Kirsten,

I am a conservative Christian in my understanding of Scripture and salvation. Yet many conservative...even some "liberal" Adventist would consider my lifesyle liberal because I feel certain liberties are granted in scripture that our tradition has not endorsed. Yet I feel those liberties should be mindful of the sensitivities of those of whom we are with.

I think it is also good to recognize labels alone are often deceptive until fleshed out on particular topics.

I believe also that the "quality" of beliefs are not equal.
That while each is entitled to ones own opinion that does not mean there are not "better" answers and for the Christian I believe scripture offers the most.

I enjoyed your comments.

Thanks for the comment Pat.

I would like to recognize one thing right off the bat. I was a bit uncomfortable with my use of the terms "liberal" and "conservative." I did not want to spend the majority of my post defining them of course, because I think a general idea can be grasped, and is sufficient for this discussion.

I agree with you that the "quality" of beliefs are not equal. I believe that "Truth" exists (note the capital T). However, I also believe, that no person has yet to find it nor understand it in whole. And that no one ever will while we remain on this earth. I do believe that different people within Christianity alone have different pieces of "Truth," if you will, in the way that they interpret the Scriptures. Therefore, the most beneficial thing we can do is compare our understanding with the understanding of others.

The best way to fight preconceptions and stereotypes is to have a solid mechanism for determining truth from error.

The scientists have such a method, with a proven track record - it produced the computer I am writing this on. It includes the concept of levels of certainty - with nothing ever being 100% certain. It also includes the concept that opinions, even those of experts, are not the way to determine certainty - reproducible experiments is the right way.

Comparing our understanding with the understanding of others merely leads to the blind leading the blind - with the result today that Christianity has millions of people all firmly believing contradictory positions.

Bevin,

I am going to address your final comment, that reads:

"Comparing our understanding with the understanding of others merely leads to the blind leading the blind - with the result today that Christianity has millions of people all firmly believing contradictory positions."

I disagree with this statement. Using your analogy, the blind, rather than leading the blind, would simply end up leading themselves, which with my reasoning, is just as bad, or worse. At least if the blind are leading the blind, those in the back of the line can learn from the mistakes of those in front of them (so long as our blind people can communicate verbally).

Analogies aside, I am not claiming that anything goes. Certainly if you are a Christian, you should rely on the Bible. However, if you would like to attribute fault to the differing of understandings within Christianity, I would contest that with the pure lack of capability within each human mind; we don't need each other to be confused. The Bible is not an easy book to understand, and with all of the translations of translations that have been made throughout the last two centuries, and the fact that each person must will come to his own conclusions, of course there will be a differing of opinions.

"Believe those who are seeking truth; doubt those who find it."

Truth is an elusive journey. No one can be assured that they have found it nor pass it to someone else. Each of us is responsible for his own search and should never rely on someone else, regardless of the qualifications claimed.
The Bible is merely a collection of writings by many who had various perceptions of God and should be read with discrimination and discretion. Why are ancient writings describing God superior to someone today who may also do the same? Were the Bible writers closer to God; more saintly because they told of hearing God's voice talking to them? Does that signify more divine inspiration? Are people today immune from such capability?

Kirsten,

I would enjoy seeing your answer to Elaines last post.

Also, another example of "labels" and how they can be deceptive...Conservative Protestant Christians who hold a high value on Scriptural authority look at Adventist (not knowing conservative or liberal views witih SDA) and see a church that seems to rely on another form of extra biblical authority as do the Mormans. That was a major issue in QOD.

They would see this "conservative" Adventist view as "liberal" as relates to Protestant biblical authority.

"Labels" do need examining and contextual content...such as what one means by "fundamentalism" and "literalism." How and in what ways if any do they differ from grammatical-historical Biblical interpretation?

Kirsten,

Thank you for your comments. As a somewhat "conservative" person myself, I appreciate the fact that love should trump all other issues.

However, I am a little perplexed by your wish that we "continue to find space not to evangelize and convert, but to examine and grow." What, exactly, does this mean? Is this contrary to Christ's command to go out and baptize/disciple people?

Shawn, I won't try to speak for Kirsten, but I know that for me, when the only command of Christ's that is mentioned is going out and baptizing people I get nervous. Nervous because the way the command is presented seems to be in an us versus them mode. We have it all right and we are going to tell them what to do. And why should they listen to us? Kirsten's wish that we continue to examine and grow says to me that we still have much to learn--together. To be able to learn together we have to listen to each other. If we insert listening into the equation, it feels like the Great Commandment of Love One Another has been combined with the Great Commission to Go Into All the World. And when they the two commands are combined we have something to do as well as something to say.

