Adventist Leadership Openly Embrace ATS Fundamentalist Agenda
by Ervin Taylor
by Ervin Taylor
October 30, 2013
The Adventist News Service (ANS) recently reported that delegates to the 2013 Annual Council voted to approve a change in the wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 which deals with the nature of Creation. This change had been developed by a group known as the Fundamental Beliefs Review Committee (FBRC). The current wording of Fundamental Belief #6 begins “In six days, the Lord made . . . “ It was voted to replace that phrase with one which states that “In a recent, six day creation, the Lord made . . “ Unfortunately, the article did not inform readers if the vote was by secret ballot or by a show of hands that would identify those not adhering to the current party line of the Adventist Fundamentalist Movement (AFM), currently being advanced by the Adventist Theological Society (ATS).
It also reported that there was support for including a phrase stating that creation took place within the span of “six literal days.” The ANS report tells us that “the word ‘literal’ closes what some Adventists have claimed is an interpretative loophole that could allow theistic evolution to explain the Genesis origins account.” The ANS report of this action, which will appear in the Adventist Review, contains a smiling visage of the current General Conference president, Ted Wilson, looking down as if to bless this action by the Annual Council.
The acceptance of this change in Fundamental Belief #6 will be presented at the 2015 General Conference (GC) Session in San Antonio, Texas, for a largely symbolic vote that will place this revised statement into the SDA statement of Fundamental Beliefs. There is little question that this change will be supported unanimously by Third World GC delegates from Africa and Latin America. Again, since balloting by secret ballot will certainly not be allowed on the floor in any GC general session, we will never know now many delegates from North America, Europe, and Australia would have voted against the motion if they were not afraid of recriminations that would come from the AFM.
This action of the Annual Council represents one of the final steps in a long-term, well-coordinated and, most importantly, well-financed campaign which began more than two decades ago to retard and then reverse the evolution of the Adventist denomination from a fundamentalist sect-like religious body into a mature Protestant denomination. This campaign called for the implementation of steps that would force the Adventist Church back into a retrogressive, fundamentalist mold. It was advanced openly by the Adventist Theological Society (ATS) when it was organized in 1988.
The fundamentalist theological agenda of the ATS was set out boldly in its constitution for all to read as well as in articles which described the reasons why and how the ATS was organized.1 The two most clear fundamentalist elements listed in the ATS statement of beliefs includes a commitment to the inerrancy of the Bible and a logical outcome of holding such a position, namely a belief in a “literal reading and meaning of Genesis 1-11 as an objective, factual account of earth’s origin and early history; that the world was created in six literal, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour days; that the earth was subsequently devastated by a literal global flood, and that the time elapsed since creation week is to be measured in terms of a short chronology of a few thousand years.”
The use of the term fundamentalist to define the ATS agenda, and the subsequent efforts that have advanced its agenda, is here being used as a descriptive term and not, as many may allege, as a pejorative comment. The historic formal meaning of Christian fundamentalist and fundamentalism was set out in the defining documents that launched the fundamentalist reaction to modernist elements in Christianity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. One of the core elements of a fundamentalist approach to Christianity is the belief in the inerrancy of all biblical statements, i.e., that there are no factual errors in any biblical text. Thus, if the Bible says that God created the world in six days, it means that he created the world in six, literal, 24-hour days. If you add up all of the genealogies recorded in the Old Testament, that six-day creation must have occurred 6,000 to 7,000 years ago and certainly less than 10,000 years ago; and there was a worldwide flood in the recent past. According to that fundamentalist perspective as advanced in Adventism by the ATS, a “Bible-believing” Adventist must accept such a belief, even if such a belief is totally and completely absurd in light of a wide range of data from a vast array of scientific disciplines.
The success of the ATS in implementing its long-term objectives can be contrasted with the puzzling inability of the majority of Adventist theologians and scientists over the last 20 years to form any publically expressed, concerted effort to oppose the ATS campaign that seeks to return the Adventist Church to its fundamentalist roots. An interesting topic of discussion might be to consider why moderate and progressive Adventist scholars employed by the Church are so hesitant to address openly and in public the work of the ATS over move than two decades. ATS-oriented scholars who are employed by the Church are not bashful about publicly advancing their retrogressive cause. What is it about moderates and progressives inside the Church organization who manifest an unwillingness to publically oppose the ATS agenda? Any and all suggestions to explain this state of affairs are solicited.
_____________
1 A 1996 article by Richard Davidson entitled “The Story Behind the ATS: A Personal Reflection,” was originally published in Perspective Digest and now is posted on the ATS website. It sets out the original reasons and the founding mythic story behind the formation of the ATS. According to Davidson the originators “resolved to seek a venue through which scholars sharing the hermeneutical presuppositions of Bible-believing Adventism could gather” (as if other Adventist scholars were not “Bible-believing” Adventists). He then related how a group at Andrews University and Southern Adventist University had been thinking along similar lines and “that the Holy Spirit had been at work on both campuses prompting and leading. . . .” When the two groups first met at Southern, the “Holy Spirit took charge in a way that I can liken only to the meetings of the early pioneers of Adventism.” Charter members “recognized the need to course upon key biblical doctrines under attack within Adventism and the Christian church at large.”
To be puzzled by The SDA'S Moderates is only probably only puzzling to an SDA Moderate.
The Fundamentlists and so-called back-sliders have made their positions clear, although i refer to my move away from organized religions as "forward climbing"; a Spiritual Coming Out of The Great Babbling-On, if you will.
So all that's left in any church are those going on inertia or administrative types and educators, looking to maintain their paychecks and lifestyle; i.e., Mark of The Beast On Their Hand Types and not likely to take a stand for or against anything.
I very much share your concerns, Erv, though I do not agree that fundamentalism ( in the sense of inerrancy and literalism) makes the Church a cult. Doctrines which depend on extra-Biblical sources of authority are what makes the Church a cult, and although I disagree with those positions, I think that the Church's official positions on the flood and on creation can be supported exclusively from the Bible.
The key lesson here is for local churches, unions and conferences in the NAD, as I see it, is to make what happens at the G.C. level less and less important to their lives. I really couldn't care less what the G.C. decides, because I define my church outward from my local faith community – not top-down. Doesn't it make sense, instead of fighting with the fundamentalists, who control the levers of power at the highest levels of the Church, to simply make them less relevant and less important to what happens in our lives and in our witness to Christ in our local spheres of influence?
