The rise of fundamentalism within our denomination is troubling. Extremes from both ends of the ideological spectrum are robbing contemporary Adventism of the ability to grow and expand as a denomination. Often these sincere Christians, in their piety and zeal, fundamentally misunderstand how to apply Scripture to practical living and disallow the ability for God to lead through revelation in this present age. This is rarely intentional on the part of those who could be classified as fundamentalists, but is inevitably the consequences of such a mindset. Because the fundamentalist mindset in Adventism is focused on “defending truth” and not “seeking truth” it is incompatible with the North American rise of intellectual Adventism. In their eagerness to bring Adventism back to the “traditional faith of the founders,” these Christians fail to realize that in so doing they are refusing to follow where God is leading. They have become trapped within an extreme form of Adventism and only know it to be “true.” In “Christian Service” Ellen White addressed those who fail to follow God’s light, be they conservative or liberal, when she wrote, “Accumulated light has shone upon God’s people, but many have neglected to follow the light, and for this reason they are in a state of great spiritual weakness.”
Last week some of my friends, themselves Theology and Religious Studies majors, were discussing the matter of Ellen White and her role in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The more moderate and conservative of our group, who are pursuing careers as theologians and pastors in the church, were quite dismissive of White’s writings. I was surprised that they could negate her role as a Messenger of the Lord and still consider themselves Adventists.
Try to imagine the scene. The liberal, avid reader of Borg, Armstrong, Spong, and Crossan, (proponent of “Process Theology,” and admirer of Theistic Evolution) was left to offer a defense of Ellen White. It was quite an interesting discussion that ensued between three Adventists attempting to reconcile Ellen White and Christianity.
While the following paragraphs are an attempt to summarize the conversation with my friends, while presenting my thoughts on Ellen White, it is by no means a comprehensive study on the subject. Nor is it a complete representation of the many conversations that developed from our questions regarding Ellen White.
One cannot begin to discuss Ellen G. White without addressing the fact that her writings and ministry, within Adventist Christianity, have often been greatly misunderstood. This is partly because of the element of fundamentalism present within Adventism. It is troubling that there are those within our denomination who would readily proof-text White’s writings to prove an argument as those who would quote the Holy Scriptures. This non-biblical literalism, when applied to the Scriptures, is just as detrimental to understanding biblical texts as it is when applied to the writings of Ellen White, or any author. Literalism must be regarded as yet another extremist child of fundamentalism. It extracts passages from their context and interprets them apart from their intended meaning. This is a form of intellectual hypocrisy, and is all too common among members within our denomination.
It is my belief that reading any passage with a specific predisposition will only serve to affirm that opinion, insofar as the individual reading the passage cannot conceive of any alternative interpretation or application of that text. This leads to misguided principles of study, biblical hermeneutics, interpretation, and application of literary passages. Theologians have often written that, “The Bible can be used to support or condemn anything if one is willing to set aside sound principles of hermeneutics, textual context, and interpretive application.” This is equally true of the writings of Ellen White. Adventists have, from the time of God’s revelation to our fledging denomination, been poor stewards of White’s writings. Our denomination has misunderstood the “greater picture” with respect to our denominational heritage and the larger history of Christianity.
One of Adventism’s major contributions to Christian thought (the idea of progressive revelation, called “Present Truth” by Adventists) is often neglected or simply misapplied by our fundamentalist members. Adventism dictates that it is, by its very nature and understanding of revelation, a progressive denomination, or at least, it should be theologically. Unfortunately, because Adventist administrators and theologians have aligned the denomination with Evangelical Christianity, extremist conservatism has greatly influenced the laity of the church. Due to the influences of fundamentalism, Adventism has remained theologically restrained and locked in an unhealthy, often ill-informed, dogmatic rendering of our Twenty-eight Fundamental Beliefs for some greater notion of “Traditional Adventism,” which is neither traditional nor Adventist. Ellen White no more inhibits our growth as Adventist Christians than John Wesley for Methodists, Martin Luther for Lutherans, or John Calvin for Calvinists.
The idea that Ellen White, in contrast to her contemporaries, was somehow a conservative (or as some would insist a “liberal”) is not supported by Adventist history. She held beliefs that were more progressive for her time and also beliefs that were conservative. As her understanding increased, so her beliefs grew and became more inclusive to reflect her personal growth. It is in the sense that Ellen White was able to adapt and grow throughout her life that she is considered “progressive” not because her views today represent what Progressive Adventists believe today. Fritz Guy writes, “Ellen White, for example, consistently used the words “conservative” and “conservatism” with a distinctly negative connotation, referring to excessive caution, a lack of venturesomeness, and a concern for popular approval, in theological as well as practical contexts. Words she associated with “conservative” included “compromising,” “concession,” “narrow,” “old,” “please the people,” “policy men,” “satisfied,” “self-centered,” and “superficial(1).” Progressive Adventists need to rescue Ellen White from the fundamentalists within our denomination. She rightly embodies within our Adventist identity as “Progressive Christians,” not as part of an agenda of fundamentalism which has become pervasive throughout Adventism.
Adventists have misused the ministry of Ellen White, and her writings, to attack and redefine the very ethos of Adventism: Progressive Revelation. Throughout the entirety of Scripture, there is a portrayal of a loving, Almighty Creator who earnestly seeks to be understood by a rebellious people and to re-establish His governance in the hearts of mankind. Scripture also recounts the history of a rebellious people that earnestly seeks to understand their Almighty Creator through His divine loving nature, and to reconcile themselves by trusting His governance. The beauty of the Scriptures, indeed the very holiness that renders it to be the Word of God, comes precisely from this narrative, not some fundamentalist notion of “word inspiration.” What a testament it truly is that the God who is willing to risk being misunderstood is truly a God of Divine Love who desires that we might ultimately understand him better (2). Ellen White encourages our earnest study of Scriptures and community dialogue when she wrote that, “Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God’s Word, and discourage any further investigation of the Scriptures. They become conservative, and seek to avoid discussion (3).” Ellen White understood that God wants to dialogue with people. She knew that more than wanting a dogmatic faith, God desires a people willing to grow and expand in understanding.
In her ministry to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Ellen White attempts to give witness to a God who desires for people to understand Him better. A God who is willing to work within our humanity and a God that understands our shortcomings, yet is still able to use us for His purpose of salvation. Truly, this is a God that exhibits a capacity for ultimate love. We, as Adventists, must understand the historic role of prophets within this framework of God’s character to truly appreciate Ellen White within our denomination. There are three primary traits concerning prophets that affect their mission.
1. Prophets are human.
This suggests that Ellen White, rather than a source of ultimate truth, is fallible and must be afforded the ability to have her own human free will apart from the will of God. It is true that prophets often commit themselves and their lives in service to God and His purpose for their life, but it is equally true that God allows us to make mistakes along the way. He even allows us to “be human.” That is precisely why He is a God of Divine Love—being both Just and Merciful always.
2. Prophets are contemporary.
This means that Ellen White, rather than an inerrant source of reference for all time, should be understood within the time-period in which she is writing. The issues she addresses are mostly relevant to Adventist Christians in the nineteenth-century, not those in the twenty-first century. This does not suggest that her writings are no longer relevant to Adventists. Rather, this means that we can no longer read her writings “out-of-context” and apply the words she addressed to Adventists in nineteenth-century America to the twenty-first-century global Adventist Community. It requires us to understand the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church through the study of our history as a denomination and interpret how that heritage impacts us today. By understanding Ellen White’s writings within their original context, one is better able to apply these biblical principles to situations which she may not have addressed directly.
3. Prophets are God’s means of communication.
Ellen White, rather than a prophet for all of Christianity, should be properly understood within her role in Adventism. God chose to begin a dialogue with the believers of a movement that would become known as the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Lord of the Universe beckons us, “Come let us reason together.” (4) As a movement, Adventism has had a profound experience with God, one that affects our basic identity as Adventist Christians. Our history as a church has become so tightly interwoven with the ministry of Ellen White that to separate one from the other is to completely destroy the very fabric of Adventism. God used Ellen White as a messenger, a prophet for the early Adventist denomination, to offer guidance and direction to our movement. He began the conversation with Ellen White, but it is imperative that all Adventist Christians endeavor to continue that dialogue.
With these three primary traits, Adventists can come to appreciate the ministry of Ellen White by more fully understanding her limitations as a prophet, contemporaneous role within the Adventist movement, and God’s continued dialogue with Adventist Christianity. Prophets are not infallible nor are prophets theologians. Ellen White is fallible. And while she is factually inaccurate on many issues that she addresses, she remains sound and reliable in the application of biblical principles. Ellen White was not a theologian. She does not define Adventist theology. If she does, then our denomination has no claim to Christianity, but is more rightfully defined as a cult. It is interesting to note that although Ellen White was not a theologian, she brought our denomination theologically closer to Christian orthodoxy(5). This is yet another great testament to her conviction to serve God and how God used her within our midst. She offered words of inspiration to Adventists, for all of us to always be thinking about and investigating their faith, writing, “Allow no one to be brains for you; allow no one to do your thinking, your investigating, and your praying(6).” Some examples of Ellen White bringing Adventists to a more orthodox Christianity can be observed within her thoughts concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, understanding of the Atonement, her concept of the New Birth, and issues surrounding the Close of Probation or “Shut Door” theory.
