Can We Make Room for Cultural Differences?
By Alvin Masarira
The Seventh-day Adventist Church considers itself to be in the footsteps of the protestant reformation which has as one of its key pillars sola scriptura (by scripture alone). This is a fundamental belief that the Bible alone is the rule of faith and practice. Nothing without biblical foundation or that deviates from its teachings should be taught or practiced in the church.
There are debates the Christian community on the understanding of Scripture, and many Christian churches have articulated their views. For example, the United Presbyterian Church in America formulated in 1967 this confession of faith concerning the Bible:
“The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the place and times at which they were written. They reflect the view of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current. The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the Scriptures with a literary and historical understanding. As God has spoken his word in diverse cultural situations, the church is confident that he will continue to speak through the Scriptures in a changing world and in every form of human culture.”
Even though the church was established by God for mission, the way it conducts its programs and mission is sometimes debated and contested among its members. There are conflicts over the use of so-called contemporary methods to make church attractive to youth, the unchurched and the modern generation. Should our evangelism programs adopt some methods from the secular world of entertainment or pop culture in order to speak to the contemporary mind?
So how do we understand the Apostle Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 where he says
“Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law—though I myself am not under the law—to win over those under the law. …. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it.”
Diversity in the Church
The Adventist Church has about 20 million adult members worshipping in over 78,000 churches and 70,000 companies in over 200 countries. This membership is extremely diverse in terms of geographical location, race, culture, language, social status, and levels of education. Our diversity forms a rich tapestry that is paraded at every General Conference session. We welcome this diversity as a blessing and an asset. It confirms the message of the first angel of Revelation 14:6, “…to every tribe, tongue and people…” as well as the picture painted in Revelation 7:9 of a multitude of the redeemed, too large to count “…from every nation and tribe and people and tongue”.
However, beautiful as it is, our diversity creates a myriad of pressure points, areas of friction and disagreement. And these zones of tension are facilitated by the fact that Adventism encourages members to study on their own and discover the Bible truths without waiting for a dogmatic decree from the leaders. The Adventist Church does not consider the clergy as some super Christians who have a special connection to God superior to that of the laity. All 20 million-plus members are constantly encouraged to discover the truth for themselves and then share it with others.
So which version of Adventism is the correct one on a specific matter? Since we all have been praying and studying, who heard God’s voice correctly, and who misunderstood Him? What do we do where we don’t have consensus?
The issues over which members of such a broad and diverse movement are likely to disagree are many and varied, and they test our movement’s ability to be a big tent that accommodates the variations within it. It poses serious questions to the movement about the setting of boundaries and how far these can be pushed. And it requires wisdom from the leadership in dealing with such diversity and on how to be gracious and accommodating, but firm.
With such cultural diversity within the movement should the Adventist Church make allowances for differences within its membership? The early church had to deal with the issue of circumcision which had become a point of contention. This was a major cultural issue for the Jews that could not just be ignored on this side of Calvary’s cross, as was evident in the case of young Timothy in Acts 16.
And if the Adventist Church does make allowances for cultural differences, the next questions would be, in what areas and how far should such allowances go? One of the reasons for the decentralization of Church authority and the devolution of some of the authority to the Unions and Divisions was to accommodate regional and cultural-specific challenges. This was expressed in a statement at the General Conference Annual Council in 2012, the Statement on the GC Position on Policy Variance:
“At the same time as the Church has worked to preserve unity, the effect of church growth has enlarged the understanding of diversity and its rightful place in a worldwide community. To expect that every entity of the world will look and function exactly like every other entity of its type may in itself become an impediment to mission. The development of structural designs in the history of the Church indicates that unity must be built on a stronger foundation than uniformity.”… “There must be room to recognize the need for a legitimacy of local adaptation of policies and procedures that facilitate the mission while not diminishing the worldwide identity, harmony and unity of the Church.”
Making Provision for Differences
The Seventh-day Adventist Church has in some cases made attempts to accommodate its cultural and regional diversity through special provisions in policy for unique circumstances. This happens in administrative matters where, for example, the legislative environment in one country might not allow the church to operate in the same way as in another country. The variance on such matters is generally easily accepted by the global church family. It is much more difficult to accept variances in areas which some consider to be doctrinal, theological or biblical, however this is understood. The challenges sharpen when there is no consensus on whether an issue is indeed theological and doctrinal, or whether it is simply administrative.