The problem is while “ the Church's official positions on the flood and on creation can be supported exclusively from the Bible” based on faith, “a wide range of data from a vast array of scientific disciplines” cannot conclusively and unequivocally support Macro Evolution. Just as egocentricity versus heliocentricity was a contest between two scientific theories, Creationism and Macro Evolution is a contest between two faith traditions. Much contest is a choice of premises or articles of faith.
note: [The spelling correction does not allow for the word 'geocentricity'.]
The problem is while “ the Church's official positions on the flood and on creation can be supported exclusively from the Bible” based on faith, “a wide range of data from a vast array of scientific disciplines” cannot conclusively and unequivocally support Macro Evolution. Just as geo-centricity versus helio-centricity was a contest between two scientific theories, Creationism and Macro Evolution is a contest between two faith traditions. Much contest is a choice of premises or articles of faith.
Wow! That is the most bizarre false dichotomy I have encountered for awhile! First of all Creationism and Macro Evolution are oranges and apples, unlike geo-centricity versus helio-centricity. Creationism is an allegorical explanation of the universe. Macro Evolution is the development of humans. Creationism is a faith exercise. Evolution is a scientific effort at explanation and you can correctly call it a theory. Theory is not faith, but a proposition that has to withstand criticism on its journey to dismissal or affirmation as fact.
Creationism is not a proposition. If it was, the facts would totally destroy it as a theory. Not liking a scientific proposition causes it no harm. Showing a legitimate alternative can. Show me!
Bug,
Think!
Philip, I need more! I clearly not bright enough! Help me! Think about what?
Bugs-Larry,
Neither Macro-evolution nor Creationism is a Theory of origins. In order to be a Theory there must be some agreed-upon way that it could be experimentally falsified. In this regard both Macro-evolution and Creationism are working hyptheses since neither could be falsified. For both sides, contravening evidence is disposed of by minor modifications of the hypothesis or denial of relevance of said evidence or simply being ignored.
I have written extensively and in detail regarding this problem in private correspondence but I best not further elaborate on this web site, lest it unleash such loud and prolonged howls of protest from both sides that everything else would be drowned-out.
Jim,
My understanding is propositions that cannot be falsified cannot be considered scientific theories nor even scientific hypotheses. Falsification forces conflicting theories or hypotheses to be tested by an experiment or experiments and let nature provides the verdict. Hence my assertion that both Macro-evolution and Creationism are faith based propositions. You are right they both cannot be falsified. They are both outside the realm of science.
I grew up in a fundamentalist minister's home. I was very black and white. When I married my
wife who was not raised Adventist I tried to teach her how to keep the Sabbath. Whwn I caught her washimg her hair on Sabbath I told that was a no- no. She told me to bug off. She is a strong personality. If I had to define myself now I would say an eclectic evangelical Adventist.
I am a PK and married a new convert. He became even more strict than me–the "new convert syndrome."
Good for your wife, not many women want to be managed, especially with another's rigid religious.
"There is nobody more righteous than a reformed whore."
Thus spake a colleague of mine regarding himself as an ex-smoker who did not like other people who smoked.
How much of the Fundamentalist agenda within Adventism is being driven by "reformed whores"?
Disclaimer – I am NOT suggesting that the ATS is a society of "reformed whores". There are many great men and women in its ranks. Nor do I buy the conspiracy theory that blames the ATS for Adventist Fundamentalism. Many of the "movement" Fundamentalists within the Adventist galaxy regard the ATS as being too moderate. This is like blaming the Jesuits for being the true fount of Liberal Adventist theology. The latter conspiracy theory I have already bashed elsewhere.
Isn't it interesting how both extremes have their favorite bogeymen and conspiracy theories? They have more in common with each other than they would willingly admit.
When things that we care very much about do not work-out as we had hoped, do we ask whether we ourselves might be mistaken, or do we cast about amongst our enemies for someone to blame?
How much of the Liberal agenda within Adventism is being driven by "reformed whores"?
Which bad habits you most deplore in others may tell much about which bad habits of your own (or those close to you) you most struggled with in your formative years.
The so-called mature Protestant churches that accepted evolution as fact are so “mature” (post-mature) that are literally drying and shrinking fast.
Oh, and Adventism, a system that denies evolution as fact isn't? "Evangelistic count" (inflated estimates) universally puff Adventist membership rolls. "Backsliders" and front door departures tend to fade away. They don't usually request removal from church rolls. Church leaders have no incentive to purge records. I departed the church in the mid seventies, and my name may still be fading away, but legible, on a church membership roll!
Add to that the observation by Bloom (see article Noted American Scholar Harold Bloom Writes about the Adventist Religion on this site) ". . .the fact that if it weren't for the predominant immigrant and ethnic minority segments shoring up its membership rolls, the Adventist Church would cease to exist in America." The core of the church, I think, is constructed on an inborn constituency, not new converts. That old time religion is good enough for them. That probably isn't enough life force to rebuild church membership.
I have no interest in seeing the SDA church collapse. And there is no reason to suppose it will. But it may have to drink the cool aide of doctrinal reinterpretation to renew its diminishing vitality.
Bugs-Larry,
Having chosen to bail from the Mother Ship decades hence, how do manage to know so much about conditions here and now?
Or as I suspect, were you actually never on-board the Mother Ship and you bailed from one of the satellite "coccoon" vessels?
Jim, you cause me to laugh out loud all the time! How do I know what is going on right now? Well, I know a fossil when I see one. And the dead weight of strange doctrines, apparently, still burdens the fossil, otherwise it might not be one. Since the basics haven't changed, why not rename the church to the White Seventh-day Adventist church.
Yeah, I pulled off a good one, bailing from the Ellen Mother Ship, while appearing to jump from a satellite cacoooooon. I had my baptismal certificate issued in Hooker, OK in hand, and was deluded for 34 years about what space ship I was on. Oh well, live and learn!
Bugs-Larry,
Well I am glad that in repayment for all the mirth you have so graciously bestowed on me I hve been able to give-back in some small measure 8-).