The “Great Controversy” vision, received in March 1858, that developed into the five-volume “Conflict of the Ages” series, offers a case in point of Adventism’s concept of progressive revelation and how Ellen White “changed” or evolved in understanding as time and knowledge progressed. Julius Nam writes, “White may have seen a comprehensive vision on the great controversy in 1858, but as time passes, her understanding of this vision grows and expands—aided by growing spiritual wisdom, deeper understanding of Scripture, input from others around her, reading others’ works and incorporating them in her own writings, and probably some significant, signature experiences such as the 1888 General Conference session. Her view of God shifts dramatically from a stern, impassive judge to a loving, longsuffering parent(7).”
Three “Threads of Truth,” woven throughout Scripture, are the History of Redemption, the Great Controversy theme, and the Principle of Divine Love. Ellen White’s writings have helped to illuminate and expound upon these truths. Without Ellen White, our denomination’s understandings of these three themes, (“Threads of Truth,”) within the Bible would be greatly diminished. While she was indeed no theologian, her “theology,” if one might call it that, compliments that of Scripture. She wrote of Adventists and our mission, “You are not to shut yourselves up to yourselves, and be content because you have been blessed with knowledge of the truth. Who brought the truth to you? Who showed the light of the Word of God to you? God has not given you His light to be placed under a bushel(8).” I wonder how we allow some in our denomination to place God’s progressive revelation under a bushel?
Personally, Ellen White’s life story, her mission, writings, preaching, and travels are all part and parcel of an inspiring Christian testimony centering on a woman after the very heart of God—a woman who struggles to lead a movement to an understanding that more closely reflects a loving Creator God who desires, above all else, a loving relationship between Him and His people. Her story is our story. She is the quintessential Adventist, our paragon. Her life demonstrates an understanding of progressive revelation. Her writing illustrates a woman who desired conversation and dialogue, not debate and consensus. She writes of God’s expectations, “Greater light shines upon us than shone upon our fathers. We cannot be accepted or honored of God in rendering the same service, or doing the same works, that our fathers did. In order to be accepted and blessed of God as they were, we must imitate their faithfulness and zeal—improve our light as they improved theirs, and do as they would have done had they lived in our day. We must walk in the light which shines upon us, otherwise that light will become darkness(9).” She reflects the ethos of Adventism to the Christian world—progression. Her life and work, ironically, do not match that of the fundamentalists who often quote her to belittle intellectualism, offend progressive thinking, and cry “Heresy!” to any new idea not explicitly advocated by their personal notion of “Traditional Adventism.”
Our Almighty Father began His conversation with the Adventist Movement through Ellen White. He has not stopped that conversation and requests further dialogue with all of us. We are to understand and appreciate, and in so doing, build upon the work of Ellen White and our early Adventist founders. WE are to reflect an Adventism of the twenty-first century: one that knows within its heart that “God is still speaking.”
In conclusion, in a post about Ellen White it would only be fitting and appropriate to allow her to "speak" for herself. Concerning Adventist’s understanding of Scripture and ideas, Ellen White wrote, “There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation(10).”
_______________
1.“Theologically Thinking” by Friz Guy.
2.“The God Who Risks Being Misunderstood” article in ‘Spectrum’ by Ray Roennfeldt.
3.“Testimonies for the Church” vol. 4 by Ellen G. White.
4.Isaiah 1:18.
5.“Fundamentals of Christian Education” by Ellen G. White.
6.“Change: The Adventist Constant” blog post on http://progressiveadventism.com/ by Julius Nam.
7.“Ellen White: The Embodiment of Change” post on http://progressiveadventism.com/ by Julius Nam.
8.‘Review & Herald’ article in August 14, 1888 by Ellen G. White.
9.“Testimonies for the Church” vol. 1 by Ellen G. White.
10.“Counsels to Writers & Editors” by Ellen G. White.
Comments
I love the colorful illustration, Raymond. Where did it come from?
Ellen White meets Andy Warhol.
Raymond:
You write:
"Try to imagine the scene, the liberal, avid reader of Borg, Armstrong, Spong, and Crossan, proponent of “Process Theology,” and admirer of Theistic Evolution was left to offer up a defense of Ellen White."
I love it! Keep up the good work!!
Dave
I love the ending. It's true that beliefs need constant attention. It would be tragic if tradition not truth came to define what we believe. Thanks for keeping the present truth search alive!
Hi Raymond,
"Try to imagine the scene, the liberal, avid reader of Borg, Armstrong, Spong, and Crossan, proponent of “Process Theology,” and admirer of Theistic Evolution was left to offer up a defense of Ellen White. It was quite an interesting discussion that developed between three Adventists attempting to reconcile Ellen White and Christianity. "
I am not completely sure what I just read but "perhaps" it means that "some progressive SDA's" can be the perfect interpreters of what Ellen "really meant." "Some" are quite proficient in deconstructing language and meaning quite unlike those backward "literalist, fundamentalist" folks.
Hey, "we" can make Ellen and "is" mean just about anything. "Is" may mean "possibly, no, yes, up, down, Monica” or whatever else in purgatory is necessary to reconstruct the meaning of EGW and words for “our” understanding of today’s needs.
But there is another more important perk to our talent. It always makes folks at "Mother spaceship control" happy that "'some' of our progressive children" still fully support Ellen and that gives us credibility and longevity...always a good idea.
:)
pat
Pat--in between all of your quotes for ironic effect in your comment, I can't really figure out what you're saying or if you're saying anything other than attempting to mock an progressive claiming EGW too.
Thanks for an interesting post Raymond and for all of the sources for further reading.
Raymond,
Thanks for your thoughts.
While this paints a very attractive picture of EGW, I wonder if it is a totally balanced picture. The person who talked about "no doctrine ever losing anything by close investigation," or that, " age will not make error into truth," is also the same person who would not even look at Ballinger's scriptural study questioning the validity of the Sanctuary doctrine. She basically dismissed it out of hand without looking at his reasoning...in essense using her authority to squash unbiased investigation of his work.
This is in line with her saying repeatedly that not one plank should ever be removed from the "platform of truth" that Adventists hold...and that certain questions concerning said truths shouldn't even be brought up. It seems that either she spoke out of both sides of her mouth, or was very selective about what could or could not be closely examined...IOW she was not quite as blatantly progressive as we would like to think.
It is this sheer volume of seemingly divergent thought streams within her massive output that seems to enable not only conservatives, but also progressives and liberals to seize catenas of quotations, or a side of her writings, in order to paint a picture that fits their image of her. What is even worse, as you stated, is the acontextual use of her writings, something that seems to spring from the more fundamentalist/proof-text mindset within the church.
I'm in agreement with something your article is implying, that there needs to be an overhaul in our whole approach to EGW. Because of the prevailing misuse of her corpus, I can also understand your friends' reactions...I'll stick with the Bible. Our beliefs and practices need to be primarily grounded there...something that Mrs. White continually endorsed throughout her life as well.
Thanks...
Frank
If someone is really interested in a solid apologist for E.G. White one must trun to Alden Thompson at Walla Walla.
Other than the title--which is right on--the substance is more of a diatribe against fundamentalistic Adventists than an apologetic defense or vindication of E.G. White.
Raymond is correct in observing that proof-texting E.G.White one can "prove" most anything--as he has done. She had a wax nose, and contemporaries make great sport with it.
At least Raymond uses her consistent with his "liberal" not open theology. Therefore, I predict, if time should last, that Raymond will become a great mover and shaker in Adventism. Christianity? Tom
Raymond,
Thanks for your thoughts. And thank you for defending Ellen White. Let me just share a few things in response, though, that can perhaps balance your thoughts a little bit.
First off, you wrote that Ellen White was interested in "dialogue" and "conversation" rather than "debate and consensus." I agree that she was definitely interested in dialogue and conversation, but not at the expense of consensus! These ideas need not be in opposition to one another, if that's what you are intending on doing. Ellen White did desire for the denomination to arrive at consensus when it came to the eternal verities of scripture.
Secondly, most people in the "conservative" camp want to make sure that the "eternal verities" and the "pillars of the faith" are not lost in the attempt to be "progressive." I have no problem with the idea of truth being progressive. However, if "progressive" truth directly contradicts that which was proved to be true in the past, then that is problematic.
To balance your closing quotation, take a look at this one - which is just one example of Ellen White stressing the importance of holding onto, and remembering, the pillars of our faith (some of the things that "progressives" are trying to do away with these days):
"Let the truths that are the foundation of our faith be kept before the people. Some will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. They talk science, and the enemy comes in and gives them an abundance of science; but it is not the science of salvation. It is not the science of humility, of consecration, or of the sanctification of the Spirit. We are now to understand what the pillars of our faith are,--the truths that have made us as a people what we are, leading us on step by step" (Review and Herald, May 25, 1905).
It is especially interesting that she points to science, specifically, that can be a main culprit in diminishing the pillars of our faith. She, indeed, was a prophet!
Thank you for sharing.
"Fundamentalists" ... "extremists" ... "fanatics" .... Wow, that's pretty heavy boilerplate, and you never define how you are using any of these terms. What exactly do these folks believe?
One could get the impression that they simply believe the 28 Fundamental beliefs ... that the Scriptures are inspired and infallible; that God is a Trinity; that he is Father, Son and Holy Spirit; that he created the world in six days; that man and woman were made in the image of God and yet have a fallen nature; that there is a great controversy; that Jesus lived, died, and has been raised for us; that we are saved through faith in him and continue to grow in him; that those thus saved are part of his body, the church; that the remnant has a special mission; that we should have unity in the church; that we enter it by being baptized; that we commune with him and one another in the Lord's Supper; that the Holy Spirit gives gifts to the church, including the Gift of Prophecy; that the Law expresses God's will and is still relevant, including the Sabbath; that Christ calls us to be stewards of creation; that we should live according to his will; that marriage is a good thing; that Christ continues to intercede for us; that he will come again; that we sleep in death but will rise to be with him at his coming; that sin will be eradicated and there will be a new earth.
