not only to evolution, but also to extreme higher critical theories like the Documentary Hypotheis. These people often have real disdain for salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. I have no desire to list any names, but you can read their frequent posts on "Spectrum" web sites. Anyone who rejects free grace and opts for some form of works righteousness is showing disdain for Christ. In saying this, I mean no disrespect or unkindness toward anyone, but I must stand by that statement.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that evolutionary theory is logically compatible with historic, evangelical Christianity. It seems to me that combining the two is akin to driving a square peg into a round hole. Historic Christianity holds that human beings have experienced a fall into sin. The natural trend of the human race is always downward, and we are totally helpless. Hence we need a Savior. But now let me quote from Charles Darwin on the last page of "The Origin of Species": "As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of great length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection."

Beth, that statement from Darwin still characterizes evolutionary thought today. Perhaps in your minds, you and Francis Collins and other Christian theistic evolutionists can reconcile it with the gospel. But to me, the two appear logically contradictory. I think I can reconcile Darwin with legalistic religions like Buddhism or Mormonism, or possibly even perfectionistic versions of Adventism, but not with evangelical Christianity. I realize that Richard Dawkins can be very intolerant and hateful, but it seems to me that at least he is thinking more logically about these issues that Francis Collins. Collins seems like a wonderful Christian gentleman, but it appears to me that he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Dear Monte,

I agree with you and Ryan that using fear to motivate people is very wrong. And yet the bus is often stalled, and people need to be motivated to get it going.

But how about LOVE as a motivating factor? If people really get excited about the gospel, they are like Mary. They fall in love with Christ. And Mary's example shows that love makes for very productive disciples!

Bob said:

"Furthermore, I am not convinced that evolutionary theory is logically compatible with historic, evangelical Christianity. It seems to me that combining the two is akin to driving a square peg into a round hole."

We agree on that. I don't think it is compatible either. Although there are some people smarter than I am (like Collins) who seem to claim both and I can only say that it doesn't make sense me.

"Beth, that statement from Darwin still characterizes evolutionary thought today."

No it really doesn't. It was a view popular in Darwin's time and for a bit afterwards but has been rejected for awhile now.

I'd like to say that if everyone could even get on the same page as to what evolution says it would help. There is so much misunderstanding. But even then, we are still left with problems when it comes to Christianity so maybe it really doesn't even matter except to those of us who would like to process the issues as they really are rather than strawmen.

I appreciate your more careful comments in your post. These are not easy issues and it is far too easy to demonize those whose views we either don't agree with or don't understand.

Dear Beth,

I never had any intention to demonize evolutionists. This may surprise you, but my greatest concern is not evolution. It is the false gospel of righteousness by works, which characterizes every religious system except New Testament Christianity. Even atheism is a system of works righteousness.

You seriously misunderstood me when I spoke of a group of people who have disdain for Christ. I was referring to their rejection of grace, not merely their acceptance of evolution (although I believe acceptance of evolution can feed into this). The focus of the New Testament is not on Christ's teachings. It is on His death as a ransom for our sins and subsequent bodily resurrection. So, from the perspective of the New Testament, rejection of grace really does equal disdain for Christ. Paul uses even stronger language in Gal 1:8. He asserts that the purveyers of false gospels are anathema.

I agree that the idea of natural selection leading to perfection is not as prominent today as it was in the past. But I believe it is still there - at least in some evolutionary thought. If it isn't, why is Richard Dawkins advocating eugenics?

Beth, I wish people on both sides of this issue would at least listen to one another. Even if we don't agree, we might learn something. But in order to facilitate this, we have to get passed the bitter feelings and the fear that Ryan Bell discusses in this article.

I hear so much misinformation from both evolutionists and creationists. For example, I still hear this silly question from uninformed creationists: "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" But I also hear intelligent but apparently uninformed evolutionists assert that creationists believe in the fixity of species and that this will hurt medical research - which is a blatant falsehood!

Clearly, both sides are angry and afraid, and as a result, they are talking passed each other and not really listening to one another. This needs to change!

(To everyone - I appreciate the exchange of ideas, but it will be about three days before I can respond to anymore posts. Have a great weekend and a blessed Sabbath!)

Elaine asks what is theistic evolution. Several weeks ago I posted this link on my blog http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/origins.htm

It is really a nice introduction to the idea with tons of links to specific topics.

The sad thing is as revealed in Tom's answer:
--
I don't know the definition: it is either an oxymoron or it is another name for deism. Tom
--
That he has been arguing against it yet he does not know what it is. Kind of a sad idea in the age of the internet.