We appear to have here a dilemma – I think I am aboard the Good Ship Jesus whereas you claim to have bailed from the Ellen Mother Ship. Which ship is orbiting which, or are they orbiting each other like a binary star system, or are they floating off in differnt directions?
Have someone check your back just in case there are still a few fossilized strands from that silky Ellen coccoon clinging where you cannot see them 8-).
Which may have nothing to do with the fact that they are shrinking and dying. There are possibly many factors contributing to the attrition.
Come on Elaine, you are not that naïve. If first chapters of Genesis are undermined, what will stop to undermine the rest of the Bible?
One of the ways of coping with unpleasant reality is to deny it, pretend it isn't true. The Catholic Church tried that against Galileo, nearly executing him for heresy.
Denial is a form of belief, and for those who want to maintain a point of view. That is all there can be to ignore fact that Genesis is an allegory, a great story by those who wanted to describe a beginning when there was no real knowledge about the universe.
What will stop the "undermining of the Bible?" You can't undermine the Bible. It is what it is. Only a person can be undermined. A myth, accepted with conviction, that it is factually true, allows the believer to go merrily along in satisfaction. But it doesn't obviate the facts.
I know the trauma experienced when coping with issue of Biblical inerrancy. I was once as conservative as it is possible to be and I was tormented with pain over a period of years, while I was a minister and academy teacher, in the struggle over belief and reality. Part of the reality I saw, living in Colorado, was the mountains had pushed up from below, having limestone and sea shells near the top of some of the peaks. And then the Colorado Basin stretching from western Colorado through several other western states had red petrified sand dunes, originally a thousand feet thick, now on display in Zion, Capital Reef, Bryce Canyon, Monument Valley and thousands of other square miles, none of which could have happened in seven literal days, including the allegorical days of the flood of Noah.
I tire of these references to poor Galileo by people who either never studied what actually happened or have forgotten inconvenient details. In this regard you stand with many contemporary scientists who need to do their homework regarding the history of science and religion.
Galileo was not "nearly executed". Nor was he summoned to Rome for a trial on his scientific views. Galileo was summoned to Rome for writing a thinly disguised satirical book that ridiculed the church hierarchy. Specifically he was ridiculing the former Cardinal that had been his chief sponsor and benefactor before becoming Pope. This very same Cardinal had protected Galileo from religious repercussions of his previous scientific publications, but he could not as Pope protect Galileo from all repercussions of his anti-clerical diatribe.
So the Pope after staging a good spectacle for benefit of the other clerics, banished Galileo to a place where he could pursue his science while ensuring that he steered clear from religious commentary and controversy. If he really thought Galileo was in scientific error then he would have ordered execution rather than confinement.
Maybe both the SDA church administrators and some of its scientists could learn from this experience. Do any of you read this blog? Do you really expect to remain on payrolls of church-controlled institutions while openly or not so openly ridiculing said church? I figured this one out as a kid when I first read a history of Galileo.
Picky, picky, picky, is that how you really want to be??? Sorry, Jim, he was summoned to Rome in 1632, arriving delinquently in 1633!!! Okay, so Galileo, wasn't exactly threatened with croaking, only because he muted his voice, with secret mental reservations. He actually was summoned to defend his views and eventually was sentence to confinement. He had been required to "abjure, cures and detest" those opinions. After arriving in Rome was convicted by the Inquisition of "vehemently suspect of heresy" in defense of Copernicus whose advocacy of heliocentricity was supported by Galileo.
Pope Urban VIII, "convinced" him to shut up. And when he didn't quite honor the imposed contract, he was sentenced to formal prison, later reduced to house arrest, a sentence to the end of his life. My source "wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei." Where did you get your humorous account? Doesn't matter. You have a knack of addressing periphery of my propositions, but not the heart. Come now, I am much more vulnerable than that! Maybe?
Picky once – was or was not Pope Urban previously a benefactor of Galileo's work?
Picky twice – did or did not Galileo write a book in which he ridiculed the relationship between the scientist and the cleric?
Picky thrice – was Galileo summoned to Rome before or after publication of said book?
One man's fact is another man's fancy (or is that fallacy?).
To say that the cause of the summons and the content of the trial were not entirely correlated would be an understatement, but typical of how the Inquisition worked in important cases. Would you agree that describing the trial as "staging a good spectacle" would be fair or unfair to the manner of the Inquisition?
I stand by my conclusion that Galileo was summoned to appear before the Inquisition not because of his science but for the controversial and confrontational method he chose to explain and publish it.
I'm going to have my resources call your resources! Then we'll have a pow pow, followed in a few years by the First ChurchAmerica Council (that was my organization providing Christian services for the non-churched) to iron this out!
'Till then my assertion stands: One of the ways of coping with unpleasant reality is to deny it, pretend it isn't true. Until then, my resource is as good as yours!!!
My primary source re Galileo is a good biography I read years ago.
However I will quote the following from Wikipedia:
"Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point. He was tried by the Inquisition, found 'vehemently suspect of heresy', forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he wrote one of his finest works, Two New Sciences, in which he summarised the work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei)
For further enlightenment you might read through the details of the Wikipedia article which among other things describes the history of the relationship betweem Cardinal Barberini who became Pope Urban III and Galileo. It hsould be clear if you study this carefully to the end that if Barberini/Urban III had not shielded Galileo from his enemies he would have suffered a worse fate than being confined and allowed to continue to publish the results of his scientific research (but no more polemical books).
I thinks this article agrees fairly well with what I summarized about Galileo?
Oh, and one other item. He adopted the Augustinian position not to take every Scriptual passage literally, concentrating on the books of poetry and song. He surmised a "phenomenal' point of view of scriptural statements about the sun rising, not as scientific facts. REF: wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei. Darn heretic, after all!
Somewhat later another physicist and mathematician named Isaac Newton wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation in which he appears to espouse the year-day principle. I am sure that if you read his book you would also conclude he was another "darn heretic".
Maybe for you it's just "heretics all the way down"?
Jim,
I appreciate your setting Galileo’s account straight. With the advent of the Theory of Relativity the conflict between Geo-centricity and Heliocentricity was just a contest between two frames of reference with minimal scientific significance. The Laws of Physics transcends all frames of reference. Those who still raise Geo-centricity versus Heliocentricity as an issue is out of date by about a century scientifically speaking.