Perhaps it would help if you would tell us which of these beliefs you think Ellen White would have us eliminate? Or which ones you would have us eliminate?
Daneen,
Thanks for your comment. Here is the point. I am a "conservative" Christian but my following points may make me a "liberal" or perhaps non SDA in some folks mind.
I am able to read EGW, hopefully in context, and take her words literally to mean exactly what she says...what the rest of us adults are required to do. I am able to agree, disagree or be non commital to her writings and use the Bible as my final authority...and say so publically for the last 20 yrs.
If that means she has no more authority than a Luther or Calvin, so be it. I will feel free to quote any of them when I feel they "mesh" with scripture.
I simply request that my "progressive" friends would practice the same "intellectual honesty." I suggest that EGW was much more aligned in her scriptural understanding by the 1900's with conservative Christian thought(non-SDA labels please) than "present progressive SDA or present progressive Christian thought" which is all ok.
Let's just be open to what we are really saying and how we use EGW...saying openly where we agree and disagree with her without "reframing" her comments.
Regards,
pat
Of course Ellen White herself disagrees with many of the sentiments in the article:
"If the preconceived opinions or particular ideas of some are crossed in being reproved by testimonies, they have a burden at once to make plain their position to discriminate between the testimonies, defining what is Sister White's human judgment, and what is the word of the Lord. Everything that sustains their cherished ideas is divine, and the testimonies to correct their errors are human--Sister White's opinions. They make of none effect the counsel of God by their tradition." ---The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, page 257
The Bible is not very clear that the Bible itself should be read "literally" or in a fundamentalistic manner. Ellen White is actually quite clear that both her writings and the Bible are to be read that way. True, she would then fault people who ran into trouble by accepting her "message" (as when she called quinine a poison that should not be used) for being too rigid, but those who did not follow her word (don't forget dress reform) often came under rather strong condemnation.
There's really little excuse for keeping White around if one finds fault in her messages. She certainly wouldn't countenance such transparent reinterpretations to maintain lip service to the "spirit of prophecy," while sifting her words according to other measures.
Glen Davidson
Actually, I don't know that White blamed the victims of her quinine "message" for their fates. Likely she just ignored them, and Adventists learned to ignore her "counsel" there.
But I do know that she blamed some guy off in a Scandinavian country for not eating meat, given the circumstances, even though her dire warnings against meat eating (that it makes people too sexual, causes cancer, clouds the mind to spiritual things, etc., etc.) would suggest that anyone would be a fool to eat it. Then again, since she went back to eating it for a long time, one has a hard time supposing that she even believed her testimonies.
Is it any wonder that many would rather throw her overboard than to follow the paths of many who quite obviously choose what they like, while discarding the rest?
Glen Davidson
Pat and Glen
God bless you both. Tom
A specific question Raymond.
Are these following quotes a “fundamentalistic, literalist view” of scripture and Eastern Religions etc.? Since 100 yrs. have past, would time alone and “progressive thought” change her position on these specific issues? On what basis could you show that? I mention these because your previous post have focused on these issues and I suggest your understanding is exactly opposite EGW’s on these issues. Would you agree? I just am looking for intellectual honesty on "these issues."
Regards,
pat
The warnings of the word of God regarding the perils surrounding the Christian church belong to us today. As in the days of the apostles men tried by tradition and philosophy to destroy faith in the Scriptures, so today, by the pleasing sentiments of higher criticism, evolution, spiritualism, theosophy, and pantheism, the enemy of righteousness is seeking to lead souls into forbidden paths. To many the Bible is as a lamp without oil, because they have turned their minds into channels of speculative belief that bring misunderstanding and confusion. The work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. It is robbing God's word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives. By spiritualism, multitudes are taught to believe that desire is the highest law, that license is liberty, and that man is accountable only to himself. {AA 474.1}
-------------
There are many who shrink with horror from the thought of consulting spirit mediums, but who are attracted by more pleasing forms of spiritism, such as the Emmanuel movement. Still others are led astray by the teachings of Christian Science, and by the mysticism of theosophy and other Oriental religions. {Ev 606.1}
-------------
Already there are coming in among our people spiritualistic teachings that will undermine the faith of those who give heed to them. The theory that God is an essence pervading all nature, is one of Satan's most subtle devices. It misrepresents God, and is a dishonor to His greatness and majesty.
Pantheistic theories are not sustained by the Word of God. The light of His truth shows that these theories are soul-destroying agencies. Darkness is their element, sensuality their sphere. They gratify the natural heart, and give license to inclination. Separation from God is the result of accepting them. . . .
There is but one power that can break the hold of evil from the hearts of men, and that is the power of God in Jesus Christ. Only through the blood of the Crucified One is there cleansing from sin. His grace alone can enable us to resist and subdue the tendencies of our fallen nature. This power the spiritualistic theories concerning God make of no effect. If God is an essence pervading all nature, then He dwells in all men; and in order to attain holiness, man has only to develop the power that is within him.
THESE THEORIES, followed to their logical conclusion, SWEEP away the whole christian economy. They do away with the necessity for the atonement, and make man his own savior.
These theories regarding God make His Word of no effect, and those who accept them are in great danger of being led finally to look upon the whole Bible as a fiction. They may regard virtue as better than vice; but God being removed from His position of sovereignty, they place their dependence upon human power, which, without God, is worthless. The unaided human will has no real power to resist and overcome evil. The defenses of the soul are broken down. Man has no barrier against sin. When once the restraints of God's Word and His Spirit are rejected, we know not to what depths one may sink
Those who continue to hold these spiritualistic theories will surely spoil their Christian experience, sever their connection with God, and lose eternal life.
The sophistries regarding God and nature that are flooding the world with skepticism are the inspiration of the fallen foe, who is himself a Bible student, who knows the truth that it is essential for the people to receive, and whose study it is to divert minds from the great truths given to prepare them for what is coming upon the world. {Ev 602.2}
PS. Tom...may God bless you,Glen and myself. Thanks.
It is difficult not to at least share a few impressions.
As I have come to appreciate Romans 14 through the study and review of many commentators, in reference to the weak brother and the strong brother, something has become clear to me.
Ellen White, her theological paradigm, and therefore the "official GC approved" Adventist Church positions continue to represent the "weaker" brother. There really isn't a sense of spiritial freedom, in Ellen White's message or ministy. It has always been about "keeping the rules".
If Ellen White's positions were in alignment with the New Covenant of the Pauline Letters, we wouldn't have to continue having these discussions 90+ years after her death.
What Ellen White presented as "Present Truth" was really just a cloaked disguise of the Galatian hesesy. Read the book of Galatians over and over until it clicks.
Adventist Theologians have spent to last 100+ years trying to find a way to spin the "prophetic words" of Ellen White in a way where it looks like they agree with New Testament theology. It can't be done.
Call it what you want, "Progressive Revelation" or "Present Truth" it matters little. The Truth has always been there, and its been the same. What is progressing is the realization that much of what she wrote is in conflict with a contextual reading of the New Testament, the revelation of Jesus, and the description of what being a Christian is, as described by Paul.
Ellen White and her legacy have been regressive instead of progressive. There is no way she can be spun as a progressive. Her positions and writing did, and still do, rob the Adventist of the freedom and joy that is a part of what being a Christian is all about. No wonder the "progressives" are chomping at the bit.
Randy
Great RJG Tom
I made it clear in my post what the role of Ellen White is in Adventism; her role is not unlike that or Martin Luther for Lutherans, John Calvin for Calvinists, or John Wesley for Methodists. God began a conversation with those men that lead into the development of various denominations. Lutherans have expanded upon the work of their "founder." Methodists have probed the beliefs of Wesley and Calvinists redefine and address the issues of Calvin's theology. Adventists must do the same with Ellen White.
She is not infallible, and quite often shows the limitations in understanding present in her time. Her views were ever progressive for her time; it is true that she held some conservative and liberal views, but to state that she was a liberal would be just as inaccurate as stating that she was a conservative.
The ability and willingness she demonstrates in adapting her beliefs as her understanding of theology, Scripture, and God's mission through her work grew and expanded into a more comprehensive appreciation for Christianity serves as a testament to her humility. She helped lead a movement of sincere believers into greater communion and connection with God.
Her life story began the conversation that God started with the Adventist movement, we as the Adventist Church must continue that dialogue as Adventist Christians.
On my bookshelf, Ellen White's books are shelved alongside books by Richard Rice, Fritz Guy, John Shelby Spong, Dominic Crossan, Joseph Campbell, George R. Knight, Herbert Douglass, Karen Armstrong, Buddha, William G. Dever, Marcus Borg, N. T. Wright, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Kahil Gibran, Daniel Quinn, Phillip Yancey, Clifford Goldstein (yeah, I read Cliff), C. S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonheoffer, William James, and Elaine Pagels.
She is just as much of a source of inspiration for me as the authors that her books are shelved alongside. I don't proof-text her writings to find their meaning, but rather allow her to speak through her written word, almost some one-hundred-years after her death.
Raymond,
It truly is a diverse library you draw upon. You are right, in that Ellen White founded a denomination and a following as did Luther, Calvin, and Wesley.