A contentious issue in the early years was the wearing of wedding rings. In 1892 Ellen White counseled American Adventists against the wearing of wedding rings, but that she would not condemn those in countries where it was culturally obligatory to do so. In 1972 GC and NAD leaders met and reaffirmed their opposition to the wearing of ornamental jewelry (and an action to that effect was taken subsequently by the 1972 Annual Council). The 1986 year-end meeting of the North American Division Committee had a 3-hour lively debate that focused largely upon whether candidates for baptism and church membership should be permitted to continue wearing a simple (non-jewelry) wedding band if such had been their practice before. Today, 30 years later, some members still are opposed to the wearing of the wedding ring.
Another issue that caused heated debate was the question of polygamous men who want to be baptized, and what to do with the wives. After much discussion the General Conference made special provisions for such relationships in its policy. The GC Working Policy Section C70 on Polygamy has a statement that reads “wives of a polygamist, who have entered into the marriage in their heathen state and who upon accepting Christianity are still not permitted to leave their husbands because of tribal customs, may upon approval of the local and union committees become baptized members of the church.” But since the marriage relationship has a biblical foundation, there are some Adventists who do not agree with this policy, believing it permits the continuation of a polygamous relationship even after conversion. Shouldn’t the new converts have the boldness to stand for what they believe “though the heavens fall?”
The lack of consensus in the debate on the ordination of female ministers is viewed by some in the church to be a result of cultural differences. They believe it would be prudent to allow some regions to ordain female ministers, a practice which might not find acceptance in other regions since the role of women is viewed differently in different cultures.
There is also the question of what is commonly regarded as“racially divided” local conferences, which has caused tensions among Adventists in some parts of the world, mainly South Africa and North America. There is an argument that the separate conferences perpetuate racial segregation and that this violates fundamental biblical principles. There are others who argue that the separate conferences (which clearly had their origins in racial segregation) are simply for administrative effectiveness and efficiencies. Each conference focuses on specific demographics and racial or cultural groups, a task that a merged conference might not perform optimally.
Even where the failure to unite church administrative structures is not due to ethnic differences, the matter still leads to tensions among the believers. An example of such is the case of the two Union Conferences in Germany (North German and South German) which have failed to merge in spite of the many attempts and constituency meetings over the last 25 years, even though they have a combined membership of only 34,800 worshippers in about 560 congregations. One of the reasons for the failure to unite these two small organizations is a difference of opinion about what defines true Adventism.
Should Adventists the world over be obliged to study the same Sabbath School lesson every week? The Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide is prepared by the Office of the Adult Bible Study Guide of the General Conference, and some of the themes have little relevance in certain parts of the world. Such was the case with the 2013 first quarter Quarterly with the theme “Origins”. The focus was on creation and evolution, which really found little resonance with many African Adventists, since the existence of a Creator God is accepted in almost all African cultures. There might be a debate about the name of this Creator and how He should be worshipped, but the idea of evolution is foreign to Africans, even to those who worship ancestors.
The questions continue about whether the church should allow for variations on how the Adventist faith is expressed in the context of the local culture and traditions. What kind of music should be used in the church, and what kind of methods used to evangelize the society? How should Adventists relate and witness to communities that are predominantly non-Christian, such as Muslim, Hindu, traditionalists and others? How should Adventists reach out to the secularized communities of Western Europe?
What Can We Do?
Although the church constantly claims that God is leading, one sometimes gets a sense that the church sees the need to assist Him in His leadership role, as though the ark of the Lord might fall unless we lend a helping hand to prop it. Our attitudes suggest that we as a church are not sufficiently bold in our faith that the Holy Spirit is indeed in control in all parts of the world church. The church’s statement on Policy Variance from 2012, quoted above, echoes the same sentiment as the United Presbyterian Church statement from 1967: that there is a need to recognize that God speaks in every form of human culture.