On another thread I have pointed-out that the math for celestial mechanics works regardless of your chosen frame of reference. Ditto for Relativity. Nevertheless Newton's vector equations become much simpler when you choose a conveninet gravitationally dominant object for your frame of reference. And in any case Newton's vector equations are easier to deal with than Einstein's tensor equations. Even Einstein had a tough time with the tensors. Fortunately for him his wife was a better mathematician than he was. But she does not generally get credit for her share of the work (some things never change).
Jim.
Einstein's first wife was from Siberia. I do not remember if she was a mathematician but Einstein has mathematics help from a few mathematicians both in Russian and at Princeton. Relative simplicity of representation definitely is a motivation for choice of reference frame. Think about the complexity incurred if we try to launch a man to the moon based on heliocentric representations. But then they are only a transformation apart.
Here are two summaries I have found of the life of his first wife Mileva Maric. They argue differently regarding her role in his work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87
http://www.teslasociety.com/mileva_einstein.htm
I forgot to add that Newton came after Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler. Netonian mechanics work for any chosen frame of reference, but by the time they were published it was too late to benefit any of the aforementioned predecessors. Kepler's laws of elliptical orbits only work with respect to a gravitationally dominant object.
From Tycho Brahe to Kepler to Newton Celestial Mechanics progressed from observation to summarization to general theory. An elliptical orbit is one consequence of Newtonian Mechanics.
In he two-body case where one body is gravitationally dominant Newtonian mechaincs does indeed produce Kepler's elliptical orbits. For Newton the two bodies each have an elliptical orbit about their common center of mass, which is "inside" one of the bodies if it is sufficiently massive. Three or more bodies is a lot more tricky.
Most celetial orbits are elliptical with perturbations from other masses. Elliptical is due to the inverse square law of gravity.
The center of mass of the solar system is inside the sun.
For convenience of compuation Newtonian Mechanics often regards the mass of an object concentrated at the center of a mass. I am not so sure where the center of mass of our solar system is.
The solar mass is approx 2 x 10^30 Kg. The combined mass of all other known objects in the solar system is approx 2 x 10^27 Kg. Deteminiation where is the boundary of the sun is somewhat arbitrary because arguably the inner planets (including earth) actually orbit in the outer portion of the sun's "atmosphere". nevertheless if you do the math (even assuming all the planets are in conjuction) you will see that the center of mass of the whole thing is near or within the estimated diameter of the photosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitationally_rounded_objects_of_the_Solar_System
http://www.suberic.net/~dmm/graphics/astro/size.html
Jim,
I found a interesting link:
Jim,
You have to account for the diameter of the sun itself. My own quick calculations put it near the edge of the Photosphere with the planets in conjunction. This gentleman puts it about thrice that far from the center of the sun. I will go back and check the math. In any case since the sun is not a solid the argument of excatly where you delimit the surface of the sun is itself interesting.
PS – I am not sure what this has to do with ATS or Fundamentalists or the GC?
About 5/8 of the time the barycenter is inside the diameter of the photosphere, the other 3/8 of the time it is outside the diameter of the photosphere. At the extreme of an approximately 179 year helio epoch the center of the sun can wobble out to about 1.5 million Km from the barycenter of the solar system, which is a few times the average radius of the photosphere. However the sun itself is mostly fluid so its shape changes as it orbits the barycenter and all of these are approximations (somewhat like the way the shape of the earth's oceans change as the earth and moon orbit each other and the sun).
The orbits of the 4 inner planets can be regarded as elliptical around the center of the sun because of their relatively small masses and proximity to the sun. Wherease the outer planets must be regarded, like the sun itself, as orbiting around the barycenter which on average is near the edge of the photosphere to somewhat out side the photosphere.
Similar considerations apply to the orbit of the earth and moon about the sun. Because the moon is large relative to the earth, it does not actually orbit around the earth. Rather the earth and the moon orbit each other around a center of mass that is inside the earth but closer to the crust than to the center. All of this can be worked-out from Netwon's laws but only the simpler cases from Kepler's laws.
This paper explains these relationships to some degree of detail:
http://wxresearch.org/papers/orbit2004.htm
Jim,
I agree we have been carried away by our celestial excursion. I do not feel my SDA background in any way inhibited me from scientific inquiry. The lack of rigor do make me feel rather uneasy with some 'facts' of Macro Evolution. They are basically speculations based on extrapolation out of data ranges. I agree that they are unfalsifiable. Another point often made is that Evolution is supported by “a wide range of data from a vast array of scientific disciplines” turning it into a social science. Natural Science do not follow that paradigm. The event that provided tell tale sign of the existence of Higg's Boson was one in over a trillion. Experimental confirmation of the Theory of Relativity can be counted in both hands through the century. Majority opinion euphemized as Scientific Consensus' is a poor basis for the discipline of natural science.
When the church persists in not recognizing the "signs" of the 21st century, that definitely discredit faulty dogma of 19th century belief, and also not of Holy Writ, they are passe, and the future status is dismal.
To think the fundamental SDA church is collapsing or its future is dismal is an obtuse and distorted wish. Is true that started in NA but expanded to other countries. Today the great majority of the membership is outside of NA Europe and Australia. In Latin America accredited universities are replacing small schools in a matter of few years. Four medical schools were opened in the last 30 years and 3 of them in last 10 years and more to come in the near future. Hundred of thousands each year received Adventist education. These young professionals not only contribute to their local churches and societies but also now are going as missionaries to all continents (including NA, Europe and Australia). Non other protestant church has been more successful.
Of course the church is not collapsing. Who yearns for that? It is weighted down with a baggage full of theological stones that limit its appeal and mission.
All Churches have their “theological baggage” and some of them are adding even more “heretical baggage” like the theory of evolution. The results are not very encouraging.
That's why I don't belong to any of them!
but sill you have your own theological baggage
David, surely you jest! Well, perhaps you have uncovered a part of me hitherto hidden from myself. I'm going to shovel through my darkest theological psyche and see if I can bring this stuff to light. You will be the first to know what I discover!!!