The difference as I see it though, is that they never claimed to be "More than a prophet". In fact, none of them claimed even to be a prophet.
None of these, Luther, Calvin, or Wesley are considered to be "an continuing and authoritative SOURCE of truth" as the Adventist Church has canonized Ellen White to be.
What you are asking, is for the Adventist Church to diminish her role from "more than a prophet" to an inspirational writer (or borrower).
What I find amazing is, most of the early Adventists came out of other denominations that already had a clearer and more coherent understanding of the Gospel and Grace. And now you are trying to give Ellen White credit for shepherding the flock these last 150 year BACK, to the understanding that they came from originally, and often times using the words of others while claiming them for herself.
For the GC and the "fundamentalists" in Adventist to redefine Ellen as you and the "progressives" suggest, would be denominational suicide. They would and she would loose whatever credibilty they have left, especially among the fundamentalist side of Adventism.
Right now the denomination is being held together only because they(the GC), see they have to allow the more affluent West, the freedom to diminish Ellen to the point where she remains palatable, while pushing her prophetic, almost divine status in third world evangelism.
We keep hearing about the large growth numbers from our friends like Monte. Most of these numbers are coming from central America, Africa, and other third world areas. These folks are not being converted to Adventism on the message of the "progressives". They are being scared into Adventism by the more severe fundamentalist component of Adventism.
Raymond, have you sat through a 4 week Amazing Facts Revelation seminar lately? It is not "Progressive Adventism" they are preaching, it is old time fundamentalist Adventism.
Randy Gerber
Raymond,
The one book I surprisingly see missing from your bookshelf is the Bible.
It still speaks to me 2000 years after it was written, loud and very clearly. The lesser light pales in comparison.
Randy
Raymond
To have widely purchased books lends no substance to your
proposition.
There is a difference between being well read and well booked!
To be well read includes a modicum of critical thinking. Linking Spong, Yancey, S.C. Lewis as co-equals does nothing to substantiate your powers of discrimination or analysis. To suggest that E.G. White was an author is equally telling. Seems that is a fundamentalistic claim.
You have a burden, so you clobber together any specious argument/analogy you think will overwhelm the reader.
You should watch Jack Van Impe some Sunday to see a master of the genre at work. Tom
.
Tom
1. Over the years I have noticed that those who have not insisted that she be flawless or absolutely original and infallible have been more able to handle the greater information we now have about her use of other sources and editors and so forth. The ones who have had unrealistic expectations of her have often had a more difficult time, I think.
2. I very much agree that we should not twist her words to mean anything we want. It is more honest respectfully to disagree. That's what I do with her comments on the adverse medical effects of masturbation in my LLU class in Christian sexual ethics, for example. This debate, if any, is ethical, not medical. Nevertheless, without the historical and literary context of what she said, it is hard to know what her overall point was. Again, I'll take EGW on masturbation any day of the week in comparison with what some of the MDs of her time were saying. They were recommending surgical "solutions" for both men and women! Also, what prompted her negative comments about "science" in the above paragraphs? Knowing this would make it so much easier to understand her! Not that we would have to agree; but at least would know what we are talking about.
3. I sometimes preface a quotatation from her in class by saying, "This is one thing we have from EGW, one of the founders of LLU, and her helpers on this topic. There are probably others in her writings that take a somewhat different point of view. I think this one is worth especially considering; however, don't accept it just because she said it. Take it on board only if it makes sense to you." So far, so good!
4. Nobody likes to be derided and very few people enjoy seeing others treated this way. I fear that some may come across in their comments about EGW as arrogant and dismissive. I try to keep in mind that she helped to establish more schools, hospitals, publishing houses, etc. than I ever will.
5. Some have long said that she was ahead of her times on the dangers of tobacco. This past week a researcher showed me an article in one of the medical journals in the 1840s, I think, in which an MD published an extended report on his informal 20 years of study of his patients with oral/facial malignancies caused, he claimed, by smoking and chewing tobacco. You probably have a better undestanding of the history of medical thought on this topic than most. But why do we keep making outlandish statements about her, only repeatedly to have to back down?
6. No one should believe anything--not even any thing in Scripture--on the basis of arbitrary authority. By "arbitrary" I mean an authority that is not willing to allow us to explore the reasons why he or she is making the statement. We should always test everything--whether we are buying a car, choosing which dental school to attend or reading the Gospel of John.
7. I Thessalonians: (1) Don't snuff out new ideas before you've give them a chance to be heard; (2) give everything you hear a very thorough examination: (3) accept whatever passes the exams; (4) let the rest go [I would add "at least for now]."
Thanks!
Dave
4.
Dave:
I have surrounding me, eight versions of the Holy Bible, (including the King James I received in 1939 at my baptism and the King James that I carried through three assault landings in the South Pacific. I also have five versions on CD disks. The SDA Bible Commentary, books by Heppenstall, Douglass, Thomas Cahill, Francis Schaeffer, Richard Swaney, William Sloane Coffin, Tony Compolo, Karen Armstrong, St. Francis of Assisi, John Bunyan, Hans, Kung, C.S. Lewis, Thomas Cahill, Ian MacLaren, J. B. Phillips, Henry Van Dyke, Geoffrey Paxton, Leo Rosten, Craddock, John Dillenberger, and the book: Education, Ministry of Healing, Mount of Blessing, Steps to Christ, Desire of Ages, and The Great Controversy.
Books by Yancey et al I have either given to my children or the Reid Memorial Church Library after I have read the books.
Yes, when it came to diet and foods, exercise, water therapy etc; E. G. White was progressive. She seldom followed her own counsel on diet and foods particularly.
My letter to Raymond attempted to convey three primary thoughts:
1. His arguments misused E. G. White.
2. E. G. White misused her readers by false claims of origin.
3. Hundreds have gone to hell because of the mis-use of her counsel in the pulpit and classroom.
Your defense is well stated but only uni-directional. Raymond
did E. G. White far more damage yet you only targeted me.
As I stated in my comments, Dr. Alden Thompson is probably the most able of the apologists for E. G. White. I fully respect him and his position.
E. G. White was a child of her time and driven by ambition and the desire to perfect a people. If you have ever read any of her original manuscripts, prior to editing by a platoon of editors and proof-readers you would know that an Angel was not guiding her hand.
I am willing to let E.G. White rest in peace. I have a great passion and hostility toward those who use her to their own ends. Raymond is just the most recent of the lot.
David, I like your writing. I appreciate your counsel, I find it amusing the one sided nature of your stewardship of truth. Being a stand-up guy and a sound scholar, I believe that by the time you are 83 you will be closer to my point of view but with a velvet pen. Tom
Hi Dave,
I feel like we've all had this discussion before.
As I've said on another thread, I'm happy that you have the freedom to preface your introducing to your students any of EGW's writings, with something (#3) that seems a little short of a disclaimer...at least that's what it would sound like to many Adventists. I'm happy that you do not have to fear for your job today for doing so...that's not how it has always been within our four walls.
I've also stated before, that to do what you do in many churches is still virtually impossible. Whether we like it or not, our denomination has done a good job at building and perpetuating the myth. 'The myth of the infallible prophet'...'the myth of the infallible expositor of the Scriptures'...'the myth of original, unborrowed revelation '... etc. These are beliefs that many, many Adventists still cherish today. To challenge these sacred cows would cause absolute war in many congregations. To say that one disagrees with statements she makes on just about any subject is tantamount in the minds of many to rejecting her authority en toto.
EGW herself, in various statements, also seemed to set up this type of climate...kind of like GWB before the Iraq war,"If you're not with us, you're against us." Disagreement on all but the most inconsequential details was not possible, or tolerated. "Either all the testimonies are of God, or they are all from the devil." That doesn't leave much middle ground or room for disagreement with anything, even if one holds their views conscientiously from the Scriptures. Her own practice towards those who disagreed with her does not always give this black and white a picture, but the total picture from her writings at best seems very complex and muddy regarding these matters.
What makes it worse, is that despite efforts of people like Alden Thompson, Graeme Bradford, and organs like Spectrum and AT to bring some balance to the situation, these are beliefs that seem to still be openly or tacitly endorsed by our administration, not just by the "fundamentalist fringe." What you're doing, and what Raymond is proposing, while sounding healthy, is not what you hear coming from our officially endorsed evangelism, our Fundamental Beliefs, nor most of our official literature. When someone like Bradford, who is very pro EGW, writes in the effort to address problems surrounding her corpus and their misuse, they are still the target of suspicion and flack... maybe that's an improvement over previous generations. Incidentally, why was a book like Bradford's not even picked up by one of our publishing houses?
Maybe this explains why such a tremendous backlash towards, or indifference to EGW has developed in different quarters of the church. It is very understandable in light of the way her writings have been misused and abused, and used to abuse others. It is an indication that an overhaul is needed.
While I applaud the efforts of those like Raymond and yourself who are trying to make sense of all this, I wait for the day when the church at large becomes open to such needed changes in our beliefs,attitudes, and practices surrounding the writings of Mrs. White.
I fear that this is still a long way off...
Thanks...
Frank
Tom,
You stated...
"I am willing to let E.G. White rest in peace. I have a great passion and hostility toward those who use her to their own ends. Raymond is just the most recent of the lot."
That is my point also Tom. I must admit Raymond is young and attempting to create purpose and credibility among his peers and part of that was this EGW "paragon of Adventism." Indeed some of my "hostility" is some transference on him of what it seems to me many others have done in the past.(In any transference part of my hostility, I am sorry Raymond.)