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." Jn. 7:24

What are our minds for, if not to judge?

But should we be judging people? Obviously at some point, this is inevitable, however it might be well to keep that to a minimum. That, I think, is what Kirsten and the Argentine woman were really saying, at least initially, but it seems to me that to some degree, the important distinction between judging people and exercising good judgment about the issues has become confused. Indeed, is there a real difference between "to examine and grow" and to "judge and grow"?

It seems, though, that if we have gained the capacity to "examine and grow," we're also not likely to "learn from each other" without discrimination either. And would we not be more likely to learn by examining the facts according to established theory than we would trouble to learn from somebody else?

I guess what mostly troubles me is that the very reasonable exhortation to people not judge (people, apparently), or to self-segregate, apparently has become confused with the idea that we're not going to judge, and discriminate among, concepts and "truth". For the standard of judgment is not majoritarianism, while both scholarship and science have proven to provide better means of discovering knowledge than dialectic or discussion alone.

We may certainly learn from each other, but only if we actually know how to examine and judge what others say. Preconceived notions and stereotypes are not, of course, the means to examine and judge either humans or ideas.

Glen Davidson

Doesn't judge have the connotation of not just "condemn" but also to discern what is true concerning an issue? judgment in this respect is always needed.

Paul gives an example in 1 Cor.5:12,13."For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.

The ultimate pupose of "judgment" was not "to condemn" but hopefully redeem the individual.(2Cor.2:6,7.)

Also, isn't it possible to celebrate what we know and not just focus and celebrate on what we don't know? Evangelism is offering Christ to sinners who makes us into a "new creation" a reason for celebration!

Can't various aspects of the church be doing various things all at once as a functioning "body" with Study, eyes, hands , and feet?

I think the commandment referred to is found in the Gospel according to Matthew. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the World. Amen. Matt. 28: 19, 20.

Nowhere do I read: "Sister White says!"

Since it is the Christmas Season, I would start with the Oratorio the Messiah. He is expected. He arrives, He lives to teach and heal, He is wounded and dies, He rises the third day, He ascends into Heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, He intercedes on out behalf. He is coming again." Wouldn't be appropriate to learn what He expects to find? The letter to the Church in Ephesus gives a clear outline of God's New Society. Those who agree with Jesus and His Apostle to the nations should be baptized into the trinity. They also fellowship with like believers be it Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, or Friday. If He is the Lord of my life, He certainly is the Lord of my time on earth 24/7. Tom

Bonnie, I think that you make a great point.

In fact, the idea that Protestants were to convert souls is a relatively recent idea. For almost two thousand years, most interpreters read the Great Commission as only spoken to the disciples. It is only as the age of exploring gave way to inchoate globalization in the 1890s that global mission became a biblical doctrine. Fueled by colonialism -- where people and production mixed -- missions became the free market for religion, a way to expand, brand, and band together.

There were good and bad effects, but it is essential to realize that world mission is not the most important aspect of Christianity, as God has richly blessed believers for centuries who never told another person about Daniel 8:14.

And what about the Catholic missionaries many centuries earlier than the late 19th century? Were they not also Christian missionaries? What gave them the idea to Christianize the world?

The Book, "From Jerusalem To Irian Jaya" by Ruth Tucker, 1983. Zondervan is an interesting read for those interested in missionary history.

The "Great Century" for missions was reportedly underway in the early 1800's in South Central Asia, Africa, The Far East, and the Pacific Islands.

Examples are Carey, Moffat's, Morrison. Hudson Taylor was in China in 1854.

John Eliot and Indian missions in America in 1654.

"For almost two thousand years, most interpreters read the Great Commission as only spoken to the disciples."

Where do you get this idea from, Alex?

Admittedly, "converting" people has been given a black-eye from TV evangelists and "Bible-thumping" Christians, but I do believe that Paul - who was not at all present when Jesus spoke those words - took this imperative pretty seriously, as did the rest of the non-disciple Christians in the first few centuries (and beyond).

Why is "converting" someone contrary to loving them, Bonnie? That's an artificial distinction. Truly loving a person will mandate that I share the hope that is within me.

I do not find any portion of scripture where we are told to "listen" to other people. While we are to be respectful and show a genuine interest in others, I do not find Jesus, Paul, Peter, et. al, any bit apologetic for sharing their faith with other people, and yes, bringing them to a saving knowledge of God. I may listen to the Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., but that does not necessitate that I view their doctrines as valid as mine.