However, in practice, the Adventist church seems reluctant to live the spirit of this recognition, and there is a tendency to demand uniformity. The church seems to have forgotten one of the reasons for the administrative restructuring that took place at the beginning of the 20th century leading to the formation of Union Conferences: that God speaks to people of all cultures and reaches them in a manner that is specific to each one of them. It cannot be expected that the church in Africa operate in exactly the same manner as the church in Asia or Europe. We should believe that the Holy Spirit will lead his church in different places in a manner that is appropriate and relevant for that region and culture. The way God leads the church in one area, might appear strange to others in a different region, but the church needs to believe that the One who founded the church will take care of it.
Difference and Uniformity
The allowance for cultural differences might be unsettling for those who find safety in uniformity, but there is need to realize that the world is not as ideal as it was before sin, and sometimes there are no perfect solutions and methods. There is not always a clear choice between black and white, and we may need to operate in grey areas.
All through the Bible we see evidence of a God who adapts to specific cultural conditions in order to effectively reach lost humanity. As the Apostle Paul says, “for now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part…” (I Corinthians 13: 12). Our knowledge and understanding of God is only partial. As Loren Seibold observed (Spectrum website, 21 June 2012): “The universe is big and complicated and I’ve always suspected we’ll probably, on the other side, discover that a lot of what we were certain about was partial at best, and in some cases thoroughly confused. Thank God we’re saved by grace, not by being right.”
As a church we need to be constantly praying that God keeps us open and willing to hear Him direct us in the path we should go as we serve and indeed represent Him in a complex world that surrounds us. When we do that, we will be amazed at how He leads us and what He is able to accomplish through ways we never thought possible.
Alvin Masarira is originally from Zimbabwe, and is now a Structural Engineering Consultant based in Johannesburg, South Africa. He and his wife Limakatso, a medical doctor, have three children.
If you appreciated this piece, please consider giving a donation to Adventist Today to keep this quality of content available!
Brother Alvin, you have written wisdom here for all to consider and comprehend. We are aware of the vast cultural differences that embodies the SDA family, and has been so since the Tower of Babel. As they say “different strokes for different folks”. And each culture should not consider themselves superior to the other, we are as we have had opportunity in this world. Thank you for your understanding.
Most aspects of world cultures are blatant heathenism. To defend “culture” for the most part is an exercise in futility. And then to justify various aspects of heathen cultures and their way of life is equally vain. The sin of heathen cultures need not be endorsed by any viable Christian community.
Some aspects of any culture has no moral implications. But the modern world including the SDA church has embraced evil on more than one issue with the excuse that it is simply cultural. Women’s ordination with the Gay movement right on its heels, is typical of this reality. Not to mention the heathen music and worldly dress endorsed and accepted by the SDA church.
The SDA church is in a “self destruct” mode and no evidence to indicate any change with the final end being self evident and beyond controversy.
Is it not a good thing that the Adventist Chirch is in a self-destruct mode? It is also in a renewal mode. Jesus said, “unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground, it is just a grain of wheat. But if it falls to the ground and dies, then it brings forth much fruit.”
God always has institutional containers through which He conveys His truth. But we fight too hard to make the containers which shape and transmit truth indispensable and eternal. It sounds trite, but is nonetheless true: that disputes over doctrine and practice divide the church is a sign that its members are not dying to self. The larger denomination needs to be a facilitator of God sightings and faith community building, not a wall builder and hall monitor.
I don’t think the Church should work to foster or discourage diversity within communities of faith. Let the faith communities make that decision. Realistically, most prefer to be in close community with like-minded people. And when we have the mind that is in Christ Jesus, we will probably just look puzzled when folks talk about diversity, because common mission will dominate.
Have you ever wished that your favorite sports team was more diverse or less diverse? Probably not, because the mission (winning) is most important. Remember what Jesus said when His disciples complained that NOOPs (not one of our people) were casting out demons? By their fruits you will know them.
I hope you include Western culture when you say: “Most aspects of world cultures are blatant heathenism.”
Alvin,
Thank you for giving us a well-written piece with many points for us to consider. Still, I find a curious irony that you would be writing about the need for allowing cultural diversity in the church when it was the African representatives at the last General Conference session were the most vocal in their opposition to the ordination of women, which representatives from other nations felt was becoming a necessity, in part because of cultural changes.
“Should our evangelism programs adopt some methods from the secular world of entertainment or pop culture in order to speak to the contemporary mind?”
Have such efforts resulted in committed SDA Christians?