I think you are attempting to dismiss me by the specious argument of equivalency. Here it is: you have baggage, everyone else does too, now we are equally pasteurized, so you are now neutered, defanged, not worth encountering. Political figures employ this technique to avoid challenges. Sorry, it's a non-argument.
Hi Ervin,
"publicly", not "publically", seems to be the only really proper spelling, even by conservative British authorities. Most other adverbs formed from adjectives ending in "ic" do add "ally" (e.g., "tragically"), but not so with "publicly". 🙂
By the way, I am primarily a Canadian and British speller, where it is fine for Adventists to baptise and not wear jewellery, and where our favourites can differ from your favorites.
When we crossed the pond several hundred years ago, we took some liberties with the language. Sorry! Too late for repairs now!
Our Canadian friends can be justly proud of their colours. They are the only nation in history to have successfulled turned-back (not once but twice) military invasions from the US of A. Now if they could just figure out how to repulse the cultural invasion 8-).
Dream on! How can it be stopped here?
Also, Ervin, I wanted to say, you wrote a fine article that I appreciated. I love AToday and its many thought-provoking insights. I will continue to be a paid member for the foreseeable future.
Here are is a slight addition to your post:
Fundamentalists have a certainty principle, a diode complex that operates as an antidote to the cacophony of religious options. Once satisfied, it becomes a dome that protects against all perceived threats. Any pings on the dome in the form of challenge are met with emotional replies. Once convinced, always convinced. They tend to profess humility, and are proud of it! It is an ego commitment to one's erroneous, presumed superior analytical skills.
Bugs-Larry,
It is not only Fundamentalists that shelter in-place inside their domes.
I thank Hartmut for his kind comments and concern with a former colonist is not using the king's spelling. I have informed my spell checker and given him (in this case, it's a him) a stern lecture on what would happen if he did not get future spellings into line. Regretfully, he is a revolutionary rebel and refuses to bow to the king's spelling. I am "working" with him in the same way that the GC officers are "working" with the SECC and PUC leadership.
I know the individual who does the proofreading for Brother Taylor, and in fact noticed that he had missed that particular egregious, transgressive spelling and I took the time to privately bring it to his attention. He has since fixed the problem. We simply cannot tolerate infractions of this magnitude that endanger the otherwise cordial relations we have enjoyed for so many years between our two nations…..especially as we enter the holiday season.
Wow tough crowd, here! Legalistic, maybe barely Christian
I must confess after sleepless nights, I am that proofreader. There, I feel much better…..
It's always a quick clue to the origin of the writer whether U.S. or Australian or Briton. As a regular reader of "The Economist" I am quite used to seeing "misspelled" words identfying the writer.
Bugs and Elaine: If you ever travel to southern California and have some extra time on a Saturday morning, you might be interested in joining the Sabbath Seminar discussion group at the Loma Linda University Church. Both of you may be surprised that there are parts of Adventism which have moved far forward from what you apparently previously experienced in other parts of Adventist Land. For additional information, please feel free to email me at erv.taylor@atoday.org.
Erv, I don' anticipate being in the Loma Linda area soon, but I live in the Phoenix suburbs, so not too far, have friends in SCal, so, who knows? I did attend an SDA church in Scottsdale about nine months ago after at least a twenty year absence from Whitedom, to hear a traveling Baptist choir concert, and enjoyed the event. So, at least would want to view your demonic horns, reputed by certain detractors to decorate your brow!
Wow! A love fest actually breaks-out in the midst of Festivus!
Amazing how the ATS has managed to bring out the best in so many Adventists! May their tribe increase 8-).
Festivus! You are spending way to much on TV reruns! Shouldn't you be watching How the Universe was Formed, or Black Holes, or something? Oh, and I think whirligigs are the unofficial symbol of Seinfeld, a program self confessed about nothing!
Pasted from <https://atoday.org/article/2137/opinion/taylor-ervin/adventist-leadership-openly-embrace-ats-fundamentalist-agenda>
I watch very little TV – I prefer to read. My youngest son who left the nest years ago was a huge Seinfeld fan. Insanity is hereditary – you get it from your children.
Nevertheless this web site reminds me a lot of an Adventist Festivus – Feats of Strength wherein the goal is to be the first person to pin the host (the original blogger) to the floor, and Airing of Grievances that is not limited to the past year only but can reach all the way back to 1844 and even earlier.
An invitation I would love to accept, but doubt it would be possible.
However, I don't believe I would be surprised, only greatly encouraged. But what a pity that so few are able to enjoy such open discussions. The perspective that most get about Adventists is not conducive to desiring to know more, sorry to say. It does raise questions: who is an Adventist and what does that Adventist believe? There are so many answers that are confusing.
Dr Taylor mentions Loma Linda's Sabbath Seminar discussion group and calls this a part of Adventism which I am rather doubtful of as the books and authors they prefer to study aren’t in line with what we as a church fundamentally belief. I would have given him the benefit of the doubt but the fact is that this is the direct result of intentionally disregarding our Sabbath School Quarterly Lessons in favour of alternatives which in most cases go against our beliefs. I must say though, that it is always nice to hear of folk who join book review groups and spend time in discussion – however, whilst this may have its place, it is not a substitute for an Adventist Sabbath School Class. Of course no opportunity is missed to elevate the position of liberals when Dr Taylor ambitiously says that “there are parts of Adventism which have moved far forward” which to me implies that this rather presumptuous measure of themselves is more an apt description of how far away some have moved from Adventism as opposed to making any significant progress. Studying the work of unbeliever's whose writings lean heavily towards evolution and secular socio-political trends or perhaps those which criticize Ellen White and Adventism itself would hardly constitute a Bible Study for Sabbath School. If this is what so-called progressive Adventist intellectualism, rationalism and reasoning aspires to and stands for then I’m not impressed at all.
…we as a church fundamentally believe.
Isn't it interesting how those who wear blinders, and twirl prayer wheels of ancient creeds, believe there is nothing new to discuss in the 21st century. If it wasn't formulated in the 19th century, it ain't worth hearing. Has one not any belief in "new light" or present truth, of the Holy Spirit, moving those without closed minds. Stay secure in your pew, and hear no evil, as the world moves on in time, using those who are led by the Holy Spirit. Have there been some here not moved by the witness of William, every week on these threads, expressing the joy of service, amonst the Lord's needy flock?