I think every person has a unique picture of God because of God's unique relationship to each person. When we can share our pictures and our understanding with someone else, we are both enriched. Yes, there is an absolute Truth, but no one on this earth has it. We can all learn and benefit from each other's "piece" of God. Some important aspects of Truth can be learned from the Bible, but again, each of us reads and interprets it somewhat differently. As Elaine said, we are only responsible for our own journey in search of truth.

>It is only as the age of exploring gave way to inchoate globalization in the 1890s that global mission became a biblical doctrine

This is not true even in the Protestant world -- there were missionaries going out to Polynesia in the early 1800s, soon after it was discovered by the European world, for instance. The missionary conversion of the various barbarian tribes outside the Roman Empire predates even the Catholic/Orthodox split.

Tony Zbaraschuk wrote, "It is only as the age of exploring gave way to inchoate globilization in the 1890's that global mission became biblical doctrine."

What about the Apostle Paul's three missionary journeys? Would not they qualify as "global mission" efforts? Was not Paul carrying a biblical doctrine? Those journeys must have seemed very "global" back then.

Brantley Johnson

As a percentage of the SDA population, I bet there are as many liberals in every part of the world as there are in the United States. Most SDAs in this country are very conservative in religion and politics. They seem unable to tell that George Bush has done to the whole nation what Bill Clinton did to Monica.

Labels are our favorite means of libeling. Down here in Dixie
Liberal is a very nasty word. Everyone lives by check-list politics and check-list theology--of their neighbor of course!

I was in Kroger's recently when a man down at the far end of
the Aisle yelled--Tom Zwemer you @#&*@# Liberal. I yelled back: "You are mistaken, I am a Jeffersonian Democrat but you are too dumb to know what that means but have a nice day anyway." It seems that several years before, he was Assistant Director of Human Resources at the Medical College of Georgia and I was Chief Affirmative Action Officer. He wanted to fire a housekeeper because of very slow work. I asked to see her evaluations. I found that she had a perfect record until the last six month evaluation. I said, "We can't just fire her, we will have to determine, why the change. It turns out that her immediate supervisor was "hitting on her." Her work had slowed because he would be waiting for her to empty her wastebaskets into the dumpster.

I said, we must have a hearing. However, before the hearing could be scheduled: the Supervisor raped another housekeeper in the linen closet.

Never-the-less after both the Assistant Director and I had retired, he couldn't get it out of his mind that I have over ruled him in favor of a Black housekeeper. So he called me the worst names he could think of, in the most public place he could find. If we had done it his way. The Medical College would have had a Federal Judgment against it. The last one--at the University of Georgia had cost the University 3 million dollars plus court costs. So, I consider myself a very conservative sort of guy. Even in choice of suits and ties. Tom

Tom
Your stories are better and better! Keep them coming. I hope someone is collecting them. Otherwise we can go back and find them. They are would make a great little book: "Tom's Tome: Reflections of *&%$#@* Liberal!"
Dave

"It is only as the age of exploring gave way to inchoate globalization in the 1890s that global mission became a biblical doctrine."

As others have noted, this is way off the mark. The early church was a missionary movement, spreading throughout the Roman Empire in the first four centuries. Then, after the barbarian invasions, as I've noted in another post, Celtic monks re-evangelized Europe. After 900, Scandinavia and Rus were the targets of evangelism. Afterwards, northern Germany, Poland, etc. Columbus, a secular Franciscan, was partly spurred by Franciscan visionaries to seek out new peoples and evangelize them so that the end could come. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Jesuits spread to India, China, Japan, the Philippines, then to Spanish and French America.In the 17th century, the Vatican established the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to coordinate the work of the different orders.

The Protestant missionary movement of the 19th century was a johnny-come-lately.

Bill

I am sure you have read How the Irish Saved Civilization.

I think it supports your thesis. Tom

Also, Peter Brown's "The Rise of Western Christianity."

Tom, that title did pop into my mind as I was typing that. :-) I haven't read that particular book by Peter Brown, Elaine, but I know of him.

A classic text is K. S. Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity (seven volumes, 1937-1945).

With seven volumes, one could get Latourette's syndrome trying to read them all!

Hello dearest Kirsten,
I enjoyed reading this and I miss our conversations. In regards to "Truth" and ,,truth,, well, doesnt this sound like one of our honors discussions that go round and round?
Anyway, I'm starting to be more ok with the idea that, if a standard of beliefs works for someone, they aren't necessarily wrong or a threat to me and my beliefs. I've always found the more "conservative" side of Adventism slightly threatening. I say that acknowledging fully that I have no real basis for this feeling, but never the less, it persists. I think to be able to live peacefully (not only with ourselves but with other religions and cultures) we need to be able to put aside our fears and get into dialog like you had in Argentina.
I hope you're well, and I miss you!
Meagan