Sufferingsunfish,
I am truly sorry that you have such a narrow view of God and so little experience with His power and amazing guidance that you would confuse the working of God with pursuing the pop culture of the secular world.
Whoever you are that hides behind “sufferingsunfish,” the answer to your question is Yes!! In fact, unless the gospel message is translated into contemporary culture no one is saved. God has decided to communicate through human culture instead of miraculously contacting human beings. All the “traditional” methods, languages, music, etc., were once contemporary.
Most Seventh-day Adventists, as creatures of the Enlightenment, do not possess what the hermeneutics literature refers to as historical consciousness. Historical consciousness is an awareness of the historicity of all things, an awareness that culture, ideas, worldview, texts such as the biblical text, values, and notions of truth are historically conditioned. The rise of historical consciousness occurred in conjunction with the Counter Enlightenment, German Romanticism, and the writings of Hamann, Herder, Vico, and Gadamer. One cannot understand hermeneutics unless one understands the rise of historical consciousness.
The biblical text is historically conditioned. It does not set forth truth that can be described in a hermeneutically correct way as transcendent, universal, or absolute. Instead, what the biblical text sets forth is historically-conditioned truth. What is interesting is that despite the rise of historical consciousness that began in the 18th century, the biblical text of ancient times testifies of its historical conditioning. Accordingly the hermeneutic arises out of the biblical text and is not superimposed upon the text.
We have traditionally acknowledged divine accommodation. But divine accommodation usually presupposes uniformity of sinful humanity. It is a poor substitute for historical consciousness. The Mosaic law is God condescending to Israelites, not sinful humanity in general.
I appreciate the essay.
“The biblical text is historically conditioned. It does not set forth truth that can be described in a hermeneutically correct way as transcendent, universal, or absolute.”
This is the typical hog wash the liberals pontificate on and on. It means the bible has no consistent teaching and all we can do is try to find out how we can learn from the past, and then make up our own agenda.
The bible gives non-negotiable absolutes that apply to any and all generations and are not subject to human circumstances. It is the eccumencial movement that Philip embraces that has no absolutes, and society determines for itself what is “right and/or wrong.”
Beware the “bible butchers” they are a dime a dozen and will deceive any who are willing to be deceived. Whether though ignorance or willing rebellion, the final end is the same. And sad to say, the modern spirituality of the SDA church reflects this false philosophy so popular in religion and politics as well.
“Be not deceived, God is not mocked………”
Bill,
I find it curious that you would express such fear of “Bible butchers” because, in my experience, the people who use such terms are typically those in whom the power of God is not found and they are defending a confused and limited concept of the ways God works.
“I find it curious that you would express such fear of “Bible butchers”……..”
No doubt, William, in the end, both sides think they are right and each side will feel the need to correct the other side. Those like yourself, who advocate their “spiritual experience” transcends the teachings of the bible, vs. those who defend the objective teachings as non-negotiable and there will be no unity between them.
One of the groups is in the process of committing the unpardonable sin. And both groups are sure it is not themselves.
In Matt. 12, Jesus explains it this way. “When you call the work of the Holy Spirit the work of the devil, you are cutting off any possible communication by God to correct your errors.”
The other side of that coin is those who do this, will ultimately call the work of the devil, the work of God. And when this becomes a final reality, the end will come. God can’t reach those who are wrong on this issue for the obvious reason. Any effort to correct error on the wrong side will be called the work of the devil. And every lying deception will be called the work of God.
We are all in the process of a final “sealing” either into truth, or error. And this is culminated by the “latter rain” that seals each person in one side or the other.
This should challenge us to “make our calling and election sure” by way of the word of God.
Bill,
The way you describe it makes it sound like there is no clear way to tell the difference between the two groups. You think I emphasize my experience with God’s power while minimizing or ignoring scripture, but that is wrong; I emphasize my experience with the power of God in complete harmony with scripture. I do not quote scripture at-length here for lack of space.
It is very easy to tell the difference between those who have only a form of godliness and those who are doing God’s work and following in His ways: which group is empowered by the Holy Spirit and growing the church. I hear lots of complaints about people “following popular culture” and “butchering the Bible” and other things, but I never see any evidence of them growing the church. To the contrary, I often see their condemnations of others driving people out of the church.