It's interesting that when the Adventist denomination was first organized, the entity was known as an "association," which to my thinking (aside from the legalities implied) suggests that our denomination, far from being a haven for people who believed "just so" on all matters, was a place that provided a meeting ground for people who had similar but not hardwired interests—in the case of our denomination, an interest in the Second Coming of Christ, primarily, and almost equally important, the question of any continuing relevance of the Decalogue and its Sabbath. These were the two primary topics of discussion (I imagine), with other topics added on the question of the sanctuary, the nature of Ellen White's inspiration, etc., etc.
True "historic" Adventism, dare I suggest, is one where people gather with a huge breadth of ideas to compare notes and to find ways to harmonize belief, practice, and faith in an increasingly complex world where we are being constantly bombarded with new and relevant information, not only in biology and geology, but in matters of faith….
The class (which I have attended a handful of times only) is very "heavy" but the participation level is phenomenally high. Perhaps that's part of the attraction. I personally find it well within the "tradition" of historic Adventist Sabbath school classdom. I think each union conference needs at least one of these "Sanhedric" classes where one can attend to really get deeply into topics we might not find being discussed at any other Sabbath school class on earth….
22,
You should be both grateful and thankful that your own SS class is obedient and uses the Quarterly, and never allows any non-SDA books to be discussed. The SOP should be used liberally or conservatively, whichever is preferred.and never, never, use the historical-critical method of interpreting scripture. Thus spake Ted Wilson.
Quite the contrary Mrs Nelson, traditional Adventism allows for us to read widely but to accept wisely. In other words being knowledgeable without being gullible. Pastor Ted Wilson isn't a gullible leader I would say and that is why he was voted into office by the world church. The only reason non-SDA books aren't discussed in SS Classes on most occasions is that we have a far greater book we can study and draw immense knowledge from: the Holy Bible. It's the only book on the science of Salvation.
Is it possible that acknowledging his many virtues, nevertheless some of Pastor Ted Wilson's followers are gullible?
Let me give an example. Several years ago I attended some seminars in the east where Os Guiness a well-known evangelical scholar was speaking. He preached to the choir. Any discussion from the audience was agreeable with him. When I offered a question that offered another viewpoint (it had to do with the 60s era and how they presumably ruined society), the audience defended his premise, and he brushed off the progress the 60s brought in civil rights.
That sort of discussion would never happen in an SDA discussion–at least I have never seen it. We are not "yes" people. My SS class has always had diverse views that no one is afraid to express. I disagree with Elaine.
She consistently makes generalized negative comments that put down the denomination, and this can get boring after awhile. I appreciate some constructive criticism and diverse opinion, but after awhile it gets so predictable.
OK – love fest is over. Everyone back to Festivus 8-).
Ella-
The problem of Nelson and her emarks is easily solved and with a saving of time. I never read what she says!
Maranatha
To "Truth Seeker" (another individual who will not give his/her name): Now I understand your inability to understand some of the discussion on this web site. You say you do not read Elaine's posts. You really should do that if you are interested in becoming better informed. And you say you are a "truth seeker." Strange.
Seeker,
As I have already stated elsewhere, I can and have learned a lot from people with whom I do not agree. If you are only seeking for truth from those with whom you already agree, you are in grave risk of what is know as "selection bias". In other words you might find confirmation/affirmation for your existing views but you are not likely to discover whether or where your views are incorrect or inadequate. Do you seek only for that which you already think you have found?
Jim-
Certainly you jest. If you actually believe your faulty reasoning regarding my avoidance of a reading diatribes I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Maranatha
Seeker,
Is there anything that can be known of which you are not already absolutely certain? If so, what truth are you still seeking? And where are you willing to seek for it? You have said that you ignore Elaine (FYI – I often do not agree with Elaine myself). Is there anyone who disagrees with you that you might be able to learn something from?
Please show me wherein my reasoning is faulty with information as opposed to empty rhetoric? Otherwise why should anyone read what you have to say? How do your diatribes differ qualitatively from those of the other side, so I can determine which ones are worth my own time to read? I understand that you are always right and she is always wrong but I am struggling to determine why this must inherently be so?
There are people who have only a certain capacity for information and knowledge. Once all knowledge and information has been accepted, there is no more room for anything new, without removing some previously learned information, and that is likely impossible.
Elaine,
I think most people run-out of desire for new information and knowledge, well before they exhaust their capacity to absorb it. The older one gets, the harder it becomes to expend the energy to think about things that you might not already agree with.
Some here have expressed and suggested that this unconventional trend is how Sabbath School should be done nowadays especially for those who would consider themselves superior in intellect and school of thought even to the extent of possibly studying secular books in order to feed their minds with what they desire. What I am saying is – yeah okay – but don't call it an Adventist Sabbath School Class. It clearly is not. One of the main objectives of the Sabbath School Class is for Sabbath School members and visitors to join together for Bible study. I wish to further point out that Sabbath School text book is the Bible. It is an old book indeed; but it can tell us how to live today. Oh, might I also add that it tells of an old rugged cross and about the promised Saviour who came to die for our sins. It's old school for some but keeping in mind that Eccl 3:15; 1:9 says that 'there is no new thing under the sun' which to me would include human behaviour in many ways.
Take for instance this secular book discussion class; whilst it may tickle the fancy of some Adventists, it is not much different from the ancient schools of philosophers like Thales, Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, the Sophists and so forth – to name a few. It can be said that these philosophers sought reasoned discourse and rational explanations in their quest for enlightenment. Things like secularism, democracy and numerous structures of 'modern' society are all largely based on Western Philosophy. It comes as no surprise to me that homosexuality, for example, which was previously diagnosed as a mental disorder by medical science, was reclassified as a norm within democratic society. The Ancient Greeks had this unconventional practice as a norm for quite some time. This sort of worldview is called 'progressive' and the words of the Holy Bible made of lesser value by being considered by our 'modern philosophers' as being largely mythical or metaphysical and therefore unreasonable or irrational.