I believe it is a sign of lack of integrity that one "hides under EGW's skirt" in support and in "denominational solidarity" when one is completely aware that they vary 100% from her in certain areas. If one is not able to openly say "specifically" where they disagree then no progress will ever be made in the "correct application" of EGW.
It is in my opinion that this was "in part" what happened to Des at Glacier view. Des with integrity pointed out his "specific" problems and I believe he was left out to dry by the extreme view of EGW's proponents in the church administration as well as the "progressives" who kind of took Raymonds tact above...you know, her importance in Adventist tradition should be respected. Perhaps more "progressives" should have been open to stating their "specific" problems so that a dialogue of the role of EGW and scriptural authority etc. could have perhaps come forth. Perhaps cowardice was the role of the day simply because "attendents" did not agree with every point of Des, while full knowing they had their own problems with the "hyperview" of the role of EGW.
Perhaps I am wrong.
Raymond, I noticed you did not answer my "specific" questions.
Could it be so that you can continue to feign hiding under Ellen's skirt as some previous "progressives" have done while knowing you vary 180 degrees in these areas?
Oh well, such is the human condition of "people pleasing and cowardice" that I have probably shared at some time in some way but pray to overcome.
regards,
pat
As an Adventist Christian, the life of Ellen White inspires me. I have read much about the history of Seventh-day Adventism and there is much to be grateful for that Ellen White contributed to our movement.
As an Adventist, I am free to apply the "Fundamental Beliefs" as my conscious and personal study of Scripture dictates. In relation to Ellen White, her authority comes not from her infallibility but rather from the conversation that God began--through her ministry--with the Adventist movement.
My point in listing some of the books on my shelf is to indicate the diversity of material that I read and the respect I have for many sincere authors (Christian and nonchristian), who sometimes (an often this occurs) may disagree with me. My Bibles do not sit on a shelf with other books; I have a shelf exclusively for my translations of Scripture, in French, Italian, Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, and the various English translations (I even have a copy of the Clear Word, hardcover, no leather-bound version for me!).
I'm an Adventist because I come to an understanding of our doctrines through the study of Scripture; there are some things, for me, and my conservative theology friends, that need some adjustment--the Sanctuary, Three Angles Message, End Times, Sabbath, etc. Adjustment, but not a complete dismissal, a better concept would be "re-defined."
As I grow in my relationship with God and others and as my knowledge of the Scriptures increases, my theology will inevitably only grow and expand. Ellen White is part of my experience as an Adventist, she does not define theology for me, nor do I use her to "prove" points. The quotes used in this blog post, and there are many more that could be cited, are simply to demonstrate that Ellen White is not the conservative or liberal she is often made out to be; her ideas, like ours, changed over time to reflect her understanding.
I'm fine with a God who will partner with human beings and still allow them to be verily human. Ellen White, as a fallible, stubborn at times, feisty "women leading in a man's world" is an inspiration to how God can use all of us for His greater purposes.
For me, that is something worth of cherishing.
Raymond,
A veritable cornucopia of derision packaged in a “defense” of EGW? Brillant!
Bonnie,
I made the picture. The "White meets Warhol" was what I was going for. Thanks, I'm glad that you liked it.
From this post:
This opening paragraph doesn't do you justice Raymond. I think we can do better than describe the other side using terms like "fanatical", say we're in "all-out war", or that they "disallow the ability for God to lead" and are an "affront to intellectual adventism" etc.
Not only is such an introduction off-putting but by defining others in narrow terms your contribution becomes incorrect. There are people who consider themselves Adventist and Fundamentalist and would disagree with us on important issues yet do allow for the spirits work and are thoughtful people. Intellectuals even.
This introduction has the effect of poisoning the reader to your main contribution- that EGW is relevant and that you respect her- and being stuck instead on binaries you used like intellectual and fundamentalist and other harsh rhetoric.
Bill Cork says- ""Fundamentalists" ... "extremists" ... "fanatics" .... Wow, that's pretty heavy boilerplate, and you never define how you are using any of these terms. What exactly do these folks believe?"
Now Bill Cork could rightly be said to be speaking for the constituency you're speaking about in that paragraph so his take on your post can be indicative of a negative reading of your post.
This isn't about appeasing the Corks in this world, this is about Raymond Thompson. This is about expressing ourselves as best we can. I do believe that it is possible to write about pressing issues important to progressive Adventists with a positive affirming voice.
Now that doesn't mean that it's bad to move beyond talking about what you believe as a progressive and addressing what is wrong about the other side. But it does mean that not only should our message be different, better, but our ways of communicating should be better also.
Johnny,
I can respectfully disagree with both liberals and conservatives and those within both camps that are often progressives. For me that is the beauty of the human family—our God-given diversity, not only in appearance but also in thought.
While it is true that my rhetoric is very strong, it is intended to let fundamentalists know that what they are doing to the Body of Christ—tearing it to shreds—is unacceptable. Fundamentalism as I see it is a disease within Christianity and there must be a vocal objection to what it is doing to the Gospel Message of Christ. Christians must be willing to stand up against this assault on reason.
I'm all for being positive and inclusive, but I'm also for honesty and being completely open. I will be the first person willing to dialogue, but often fundamentalists will not even allow for that to occur, it is in that sense that they are extremists. It is because of the amount of hatred that comes from the fundamentalists agenda—of which, yes, there are many conservatives, but I would contend that those who are fundamentalists, while being conservative by default and in the greater relation to the moderates of the church, are not truly representative of conservatism.
The conservatives I know are not those who advocate biblical literalism nor are they hostile to intellectualism, reason, or logic. Fundamentalism offends the very nature of human thinking; the faith of the fundamentalist is built upon an extreme interpretation of the Bible.
For that reason, I can write that "Fundamentalists within our denomination are waging an all-out war on contemporary Adventism” and by extension all of Christianity.
Raymond,
You have specified more and more what it is you're objecting to. That is good. By describing that which offends the possibility for you to be misunderstood, mischaracterised or dismissed out of hand is lessened. Throwing around blanket generalisations using loaded terms for me feels like something I'd read from this guy. Of course you are right to feel strongly convicted, as does he, of your rightness. The they of which you speak would say it was you who was tearing apart the body of Christ. Who is right? Is this a shouting match where the winner is determined by whoever shouts that the other is harming the body of Christ loudest? Obviously you know where I stand.
However I just don't feel that derogatory terminology, blanket generalisations and confrontational rhetoric does much to foster positive discourse. Which is why I'm suggesting that how we speak is at least as important as what we speak of. Or, when it comes to creating community through conversation, as important.
What Johnny has been doing, which is common to man, is libel by label! Fundamentalism in America is the Pat Robertson--John Hagee brand--with a strong eschatological bent based upon Barby/Scofield. Adventism is just a different brand of eschatology with an equally strong works agenda. Process Theology is an outgrowth of an intellectual compromise with an agnostic philosopy a la Whitehead et al. Jesus Christ was a liberal, compared to post-exile Judaism. That in no way makes His expression of the Godhead permissive. While Johnny speaks of progressive theology and process orientation his bottom-line is permissiveness a la Spong who single handedly destroyed the Episcopal church in New Jersey.
I take issue with several of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Never-the-less, I believe in due process in making change. The votes Johnny are not with you on this. So why call those who voted against your preferences names?
I want to become more like Jesus Christ not Jan Paulsen. Nor do I want Jan Paulsen to become more like me. I praise a host of Christians of differing views who have helped me on my spiritual journey. Most of all, I thank God each day for the redemptive act of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In that and that alone, I am a fundamentalist. Tom
Raymond,
You state, "The conservatives I know are not those who advocate biblical literalism nor are they hostile to intellectualism, reason, or logic. Fundamentalism offends the very nature of human thinking; the faith of the fundamentalist is built upon an extreme interpretation of the Bible."
May I suggest you quit using the terms "literalist,fundamentalist,and conservative" with regards to scriptural interpretation (not to be confused with SDA's necessarily) until you have been theolgically trained and done an exegetical paper for yourself. Until then, I suggest you are merely parroting the prejudices and "strawmen" of those with whom you associate.
Some of the people "you" might be defining in your jargon as "literalist and conservative" are some of the most brilliant intellectuals I know. Richard Pratt Ph.D, Harvard as an example.
http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/TH.Pratt.Historical_Contingencie...
Also note this "Literalist" nuance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism
pat
PS. Still waiting on that understanding of "Oriental Religions."
Tom,
I don't like Spong, have never identified myself with process thought, and moreover attempted in my comment to suggest that Raymond soften his rhetoric.
perplexed,
Johnny
Tom--are you sure you're not getting Johnny mixed up with someone else? He's been asking for less labeling and generalizations.
As far as I am concerned Ellen G. White stands without a peer since the day John the Revelator passed away. She is going to go down into eternity as one of the great witnesses for Jesus. I think we should respect and appreciate what she has done. If we don’t, there will be a lot of people who will.
Her track record speaks for itself.
1. She taught salvation by grace.
2. She taught the Bible as the word of God.
3. She taught the value of taking care of your health.
4. She taught the importance of education and worked to provide an educational system.
5. She taught the importance of obedience to all Ten Commandments.
6. She had direct connection to God in visions and dreams.
7. She gave us a chance to evaluate a true prophet, so we may recognize them.
8. She taught Religious Liberty.
9. She has provided us with guidelines for the future.
10. She encouraged people to reach their full potential, to be balanced, and to use good judgment.
11. She showed steady improvement over time.
I don’t believe these kinds of things can happen without God’s support. I think the real problem is not her but us. The SDA, Church particularly in North American, has been living in the lap of luxury for so long we don’t recognize a Saint when we see one.