Ron

Bob,
Thanks for your further clarification. I agree that listening would be helpful and I understand more what your concerns are around evolution.

You said:

"I agree that the idea of natural selection leading to perfection is not as prominent today as it was in the past. But I believe it is still there - at least in some evolutionary thought. If it isn't, why is Richard Dawkins advocating eugenics?"

He's not. If you can find me his exact words, given in the *entire context* in which he said them, that advocate eugenics, I'd be more than happy to admit I'm wrong. I know there are plenty of creationists who have been misquoting and distorting what he did say about that and many other things for a long time. He's none too pleased either but is used to it. It's quite a serious charge and shouldn't be tossed around without careful verification.

Beth - this will require some research. If I am mistaken, I'll be happy to retract what I said about Dawkins and eugenics. My recollection is that it came from a non-creationist, secondary source, but my memory is hazy on that point.

You mentioned that Dawkins doesn't like what creationists are saying about him. But be aware that this works both ways. Creationists don't like it when they are falsely accused of believing in the fixity of species. Nor do they like it when evolutionists claim that they don't believe microbes mutate and that this will hamper medical research.

Both sides need to stop the demonizing and start listening.
I think if we can at least agree on this point, it would be very helpful.

I will be away from this site for about three days, but after that, I'll try to do some research on Dawkins and eugenics. And I'll try to post the results. Is that fair enough?

Bob,
What, you mean you have other obligations too? ;) Enjoy your weekend and Happy Sabbath.

Dear Beth,

I hope you had a good weekend. Here's a quote from Richard Dawkins that is reproduced completely to avoid taking anything out of context:
______________________________________________________

IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?
______________________________________________________
Dawkins published these thoughts in an article on "Dangerous Ideas." Apparently, someone else then tried to smear Dawkins by publishing this piece as a letter to the editor of the "Sunday Herald" under Dawkins' name. One question to consider is whether Dawkins is really advocating "designer babies" or whether he is calling the whole concept a dangerous idea. I'll refrain from answering that question and let you and other readers chew on it.

I did come across another book that blatantly endorses evolutionary eugenics. This is not from a secondary source. I examined this book first-hand in the library for about 15 minutes: John Glad, "Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the 21st Century" (Schuykill, PA: Hermitage Publishers, 2006)

Beth, I'm sharing these things to demonstrate that some evolutionists still support the idea of perfectability that Darwin endorsed on the last page of the "Origin." I grant you that the idea of evolution leading to perfection is not nearly as popular as it once was, but it has not totally disappeared.

Thanks Bob, especially for giving the entire passage. I figured that was what you were referring to and I've seen it badly misquoted before.

You said:

"One question to consider is whether Dawkins is really advocating "designer babies" or whether he is calling the whole concept a dangerous idea."

I don't think he is doing either. I think the dangerous idea he is talking about is even opening up the discussion.

It seems to me that he is making two points.

1) That he is disagreeing with those who say it is impossible to selectively breed humans for certain traits. He is not advocating it mind you, just saying it is possible.

2) He is calling for an ethics dialogue regarding the difference between training a human and selectively breeding a human for certain traits. He then points out though, that he already knows good reasons for not selectively breeding which are compelling and convincing.

I don't consider that passage to be an advocation of eugenics. Do you think that is what he is doing?

As for John Glad, a cursory search shows he's a Russian scholar who may or may not have even a reasonable understanding of evolution. Regardless, I know there are all sorts of people who link strange ideas to commonly accepted ones. Christianity itself is rife with people who have all sorts of strange and downright harmful ideas that they cloak in Christianity. I'm sure I could dig up some Christian currently calling for second class treatment of the Jews because they are Christ killers or for the return of blacks to slavery because the Bible calls for slaves to obey their masters. Both of which used to be much more commonly held beliefs but since discredited and thus not helpful in evaluating current Christianity.

I wouldn't doubt that there is all sorts of weirdness linked to evolution too but I also think it is a mistake to argue that any of it, including perfectionism and eugenics, is even close to mainstream. That is most especially true of those actually doing research in the area.

So yes, there are people out there who link perfectionism and/or eugenics with evolution. But it is not part of what is properly understood as the biological theory of evolution today.

Dear Beth,

I agree that the Dawkins quote suggests that he is troubled by eugenics. He wants to avoid even the slightest association with Adolf Hitler. But it seems to me that he does crack the eugenics door open slightly with his concluding question: "But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?" I didn't express an opinion before, but that's my take on it.