For the Christian believer though the Bible is a fountain of wonderful words of life: It reveals the plan of Salvation in Jesus Christ. To the sinner it is worth more than all the philosophical grandeur out there. Ol' wise king Sol was right in my opinion: "there is no new thing under the sun."
I am requesting that the name of the adult SS class I just inherited needs to change from Quarterly Class to Bible Study Class (seriously – I tell you no lie).
I have already suggested that the class in Loma Linda alternatively select boooks from both sides of the various issues they are studying, so they can take the trouble to understand both sides of the arguments. Somehow I do not think my suggestion will be warmly received 8-).
I would certainly agree with you. If we study and discuss only that with which we agree, we aren't learning anything. And it is also refreshing if once in awhile we agree with the opposition when we think they have a point. That generates discussion rather than debate.
In book discussion it always helps to recognize the author's background and why he or she writes as they do. And discuss both weak and strong points of the writing.
Beating people over the head with the Bible encourages none to join your lifestyle.
The primitive fundamental dialogue and strange doctrinal discourses, expressed constantly, is totally passe with 21st century folk. One way to attract them is to lovethem, not condemn them.
There is an enormous difference bewtween beating people over the head with the Bible and helping them to understand what the Bible teaches about various topics of interest to them.
As with any other subject, beatings are one of the least effective pedagogical methods that has ever been devised. Having witnessed a few physical beatings, and many spiritual and intellectual and emotional beatings, administered by church school teachers, I have concluded that teachers administer beatings because they do not themselves understand what they are trying to teach or how to teach it. Unfortunately there is no shortage of ignorant and incompetent teachers.
The SS Quarterly is a guide or tool used for studying the Bible. We don't study the guide, we study the Bible and that which pertains to that particular lesson assisted by the daily study guide. There is a difference – to me at least. It is those with their own worldviews and understanding of Adventism and the Bible that have issues with the guide, especially those who follow Dr Ford (for example), who, from what I have gathered, are largely not in favour of the Quarterly – for obvious reasons of course. These individuals and groups who try and get rid of the Quarterly are usually (from what I have gathered) those who reject Ellen White in one way or another and in turn have started questioning the the fundamental points of Bible doctrine, creation being one and of course their pet favourite – the Investigative Judgement. More recently they are pushing for the church to accept homosexuality as a norm. They want a SS Quarterly which would suit their own beliefs or at least allow their beliefs to be accepted as an alternative. Evolution being one of them.
Well for my part I do not "follow Dr Ford" nor do I "reject Ellen White" nor am I "pushing for the church to accept homosexuality as a norm" nor do I accept macro-evolution as a theory of origins.
Why do I not teach from the SS Quarterly (or from EGW)? First because I do not want to give the impression to the non-SDA seeker in our class (or to anyone else) that we Adventists base our beliefs on a Catechism. I teach from the Bible (and also relevant historical and archaeological and scientific evidence) because I find it more effective to understand and present our faith without appeal to insular spiritual authorities.
Second, because I do not find it useful to deal with an important topic in 13 weeks. I prefer to move at whatever pace works for the topic and the participants. Especially when dealing with the Sanctuary, too often in our evangelistic zeal to "prove" our "Adventist distinctives" we tend to ignore fundamentals of the topic. Skipping over the fundamentals in order to get to our favorite points is an effective way to confuse people and on this topic confusion is wide-spread. The SS Quarterly is going down this time-worn path and will not serve to answer the many questions that honest people have been asking. Rather it will tend to reinforce their impression that nobody can understand and explain this hodge-podge.
I have encountered this same problem when trying to conduct Daniel and Revelation seminars from the available materials. They all simply try to cover too much too fast. Afterwards even those who might accept what you say will not be really clear on what it was they accepted. In our particular class we have a woman who having attended such a seminar, came away mostly confused about what we teach on these topics.
In our study of the Sanctuary we are drawing from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, the Gospels, Hebrews, Revelation and relevant archaeological information. So far both the participants who didn't want to go over this subject one more time and those who were hesistant and confused seem to be gaining something. Admittedly some who have been "in the way" for a very long time are struggling to get their minds around everything we are discussing. But if a SS class is only there to reassure us that we already know all the answers, then why bother to meet when we can just read the Quarterly for ourselves and learn all the answers?
Trevor, I would like to invite you to attend our class. Who knows, it might even expand your mind. You can even bring your Quarterly with you as some others do. I can tell you that decades of figuring out how to explain spiritual things to youth and adults, and how to answer their questions, have certainly expanded my mind 8-).
Jim,
I like your approach. This series is difficult to teach. If you are in the Loma Linda area, I would like to attend this Sabbath. I am visiting friends here.
I teach a class in the East, and would be interested in learning from you. My friend here is confused by this series. I have been referring to books on the sanctuary by Roy Adams and Jack Sequiera to make it clearer. I don't follow the quarterly very closely either but like to add some new material.
Ella,
You are welcome to visit Sunset Christian Fellowship next time you are in Oregon 8-).
I could send you my syllabus but without the sound track it might not be much help because it is only an outline. Also I am only running about 1 to 2 weeks ahead of the actual discussion in fleshing-out my outline. And at least one photo in the syllabus has not been published to my knowledge so I would have to get permission from my source before I distribute it.
This particular photo shows a carving of the headquarters in Rameses II at Qadesh, carved into one of the walls of his great temple at Abu Simbel. When we looked at this photo in class people immediately began asking and discussing who was copying whom? It totally sets the archaeological context for discussing the Tabernacle in the Wilderness. People also found some examples of Cherubim to be very interesting. You can find almost all of the archaeology stuff online.
At the risk of infuriating both sides (again 😎 I think there is strong archaeological evidence that God via Moses, used the Tabernacle to teach them spiritual lessons while drawing heavily from familiar cultural motifs in its layout. And if you write God out of the narrative, there are still strong enough parallels between this ancient carving and the Tabernacle as described in Exodus, that one could argue strongly that whoever wrote the book of Exodus was intimately familiar with the details of Pharaoh's headquarters while on campaign, somethig we ourselves never knew until fairly recently as archaeologists have scrutinized the carvings at Abu Simbel very carefully. One could argue that either the author(s) must have spent quality time at Abu Simbel or (t)he(y) must have peeked inside Pharaoh's courtyard and both chambers of his Tent (ca 1,260 BCE).