Bill, I am not a liberal or an advocate of the ecumenical movement. And I do not believe that the teaching of Scripture is inconsistent. But I do believe in a personal God who manifests Himself in history. Accordingly, divine revelation is necessarily historically conditioned. Only an impersonal Platonic god is a god who expresses ahistorical truth, truth that can be described as transcendent, universal, or absolute. That sort of truth is incomprehensible to us and non-responsive to our historical situatedness.
But I appreciate your comment as it is a personal confirmation that evidences my observation that most Seventh-day Adventists do not possess historical consciousness.
“But I appreciate your comment as it is a personal confirmation that evidences my observation that most Seventh-day Adventists do not possess historical consciousness.”
I am well aware of “historical consciousness” phillip.
God communicated objective truth to Moses and the children of Israel in the context of the deliverance from Egypt. And the ten commandments were given in this context. The fifth commandment illustrates this very clearly, when God said to honor your parents “that thy days may be long, on the land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”
God never gave any Christian any “land” like He did the children of Abraham. None of this negates the clear objective given to honor your parents authority. As Paul says, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord…….”
Paul’s spirituality is based on the historical timing of the Christ event that negates the ceremonial law. And everything he affirms is built on this “historical event.”
EGW’s spirituality is built on the historical event of Jesus moving from the holy, to the most holy place in heaven.
None of these historical events of history negate the clear objective givens like male headship clearly articulated in all the bible and in all cultures. And this is just one “objective given” that is not negotiable based on culture or time.
Great article Alvin. Keep reminding us of these small, yet potentially divisive issues in our churches. Left unchecked and unaddressed they have a potential to drive the new converts away, as they might feel that the church is not really for them – it’s foreign and does not speak to their immediate surroundings.
One noteworthy issue for me is that we have always associated musical instruments in church with heathen practices, and yet we are happy for someone to present a special item of music with a background sound track playing the same instruments from the PA system. Would a church allow a full band with it’s drums, guitars and piano to perform during a normal service? In my experience, No! Why?
The drums are usually associated with voodoo practice and the summoning of the evil spirits. The guitar is too worldly. The piano on the other hand, is very much holy and acceptable for some reason. It seems we forget that nothing is holy in and of itself. Things become holy only when God declares them holy. As such, these musical instruments, once committed and dedicated to God, they become holy.
Indeed let us discuss these cultural differences and better understand them as we move forward to our heavenly end.
Fortunate,
Using your logic about drums, we must remove all pianos from churches because they were developed for use in dance halls. Organs, too, because they originated in pagan rituals where people would blow tuned reeds at on nights with a full moon to scare-away evil spirits.
Because a drum is used for voodoo does not make it evil or mean it cannot be used for the glory of God because drums were essential for the services in the Jewish temple (and Judaism predates Voodoo by many centuries). Neither is an instrument with six strings and connected to an amplifier necessarily evil because the difference is in how it is used and who is the object of our praise.
Alvin, You have given us a beautiful article, full of wisdom and clearly presented. What is unfortunate is that it will not be convincing to people who are deeply set in their ways; and who will oppose any idea which does not come from them, or their kind.
The observer who finds it curious that you can produce such an article, “when it was the African representatives at the last General Session who were most vocal in opposition to Women’s Ordination”, must note that many in the North American delegation also opposed WO. But this does not detract from the appropriateness of your timely observations.
God knows all who are honestly seeking Him. Regarding the interpretation of Bible literal
Scripture, one will not be forsaken for mistaking hermeneutics, unless the mistake is knowingly unGodly. Otherwise it would be impossible for any to be resurrected, as we are all
fallible.
As an itinerant retiree, I visit many Adventist churches in North America and Europe. Such diversity! It is hard to believe that they all belong to the same denomination!
In some, EGW is never quoted nor mentioned. In others, she is quoted prolifically, both in the worship hour, and in the sabbath school.
In some, senior women pastors, and equal male/female ratio of elders prevail.
In others, even when the majority in the pews are female, misogyny is the order of the day, and women elders are verboten.
In some, tasteful jewelry and make up are pervasive, in others, all all females are “plain Janes”.
In some, judgementalism and negative body language greet every minor infraction. In others, welcoming inclusiveness and love, predominate.
Fortunate are those, who love in major metropolitan regions, where choices of Adventist church affiliation are multiple.