My deepest apologies. I didn't mean to address my comments to Johnny but to Raymond. Please accept my deepest apologies.
I don't know how I made that error. Tom
JB
I agree with you 6 out of 11. That ain't bad huh? Tom
I don't believe that any one group--either those who are more conservative, more liberal, or more moderate--are best at defining what Ellen White means on anything. Nor should anyone try to interpret what Ellen White means to best support their arguments.
What I have said about Ellen White in this blog is in line with what Dr. George Knight has written, Dr. Fritz Guy has stated in his books, and Dr. Julius Nam has posted on his blog. My picture of Ellen White is one that attempts to show her as a human--if that is not a balanced view, then I'm not sure what "balanced" means.
There were three points in my article that I wrote about prophets that adds so much confusion to the ministry of Ellen White and how she is misused so often in Adventism.
Those who have problems with Ellen White in Adventism, if that is a genuine issue, I would support them in dismissing her from their personal study; I would caution them not to underestimate the important role she played in the early church development, but to be an Adventist theologically one need not Ellen White, only the Holy Bible and a touch of some God-given reason and intellect.
Dr. Alden Thompson's "Escape from the Flames" is a great read on Ellen White and I would highly recommend it to those who struggle with her in our church.
Never in my article do I "use" Ellen White to prove that I am "right." Rather I have attempted to show that she is not this conservative that our more pious members tend to make her out to be.
I don't believe that the Bible is infallible--a conservative position (not fundamentalist, though fundamentalists would agree), I ascribe to it as being "holy" and "inspired," but not without much error. I know that I'm "more liberal" on that point, than my church and I'm alright with that.
As for the Adventist Church's 28 Fundamental Beliefs, there are some that I would redefine and engage more deeply than that which is currently in print, but it is not my position to list what beliefs "THE CHURCH" should 'eliminate' nor should I use Ellen White to support my beliefs (that would be a perfect example of the WRONG way to use her writings). To list things that I would eliminate from the 28 Fundamental Beliefs would be absurd and though Bill asked, I don't believe that that is the type of conversation I would like to engage.
Pat, you wrote that, "I am able to agree, disagree or be non committal to her writings and use the Bible as my final authority..." YES! That is what I am advocating in my blog post.
I'm not in this business of picking what quotes of Ellen White I like and those that I don't like and making some list to post online and say, "Here Ellen White is ______" or "Ellen White believes ______." To understand Ellen White in context is not as easy as it sounds and it often takes serious work. I understand that, but I don't believe that this notion that you either take all of it or none of it has any validity.
We must understand that to make our ideologies--either as conservatives or liberals the foundation of our understanding is a great error and quite misfortunate. I would hope that progressives allow for both conservatives and liberals and those in-between to be among their ranks. Fundamentalism allows for only the fundamentalist and in that sense it degrades the Body of Christ.
Extremism on the liberal end of the spectrum are those who would dismiss the Bible all together, Dr. Tom Harpur and yes, even some of Dr. John Shelby Spong's writings are on the more extreme end of liberalism within Christianity. But I have never advocated for an ideology to guide my understanding of Scripture and may God help me the day I let contrived schools of thought be my ultimate guide and not the Spirit of the Lord. That is why I can have N. T. Wright on my shelf alongside Marcus Borg.
I share Randy's worries about our denominations evangelistic techniques. I love the way that the Australian SDA Church views itself, would that more could share this view about Adventism (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9YVcenaMzDw).
"Christians who with real experiences who can share hope in Jesus with you. . ."
I love what Dave wrote, "No one should believe anything--not even any thing in Scripture--on the basis of arbitrary authority. By "arbitrary" I mean an authority that is not willing to allow us to explore the reasons why he or she is making the statement. We should always test everything--whether we are buying a car, choosing which dental school to attend or reading the Gospel of John."
I also believe that Frank is right; that the day when our church can reflect what I have written about Ellen White is far off; however, I'm not going to remain quiet until then, I've often stated it to my friends and I'll write it here, I'm not going out without being dissfellowshipped, and even then I'll have to be removed from the church!
As per your request Pat, I don't use Ellen White to gain an understanding of Eastern Religions, I wrote to you before when you quoted from that passage, "Ellen White was no theologians, nor did she study 'Eastern Religions' and in this area she is not an authority." I don't get into defending her quotes or making sense out of something she has written when it appears that she was wrong, can she not be allowed to be human, like all of us, and still be used by God?
Jonny,
We respect one another highly and I appreciate all of your contributions to Spectrum and Adventism, however, on this point of fundamentalism we must respectfully disagree. I do not agree that calling fundamentalism something less offensive is going to solve the issue of the pandemic of fundamentalism within Christianity. Fundamentalism is simply an assault on reason.
In describing fundamentalism I have not used generalizations as those used to demean conservatives or liberals, but rather I have stated what this extreme group in Christianity does with Scripture and faith. When one encounters ignorance it is neither good for the individual educated nor the individual ignorant for that ignorance to continue unaddressed; rather, what we as a society strive to do is to inform people and, in so doing, educate those who are ignorant.
Fundamentalists are unwilling to dialogue, admit wrong, or challenge their views. That is not an attitude that allows for a faith to grow and expand. It is such a mindset that kills religion (the individual that makes his or her ideology a god unto itself). Such is just as devastating for Christianity as “extreme liberalism.”
I agree with your sentiments, “That how we speak is at least as important as what we speak of. Or, when it comes to creating community through conversation, as important.” It is important to note that for the fundamentalist, if you are not part of “the community” there is no conversation. I object to that and have zero tolerance for that type of mindset or rhetoric.
Being critical of fundamentalism is what we are called to do as educated people. Ignorance must not go unchallenged for the effect of such is devastating.
Read part of this from 'Harper’s Magazine,' “Fundamentalism and the Modern World: A return to the Dark Ages? Or a modern rebellion against secularism? Either way—as we've so painfully learned—we ignore this phenomenon at our grave peril.” On http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0203&arti...
Karen Armstrong: Fundamentalism has erupted in every single major faith worldwide, not just in the Islamic world. The term "fundamentalism" was coined here in the United States, at the turn of the 20th century, when Protestant Christians said that they wanted to go back to the fundamentals of their faith. Sometimes Jews and Muslims, understandably, find it slightly offensive to have this Christian term foisted upon them, because they feel they have other objectives. It also suggests that fundamentalism is a kind of monolithic movement expressing the same kind of ideas and ideals.
Nevertheless, the term has come into popular parlance and tends to stand for a group of militant pieties that have erupted in every single major faith worldwide during the 20th century, first in Protestant fundamentalism. But also we have fundamentalist Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Confucianism, Hinduism.
Fundamentalism is not simply extremism. Fundamentalism is not simply conservatism. Billy Graham, for example, would not be accepted as a fundamentalist by those who call themselves fundamentalists, nor would he call himself one. The Saudis, in Saudi Arabia, may be traditionalists but they're not, strictly speaking, fundamentalists.
Typically, fundamentalists have proceeded on a fairly common program. Very often they begin by retreating from mainstream society and creating, as it were, enclaves of pure faith where they try to keep the godless world at bay and where they try to live a pure religious life. Examples would include the ultra-orthodox Jewish communities in New York City or [Christians at] Bob Jones University or Osama bin Laden's camps.
In these enclaves, fundamentalist communities often plan, as it were, a counteroffensive, where they seek to convert the mainstream society back to a more godly way of life. Some of them may resort to violence. Why? Because every fundamentalist movement that I've studied—in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—is rooted in a profound fear. They are convinced, even here in the United States, that modern liberal secular society wants to wipe out religion in some way or is destructive to faith.
Raymond
you wrote, "I am able to agree, disagree or be non committal to her writings and use the Bible as my final authority..." YES! That is what I am advocating in my blog post."
After reading your many blogs and posts I think you may be fooling yourself.
The principal or overarcing thought comes through in any of your work it is NOT "the bible as your final authority" it is your own thoughts and opinions.
A certain amount of latitude may be given since you are "young" or a relative infant when compared to many respected and fine minds through out the last 50 years, who would disagree with you on your post modern new age perspective.
But to date I have never read a post ar artical by you that didnt contain the attitude that you are some sort of savant and those you disagree with are beneath contempt.
Johnny is right. Your inexperienced attitude would even turn off people who shared your views.
Michael,
That's rather unfair and ridiculous of you to write. As someone who knows Raymond I can tell you that he does appreciate and value the Bible deeply. His spiritual life is one of commitment to a continual search for truth and what God desires in his life.
Having taught him, read his blog posts here on Spectrum, and known him through our many personal conversations, comparing the Raymond I know to your statements about him, I can only come to the conclusion that you are terribly misinformed about what he believes.
I also feel that you misrepresent the sentiment of Johnny's opinion in your comment.
It would seem that this has turned into an attack on Raymond and not a discussion on what he wrote, I'm sorry for that.
Raymond,
I have appreciated your last two posts, even though I mostly fail to understand your reasoning.
I am trying to figure out why you are so entranced with Adventism as a church, while feeling they need to tweak, or adjust, or redefine many of, if not most of their unique Fundamental beliefs as you noted earlier.(to change them would be to admit they are wrong...like thats going to happen)
You stated "I'm not going out without being dissfellowshipped, and even then I'll have to be removed from the Church." This sounds like statements I have heard Cliff Goldstein make, and is reminiscent to Jan Paulsen's memorable statement that if he was to leave what he now knows, for another group, his salvation would be in jeopardy.