As I said – a fascinating discussion that occupied substantial portions of two classes. It is interesting how once again the spade has confirmed the Book, while standing our cherished notions of how God operates on their head. Yes I also explained (to the dismay of some) that almost 50 years of Adventist-led archaeology in trans-Jordan has not found evidence of the Exodus. Nor has less extensive digging at and around the traditional location (Jebel Musa) of Mt Sinai. (Apparently the Exodus was the first recorded eco-tourist expedition. For 40 years nothing wore-out and had to be discarded. They carefully policed each campsite when they left and packed-out all of their non-biodegradable trash. We SDAs might do well to emulate their example of environmental stewardship.) And the disingenuous fakery of those who claim to have found chariot wheels, etc buried under the Red Sea or the Ark of the Covenant under Temple Mount. Not to mention the recurring hoaxes regarding "remnants" of Noah's Ark. Behold the Protestant Fundamentalists who regard slivers of the Cross embedded in communion tables an abomination, while seeking slivers of Noah's Ark for personal souvenirs. And the irony that fundamentalists of different persuasions can converge in their practices if not in their beliefs.
Interesting what one can learn by taking time to talk to and listen to both the "faithful" and the "unfaithful" Adventist archaeologists. They have become world-class experts in their field while carefully and diligently searching for evidence that may or may not ever be found. (Yet another example of the utter failure of SDA schools to prepare our best and brightest for life beyond the "coccoon"? Notwithstanding their PhDs from obscure grad schools with names like Harvard?) Sometime the evidence takes us to the Left and sometimes to the Right. If you already know the "truth" on either side you will probably be ignoring the evidence produced by the other.
From the foregoing you can see my approach to teaching diffcult topics. Where I have been able to find good answers I explain them carefully and clearly. Where I do not have good answers I present the best available evidence I can find from whatever sources are avialable with no attempt to cover-up the holes.
Despite the concerns of those who are steering the "coccoon" as Bugs-Larry likes to call it, I find that this approach tends to build faith rather than destroy it. Some mysteries will not be explained in this life – that is the reason for faith. Far better to understand what we know and what we don't know that to try to maintain the illusion that we know everything (or alternatively the illusion that we know nothing which is equally dangerous in a different way).
Jim,
To be intellectually honest that is the best way to teach. Do beware of "unfaithful" archaeologists of any sect.
I choose to beware of all sources of evidence because everyone is prone to errors including Yours Truly. However much of what I have learned I have learned from people that I do not always agree with. Your "unfaithful" person may still know things that I do not know so I am willing to learn from him or her if they have credible evidence to present.
Archaeologists have long discovered ancient pagan temples that were closely followed in building the Jewish temples. They have also long known that there is absolutely no evidence found in the Sinai desert of having been occupied by several million people for 40 years. The Bible said they all died there and could not enter Canaan, but amazing! Not a single human skeleton or shard anywhere. Archaeologists are not biased, but are interested in finding all sorts of evidence of ancient human activity.
We need to recognize that there was then "Hebrew hyperbole" being used then. Example: The Bible writers wrote of thousands of iron chariots owned by Solomon and his thousand wives and concubines and magnificient palace. No evidence whatsoever that any of this was true. Iron doesn't dissolve in desert air.
"They have also long known that there is absolutely no evidence found in the Sinai desert of having been occupied by several million people for 40 years. The Bible said they all died there and could not enter Canaan, but amazing! Not a single human skeleton or shard anywhere"
The Sinai desert. The only one that the Bible names as being where the Israelites stayed for 40 years. Did you have another in mind?
Elaine
You are correct. When Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula, Israeli archeologists were looking for any evidence of the exodus. None was found. Maybe the archeologist were looking in the wrong place.
The Sinai’s descriptions given in the Bible they don’t match with the touristic mountain Sinai found in Egypt. There is evidence that support the Mount Sinai is in Arabia. In Mount Jebel el Lawz was found very interesting evidence.
David,
Could you supply any accessible source for these claims?
Did I forget to mention that Ron Wyatt = Junk Archaeology?
Sorry to disappoint you. This also disppointed some members of my SS class.
Jim
this link is a introduction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mB5Aw14e4M
Not by Ron Wyatt or SDA
Have you bothered to trace back to the source of these claims? It is Ron Wyatt and his close associates.
And have you bothered to look for the rebuttals? There is no shortage of stuff out there on boths sides.
One problem with YouTube videos (and the reason why I almost always avoid them) is that anyone can get in front of a camera and say whatever they want. If you cannot go back and check their sources and you are not yourself a legitimate expert in the field of the claims, on what basis do you believe someone just becasue they know how to shoot and edit videos?
Too many people think that because there is a video it must be "real".
Jim
Of course youtube, Wikipedia and other source of information has limitations and yes I read the rebuttals, which misses the point (the accumulation of details given by the Bible found in a specific location)
Did you the video? Unless the people who were there are dishonest and made up, this is the most compelling evidence about the site of Mount Sinai.
By the way we don’t have mathematical certainties about facts of the past.
Reputable archaeologists are careful to record in detail the exact location and circumstances where they find each shard of evidence, and to either leave the site undisturbed insofar as possible or to preserve the artifacts in a manner that others can study them carefully and reproduce their results.
Isn't it amazing how God has hidden so many things from other archaeologists who have been searching and saved them for Ron Wyatt and his close associates to find, only to have them go back into hiding when others try to reproduce his results? Hardly what I consider to be the scientific method.
Jim my knowledge of Mr. Wyatt is superficial. It does not appear the other persons who went to Arabia give much credit To Wyatt, no mention of his name, almost seems they ignore him (so much for associates)
I don’t know it you watched the video but one of the “explores” stated their findings needs to be confirm by archeologist. The question is if the Saudis will grant permission to “infidels archeologists”
On the other hand there is no support that Sinai is in Egypt.
I've been to what the tourist guides call "Mt. Sinai" and know that it is not likely the spot. St. Catherine's monastery there was far more interesting.
Are you suggesting that archaelogists limited their digging to what the Bible called the "Sinai desert"?
It's like seeking the place of "Noah's ark." The Bible was not written with maps included and the writers were not at all intent on carefully identifying sites so they could be located later.