Nevertheless, I admit that my earlier inference that Dawkins is "advocating eugenics" was off the mark, and I retract it. In my mind, there is a difference between "cracking a door" and "advocating." On the other hand, there is no doubt that John Glad is "advocating" eugenics, but of course, he is not as well known as Dawkins.

Beth - I don't think these issues have totally disappeared and I believe that they could possibly resurface in the future. Nevertheless, I am aware that they are peripheral to present-day evolutionary studies. On that, we agree!

We got started down this path because I commented that "perfectability" still characterizes evolutionary thought today. Perhaps perfectability is not the right word.
But I do find it much easier to reconcile Darwinism with religions that do not require a "fall." And yet the "fall" of Adam and Eve seems to be the foundation on which the whole edifice of evangelical Christianity (including evangelical Adventism) rests, as it explains why human beings need a Savior. In other words, my sense of direction in Darwinism (from molecules to man) is quite different from the sense of direction I get from the gospel (from perfect humanity to something far less).

Bob

During my university days more than 50 years ago, perfectability was an open issue. Today the issue is much better focused on adaptability and genetic engineering to prevent certain transmitable congenital anomolies and/or suseptabillities. The success with genetically engineered feed crops has been highly successful. Dealing with the human genome is far more difficult and introduces a host of ethical issues.

Stem cell research bears the brunt of the battle.

At this moment, there certainly should be no moral concern by creationists that man has exceeded his bounds. In the realm of well monitored and disciplined stem cell research man is not "playing God". By the same token, stem cell research is no evidence in support of an evolutionary model of origins.

Tom

Bob,
Thank you for your honest and thoughtful reply. I agree with everything you said including your point that evolution is more difficult to reconcile with Christianity than some other religions. I understand the many philosophical problems with it and tend to agree with most of them. Goodness knows life would be easier if the scientific evidence supported the Genesis narrative and not evolution.

Beth

Science supports neither Genesis nor Darwin et al. When it comes to origins The geneologies are no better and no worse than dating by rates of decay and proximity or impregnation to or by an isotope or radioactive substance. Nor is adaptation even a close cousin to the branching proposed by evolution.

Why be intimitated by speculation anymore than by dogma?

Of course the outrageous statments and concoctions of churchmen of even the recent past provide skeptics with more than adequate ammunition. In the face of reality, the assertions of some men of "science" fare no better.

It is not that the evidence for evolution is so strong but that the alternative is so unpleasant to willful man.

Man would rather admit to being close DNA relatives of primates than being fashioned by a higher being or more important being dependant upon such a being for redemption.

Even today, it is the pulpit that gives energy to the laboratory. I am neither a pulpiteer nor a basic scientist but as not so innocent a by-stander, the propositions of both are far too often out of bounds of revelation or of verification. Niether meet the smell test.

I remember, well a dental materials scientist who as a guest lecturer at LLU would alway caution the students that measurements must be understood as being plus or minus a certain amount, due to the variabilities of man. However, when he presented his own data, there would be no plus or minus following the figure. When questioned, his response was: "these measurements are accurate! I took them myself!!

I don't believe that the Genesis story is an accurate account of either origins or pre-history. But I also don't believe that science has any more clue as to pre-history than Moses.

Tom

Goodness knows life would be easier if the scientific evidence supported the Genesis narrative and not evolution.
_______________________________________________________
Dear Beth,

This is the one area where we disagree. We simply weigh the evidence differently. You believe the evidence points overwhelmingly in the direction of evolution. I believe the evidence is very ambiguous. Some of it points in the direction of evolution; some of it points in the direction of creation, and the majority of it is in the muddled middle and can be interpreted as pointing in either direction.

It must be remembered that our interpretation of evidence is colored by our presuppositions. My presuppositions are derived from Isaac Newton rather than the Enlightenment.
Unlike many Enlightenment thinkers, Newton did not seal theology and natural science into separate, airtight compartments. He believed that they should interact as complementary parts of the totality of truth. This seems to accord with Jesus' own perspective regarding truth. When Jesus states that He is "the truth" (John 14:6), he seems to be saying that all truth finds its focus in Him. For this reason, I tend to look for concord between revelation and natural science. People with different presuppositions will approach the data from a different perspective. For example, in his book, "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins states that theology is "vacuous." It is clear from the book that he has very little knowledge of theology because he is not interested in it and considers it absurd. So it follows that Dawkins is extremely unlikely to entertain the prospect of finding concord between theology and the data of natural science.