Do you feel that being a member of the Adventist Church is a salvation issue? Why else the need, given that you disagree with so much of the doctrine.(As it is now stated and commonly practised).
The last two paragraphs of your last post describing fundamentalism.....sounds awfully familiar to the Adventism I know.
See if these fit...enclaves...time of trouble...close of probation...Investigative Judgment...Sunday Laws...being chased and persecuted by the Catholics...all supported and suggested by Ellen White....
This is all historical and current mainstream Adventist belief!!!
It all sounds like fundamentalism to me, and you are right, it is largely based on PROFOUND FEAR. Why...because of an unscriptural IJ doctrine, and the inspired drama found in the later chapters of the Great Controversy. Certainly not from a reading of John 5:24 or Romans 8:1.
Regards,
Randy
Raymond,
I don't want to leave you with the impression that I don't appreciate your willingness to put IT out there. I do appreciate your point of view even where I don't agree with it. The fact that you have written a somewhat controversial paper, has allowed some of us the opportunity to express the areas that we also have problems with.
So my friend, when I disagree or challenge, it is not with you as a person, but the ideas that I see as problematic in certain beliefs, and what is used to substantiate them.
Continue to stir the pot, and thank you for allowing some of us to toss in a few of the spices and seasonings that we feel critical to the discussion of this soup we call Adventism.
Randy
Christine wrote
"As someone who knows Raymond I can tell you that he does appreciate and value the Bible deeply. His spiritual life is one of commitment to a continual search for truth and what God desires in his life.
(((I've no doubt he appricates and values the bible. He communicated effectively where he searches for truth. But the question was not that was it? It was the Bible as his final authority. Given the bible differs extensively with his positions ie. homosexuality, literal biblical ect, how could one say the bible is his final authority.)))
I also feel that you misrepresent the sentiment of Johnny's opinion in your comment.
(((Johnnys related that Raymonds was using, and I quote, "derogatory terminology, blanket generalisations and confrontational rhetoric" and that it doesnt do much to foster positive discourse. I agreed with that and said as much. How is that misrepresented?)))
Posted by: Christine (not verified) | 01 April 2008 at 6:40
(((So as his teacher, what are your thoughts on the paragraphs Jonny quoted? Do you reccommend your students use derogatory terminology, blanket generalisations and confrontational rhetoric when addressing "affronts from extremeist Fundamentalist Adventists" and their "fanaticism?"
Hi Randy,
Maybe Raymond and others like him see enough good, despite the flaws of Adventism, to stay and try to work for reform. This is something to be encouraged. So many other denominations also contain questionable teachings or beliefs that many find unscriptural as well...Adventism has no lock on this.
As for Rom. 8:1 and John 5:24, there is no doubt about the beauty and the assurance these texts convey. But let's also read Rom. 8:1 alongside Rom. 8:12-13 and the rest of the letter for that matter...the gospel out of its promised assurance, also calls for continued faith and response. A faith and responce of love, but also of a sober recognition that "we all must appear before the judgement seat/bema of Christ..."
One may quibble about the date of 1844, or with many of the misplaced emphases throughout Adventist history concerning judgement...but it's a tough go to say that belief in Christ negates all judgement for believers. The judgement parables in Mt. bear this out...they are addressed to the church, the community of believers.
Final judgement, as I understand these various texts, is a balance that guards against our innate human trait to presume upon grace. It let's us know that we are accountable for what we have done with grace; have we really appropriated it, or is our faith an outward form?
For those whose faith is real and continual, there is no condemnation. This is the tense of the verbs 'hear' and 'believe' in Jn. 5:24. They indicate a continual hearing and believing. Ditto for 'believes' in Jn. 3:16. Thus, judgement, in this sense, is good news!
But for those who are not truly hearing and continually believing, whose faith is a show, this serves as a wake up call. Even true believers need to be reminded of this stark reality. Our capacity for self deception can lull us away from vital faith into religious form, even as we laud God's grace.
Say what you will, but maybe this is supposed to be part of Adventism's contribution to the Christian community at large. If our own internal distortions have muddied the message, maybe some good people need to stick around to help clear things up from within.
Just some thoughts...
Thanks...
Frank
Dear Michael,
You write as if there is only one way of reading the Bible. You can have Scripture as the final authority and still be selective in applying its teachings and disagree with some of its conclusions. Sometimes, being biblical means maturing beyond where the Bible is, following the supremely authoritative example the Bible has left for us. The Bible doesn't tell you how to read itself. It's just there. It's left to us to figure out how to read it; and we read Scripture very differently, depending on who you are, where you are, what point in history you're living in, and how you were educated.
To say that those who don't agree with your method and conclusions are not taking the Bible as the final authority seems like an uncharitable, thus unbiblical, attitude to me.
The final authority doesn't have to mean that what the authority says is automatically followed. It can also mean that you take the spirit of the authority and go beyond it and at times against it, based on the example that the authority has provided for you.
Simplifying the Bible's authority the way you're having it, to me, does injury to the authority of the Bible.
Randy,
You ask a good question of me. My statement about leaving the church is not about salvation; I am saved by Christ: Him crucified and risen as my Lord and Saviour! It is by the grace of God in heaven and for that I am ever grateful.
I object to having Adventism defined for me from the understanding of "Revelation seminar converts." On many issues Adventism has been wrong, is wrong, and will be wrong in the future. Why? Because we are humans, we have issues of pride to get over and "deal" with--issues we can only submit to God and make an earnest effort to confront.
I'm not saved as an Adventist, for calling Ellen White a prophet, or some proclamation of belief in the Sanctuary Message. Brother Ford attempted to redefine the faith, he faced many obstacles and unfortunately was "kicked out." My professors here at university are also nothing like the Adventists of my small church back home. They challenge me to think, engage with Scriptures, and have a conversation with God and the Adventist community. I envision an intellectual Adventism that cherishes its past, but also grows and redefines itself in the twenty-first century.
We need thinkers--where are the thinkers in our church? Both the conservatives and liberals. There needs to be a healthy tension of liberal and conservative views but not the extremes! I want to help Adventism be the denomination it has the potential to become--a truly wonderful group of Followers of Christ that seek to truly be "ambassadors in this last day work of salvation." I want Adventism to be part of the whole Body of Christ, not only a ligament.
I'm not always orthodox and I understand that my views on homosexuality and Christian community are far from conservative (or mainstream?), but I like to believe that there is room for me and my thoughts in this denomination. Because if we are going to grow as a church family in our understanding of God we need the Pipims, Goldsteins, Standishes, Rices, Guys, and Fords.
Raymond,
I'm a little confused. The Standishes and even Pipim seem to represent the type of fundamentalist mindset that you have been railing against...that you see as hi-jacking the scriptures and the church. This is what I thought you would like to see eliminated within Adventism. Why would you now say we need people who take these positions within it?
Also, the Bible does talk about heresy, and standing against it. When is someone, in your view, assuming a biblically heretical stance that needs to be dealt with by the church, and not just expressing a divergent opinion that is more benign?
Paul stated in Galatians that he wished that those who were advocating circumcision would 'go the entire way and emasculate themselves.' He also said that the 'freeborn should get rid of the children of the bondslave.' IOW, telling the churches in Galatia, 'throw the troublemakers out! 'Paul is not saying that we need these people with their views in the church. He's saying that their teaching is dangerous, so get it and them out of the church.
I know this doesn't play well in the 21st century west. But if you think that fundamentalism is an intellectual as well as scriptural heresy, why would you, contra Paul's way of handling heresy, want to give it airtime? Or am I misreading your views on fundamentalism, as you call it?
Thinking out loud...
Frank
I would like to believe that Brother Pipim and the Standishes, all three of whom I have met and spoken with, are not as unreasonable as the more vocal fundamentalists within our church who speak about getting the "victory over cheese!" (Somehow I think that God is preoccupied with caring for the poor, helping those affected by the genocide in Darfur, comforting the familes torn apart in Iraq, and earnestly attempting to unite his warring children than to give a moment of thought to cheese.) Some of Pipim’s writings and the practices of Hartland Institute worry me that my belief might be in vein. They may have been poor examples.
I understand that we must speak out against heresy as Christians. The trouble resides in understanding whether the “heresy” is with the understanding of the community or the Bible. Often orthodox, heterodox, and heresy are used in common parlance while forgetting that such terms are always relative. What the community (orthodox) defines as “the beliefs,” how those beliefs are redefined within the community (heterodox) and those whose ideas are outside of the framework of the community (heresy).
It’s interesting; Karen Armstrong recounts a story about how the rabbis likened the Torah in her book “The Bible: A Biography.” She tells of how the whole of Torah is likened to that of a castle with many rooms that have closed doors, all with keys outside of them, however, all of the doors are locked and the keys are not matched with the right door. The illustration is that there can only be a complete understanding (of Torah) in community. I hope that our denomination respects such community and the God-given diversity of human thought.
There is a contemporary song that has the lyrics, “Oh the wonderful Cross, bids me come and I can find that I may truly live.” I hope for that day when we can come together as an Adventist Family and celebrate our theological differences. The song continues, “All who gather here, by grace draw near and bless Your name.” I know my risen Saviour and He is leading in my life; giving my life service to Him and the mission of our God is something no fundamentalist can take away from me, for He’s my Lord, too.