Since our interpretation of scientific data is colored by our presuppositions, I suggest that dialogue between evolutionists and creationists is apt to be much more fruitful than demonizing one another and talking past one another. Patient dialogue can help us understand one another and empathize with one another. It can also help us see past our presuppositions and gain new insights regarding scientific data.

I assure you of this - I believe that we should attempt to settle all questions on the basis of evidence. I don't believe in having blind faith in anything. So I am open to the evolutionary perspective. But as yet, I am simply not persuaded by it.

Dear Tom,

Thank you for your thoughts.

In regard to stem cell research, I do not believe that human beings are playing God. This is a valid area of research that has the potential for much good. However, I do have serious qualms about the destruction of human embryos. I'm a sinner who needs to be covered with Christ's imputed righteousness every day. Nevertheless, love demands that I take all of God's commandments seriously - including the 4th and the 6th - which many people seem to forget about these days. The 6th commandment requires me to respect life, and I cannot escape the conclusion that this includes pre-natal life.

Bob

It sure is a puzzle. I personally think man is trying to play God with in vitro fertilization. That very act dooms thousands of zygotes to death. It is at least a very gray area that I would not venture into. To engage in vitro fertilization in order to secure stem cells is gross. To harvest stem cells from doomed zygotes, I am ambivalently wary--if there is such a beast.

Certainly to start a zygote farm in order to harvest stem cells is unimmaginable. Tom

Dear Tom,

I am aware that zygotes that do not implant are expelled from the uterus. Nevertheless, it is a gray area, and I think it is better to take the high road, if nothing else to avoid the slippery slope. Respect for life is never a losing proposition!

Bob/Beth,

You may be interested to read a book by Denis Alexander called 'Creation or Evolution:Do We Have to Choose?'. He is a theistic evolutionist and has come up with a model for how to integrate the concept of the fall within his scientific framework.

He wrote the book in response to the many people who posed the same types of question..... how does the sin/plan of salavation/incarnation etc fit in with darwinism.

Although his ideas are well thought through, they do seem a little fanciful, e.g. God at some point in human evolutionary history stepped in and started to have/offered to start a relationship with humanity.

I am not doing him justice in these few short sentences, but is maybe worth a look.

Adrian

Bob

Ever good. Albert Schweiter'z mantra was Reverance for Life:

His compound was vermin ridden. I believe in Reverance for the Life Giver as primary. The issues that plagues man are when does life begin and when does it end? I have a living will to remove all doubt and responsibility from care givers.

When it comes to frozen zygotes: my personal belief is:

1. I would attempt to create one without the full intention of seeing it to term.

2. If one were within my keeping, I wouldn't play games with it.

3. I would fain from telling anyone else how they should behave as custodians of zygotes.

4. There are other sources of stem cells, I certainly would exhaust that supply first before even suggesting alternative sources.

5. I think the issue is a personal one, beyond the realm of deciding for another.

6. Have experienced a miscarrage in our early married life, I know some of the trama--but none to compare to Betty's. She still counts four not three at 81.

7. The issue and its consequences are indeed profound.

Thanks for your kind and compelling position statements.
At our 60th anneversary, last Saturaday, the three honored us greatly ages 53, 54, * 59)

Tom

Dear Adrian,

I like to read all sides in this debate, as reading exposes the strengths and weaknesses of each position. Who is the publisher of "Creation or Evolution: Do We Have To Choose?"

Be aware that many people have already attempted to reconcile evolution with Adam and Eve and the Fall. C.S. Lewis was a theistic evolutionist who did. So does Francis Collins. Perhaps the evangelical theologian, Derick Kidman, has the most ingenious scheme. He has Adam evolving from an ape-like ancestor and Eve being specially created!

However, all these attempts seem strained and not very convincing. They remind me of kids who want to have their birthday cake and eat it too!

Dear Tom,

This is a difficult issue, and I appreciate your thoughtful response. You have obviously given these issues much thought.

I'm glad you were able to experience and enjoy your 60th anniversary. That is a milestone that not many people make.

Bob, I agree that the attempts are ironically quite 'creative'!

The publisher is Monarch Books.

Alexander is head of the Faraday institute that is an organization for christian scientists here in the UK. Some interesting lectures can be down loaded from http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Multimedia.php, including ones by Alexander.

Rgds

Adrian

Dear Adrian,

Thanks for the publisher and the link to the Faraday Institute. I don't believe I have heard of the Faraday Institute before, but it sounds like it is along the lines of the American Scientific Affiliation on this side of the Atlantic.