To put my "heterodox icing" on my "liberal cake" of Christianity: I’ll gather with my homosexual brothers and sisters and worship this awesome God of ours, who knows, a woman may be preaching that day, the service may be on Sunday, I may be the only Adventist, and we may go out after the service and eat a traditional Italian meal (not unlike the kind my grandmother used to cook—yeah, real Italian, that means PORK!)
The point: God knows my heart and I seek after knowing His. For it is in the secret, in quite place, in the early hour that I’ll wait, only for Him because I want to know Him more! Not simply give the “right answers” about Him that the community dictates. That is not “knowing,” that is indoctrination and I refuse to have any part with that.
Raymond,
You can write an excellent piece and be spot-on in your analysis and still loose your readers. The mistakes I pointed out (blanket generalisations, labels etc.) are some I made myself when I was younger.
I love the fierce urgency of now in your writing. I would hope there is a way to keep that stance without harsh rhetoric and I think we have such a model in Barack Obama. He manages to talk firmly about what he believes and what he is against while remaining positive. Listening to him has been good.
I really like your closing paragraph in a comment above-
and find such a radical inclusivity as speaking against the original opening paragraph of the post-
which now reads
It's easy to see nuance within ourselves and our friends and speak using stereotypes of those who disagree with us but your writing will be helped if you allow those who disagree with you the same complexity and nuance you allow for you and yours. That means staying away from generalisations and incendiary partisan labels. You're making this shift as we speak and that's good I think.
Honestly the way you speak about Adventism is one I see as promising. It shows deep investment, sense of ownership and commitment to change. I hope I come across as trying to encourage you. Thank you Raymond!
Johnny,
Your words of encouragement are appreciated; as you noticed I softened the edges of my original post, thanks for noticing my willingness to discuss the issue and not get caught up in mudslinging. I know that sometimes speaking in broad terms better allows us to succinctly state a point, though I understand that there are times that in so doing we do more harm to our cause than good. Thanks for pointing that out, I appreciate it.
You know, when you feel the conviction and passion of something, sometimes you can get caught up in the "rightness" of your position that you sometimes forget that often there are fair critiques of your opinions. I would like you to know that I never come to an opinion without thorough study of the many sides of any given issue.
I have two close friends that I "speak theologically" with. We have started a podcast--hopefully to be launched soon--where we just talk about theological issues. We are all progressive thinking, which is to state that rather than the tenets of conservatism or liberalism, we aim to follow God's leading (something that is much harder and takes much longer than simply marrying one's self to an ideology). We keep each other balanced and from the inevitable extremes of both conservatism and liberalism. I wish that for the church--this mutual respect for different opinions, earnest desire to follow God's leading into the future, and true sense of community.
Your encouragement is needed, like so many of the "thinkers in Adventism" of yesterday, we need to support, reprove, and ennoble one another so our church doesn't continue to be this "revolving-door" that Bull and Lockhart write of in 'Seeking a Sanctuary.'
I send my love and pray for God's blessings.
Raymond
Has one agenda. To have active homosexuals accepted into membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
First he made a frontal attack in making his case, addressing his remarks to the President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. He argued that committed homosexual partners were not condemned in Scripture. Implicit was that committed monogamous homosexual unions should be recognized and accepted by the Church. To this principal purpose he, by implication, included other “progressive elements of religion.
The response to his proposition was vigorous on both sides of the issues he introduced.
Second he made an end run, by citing Ellen G. White as a progressive prophet. He painted her as ahead of her time in health reform, in education, etc. He contrasted her openness and growth with the conservative, fundamentalist (dominate segment of the contemporary church leadership). His point was simply: If E.G. White were with us today she would be a champion of the “progressive” “liberal” and “Christian” element within the SDA Church and would certainly endorse, Johnny’s position on full and active membership for active (monogamous) homosexual partners.
In making his second case, Raymond, listed a number of prominent theologians whom he implies support his progressive agenda. Here again the response has been quick, broad, and generally self-serving on both sides of the issue. Some challenged Raymond on both his agenda and his characterization of the progressive inclination of E.G.White. Others, sought to defend E.G. White’s prophetic gifts and her central role in forming the SDA church. Still others, rushed to support or defend either Raymond and his agenda or at least Raymond’s right to his agenda.
Others counseled moderation in debate on both sides.
No one addressed the process of change in a formal incorporated body of “believers”. Should change be from within or from without? Should it be by democratic process? Should it be by “new light”? Or should it be by “follow progressive contemporary thought leaders within the religious community? Johnny obviously is arguing for the latter by posthumously placing E. G. White within that group.
My basic question, remains twofold: 1. Why try to enlist E. G. White in your crusade? 2. Why is membership in a body hostile to either your belief system and/or your life style so important?
In most states, it takes only three people to form a corporation i.e. a formal church body—avowed criminal or seditious intent excepted.
To this point no one has tried to enlist David and Jonathan or Jesus and John or Paul and Timothy as case studies.
Since the issue is change, change agents, and change process, why doesn’t someone suggest if change is so critical why not focus on changes in sexual behavior and orientation? Let E. G. White to the history of the Church and the Church to its fundamental beliefs. Otherwise, find a community of “believers” that accept and endorse your agenda. Tom
Tom,
It is befitting that your post was uploaded at 9:11; such an assault like yours is the type of polemic that I think Raymond's post was addressing when it mentioned fundamentalism; he softened his rhetoric and made some serious concessions. You on the other hand come back with the attack, attack, attack! It's always about the gays and this notion of a "gay agenda." Wow, wow! It couldn't be that gay rights are human rights and that people who advocate for the inclusion of gays are not, in fact, gay.
Just some thoughts before coffee. . .
Tom,
I'm all smiles with your confusing me with Raymond again. I like Raymond and respect him.
I don't know if you know this but Christians want to know what the Bible says about homosexuality and how the church should respond. It is not only a curiosity, it is for many a key question. I think we should move beyond the closet and debate not whether to speak or remain silent on this question but rather to speak openly of how the Church should respond.
Of course you'll find this issue discussed on Spectrum. We're proud to have Raymond with us on this conversation.
/my thoughts can be read here
Raymond (and all),
I've tried to resist jumping into the stream of this lively conversation, but here I go...
First, as an alumnus of good old SAU, it's good to see some serious theological discussion happening at the student level.
Second, I wonder if your post is related to the SS commentary that was posted for this week on Jesus--"Who was Jesus." We do the same thing with Ellen White that we do with Jesus--create a image unto our own likeness. =)
Thirdly, the heart of the debate (an others on this blog), I think, is one's stand on Christology and hermeneutics, namely how divine/human was Jesus, and how should a Christian use, if at all, the historical-critical method (HCM).
The way I understand Ellen White's "progressiveness" is really her return (by the end of her life) to a very traditional view on Christ as stated in the Nicene Creed and believed by most Christians through history--in other words, "orthodoxy." The true "progressives" in the denomination at her time where people like James White and and Uriah Smith who espoused Arian/"liberal" beliefs. (This, by the way, IMO is Mrs. White's main contribution to Adventist theology. It kept us orthodox in the traditional use the word.)
On HCM, the comments I've read, is that Mrs. White rejected it entirely. (I stand to be corrected on this with those that are more familiar with her writings.) She saw it as leading to as the acceptance of evolution, deism, skepticism, and eventual atheism.
It seems to me that liberals are willing to use HCM uncritically, while fundamentalists reject is entirely, sticking to a verbal, literal inspiration view.
It seems to me that you're wanting to make selective use of the HCM--retain a fairly "conservative" view on Jesus and salvation, and a "liberal" view when things like food, lifestyle, sexuality. Perhaps that this "progressivism"--a discriminatory use of HCM and a hybrid of conservative and liberal thinking?
(This of course leads to the further question, why the use of HCM on certain issues, and not others? Shouldn't one consistently use it or reject it?)
Johnny
Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, (I have no idea where or why--the only thing is that my cousin Johnny Thompson just passed away--I must do a word association without thinking.) Tom
AdventistKid
The issue is not gay bashing. The issue is lumping anyone who disagrees with you as a fundamentalist, conservative, or any other label with the intention of negating one's arguments or position. Raymond can be as happy as a clam and get his way on all things. I wouldn't be disturbed one bit. He can contribute where and what he will. He certainly seems able enough. What I am writing is--just because you haven't gotten your way as yet--gives you cause to put down those you target as your nemesis. He repeatedly uses fundamentalist and conservative as dirty words. I am neither and have 83 years of proof. Story: I write letters to the editor of the local paper. Weeks ago I was in Kroegers. A man at the other end of the aisle yelled in a loud voice. "Tom Zwemer, you @#$%^&*@#$%^ liberal!!!!!!" I replied, "You are wrong, sir, I am a Jeffersonian democrat." I know that Jan Paulsen is a trained theologian, and holds the office of President of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. A Church that helped raise me, of which I am no longer in harmony. Yet I don't believe that calling him an obstructionist under any label is dialogue or progressive! Nor do I believe, Raymond must inflict pain of libel because he has felt the pain of not getting his way. No place in all he has written has he made a case for his cause other than citation of authors who have. If Raymond is a homosexual, I feel sorry for all he is missing. There is no gift like a great grandchild. Particularly one who can lisp: "Jesus loves me this I know," I will make this invitation. Raymond Thompson you are welcome in my Sunday School Class at Reid Memorial Church anytime you are in Augusta, GA. You will be introduced as you wish to be known. You will be treated as a son of God and a good neigbhor. You will have opportunity to address the topic under discussion as any member of the class. Tom