If I were mired in some miserable “one horse”, one choice town, I might migrate to Methodism!
Robin,
You are right on the money.
After everything I have seen in Adventism, I can say that it’s because I live in an area where bias, misogyny, cultism, etc are reduced to almost nothing that I attend a SDA Church. Of course the University Churches are always a much better, healthier environment than those churches isolated from the academic centers.
Methodists? It sounds good to me, kind of going back to the origins of our Church… lol
William Noel, It is important that we note that African Adventists are also very diverse in their views. There are many Africans who are in favor of WO and there are also many North American Adventists opposed to WO.
Alvin,
What you said about the diversity of opinion in Africa is interesting because the distinct impression I got following last year’s General Conference session was that the view on the ordination of women in Africa was overwhelmingly opposed. Some of the most vocal and passionate arguments against it were from African church leaders. Perhaps that was the view of just the leaders, which euld be no real surprise because they typically are from an older generation and younger generations ogyrn see things differently. As for America, I think you will find three groups: the majority who really aren’t concerned about the topic, a vocal minority who are dead-set against it and willing to invent “doctrine” to oppose it, and the rest who are to some degree favorable.
Alvin,
Ugh! Typos! I meant to write “…which would be no real surprise because they typically are from an older generation and younger generations often see things differently.”
Alvin,
I wish the conflict in our church could be reduced to WO per se. However, the “de facto” issue is not WO but rather discrimination of women. And this significantly complicates the whole scenario. Because there is a great difference between mere cultural differences about WO and the problem of discrimination.
Discrimination cannot, in any circumstances, be attributed to cultural aspects – since it is (or at least it should be) a wrong, unacceptable practice in ANY Christian community. A Christian community that practices discrimination is certainly an oxymoron.
We need to accept that although we relate to God as Individual believers and we will be saved as individuals, the fact that we are members of an organization binds us to some common principles and set of beliefs. And sometimes we disagree with the positions that the organization takes on certain issues. The other issue is that we have been socialized that church unity means, global unity. And even worse, we think unity is uniformity. I don’t think global unity is necessary. The issue of circumcision in the early church was a case in point. Timothy was still circumcised because it was important to enable the gospel among the Jews, but the Gentiles were not burdened with such matters. With the benefit of scripture we tend to think that this matter was not earth shattering or was just an easy thing to resolve. It almost split the church. Some of the areas where we might need to “agree to allow for variances” might even split the church, just as the circumcision matter was to the early church.
” I don’t think global unity is necessary. The issue of circumcision in the early church was a case in point.”
I assume you think global unity is necessary on moral issues like the Sabbath and some other things. A general statement is useless, unless and until you state precisely what is necessary unity and what is not. And that will be a subjective opinion that some may agree with, and some not.
Your reference to circumcision has no validity on moral issues that are non-negotiable. As I have stated in other places, people refuse to deal with the real issue, and that is, “What is negotiable, and what is not?”
The problem is in this question, not whether there are negotiable issues or not. And since there is no consensus on what is negotiable, and what is not, it is useless to point out that there are some negotiable issues. You miss the whole point of the problem in the church. In which case, you offer no viable solution.
At the end of your article, you make this statement,
” Thank God we’re saved by grace, not by being right.”
And this is the basis of your whole faulty ideas and conclusions. Nowhere in the bible are we taught that “being right” has no bearing on being saved. In fact, the bible teaches just the opposite. And all the instructions in the bible are not worthless ideas and comments about salvation with the intent it doesn’t matter what you believe, you are “saved by grace”.
This is a totally false application of the meaning and purpose of grace but fits well with the liberal agenda that undermines the law at best, and does away with it altogether at worst.
And you refer to situations in this world of sin that require exceptions to any rule. And this is correct. But exceptions do not negate the rule itself.
As for Women’s ordination, those who advocate it are just as firm in advocating there is no male headship, and never was any except by way of evil men who forced their will on women outside a biblical norm. So they don’t accept any idea of some “exception to the rule” because of a sinful world.
They simply deny there is any “rule” of male headship. In the end, your article covers no part of the real problems in the SDA church. Sides are drawn on non-negotiable issues that have nothing to do with the circumcision debate in the early church. It is moral issues that are non-negotiable.
Bill,
The problem with being right isn’t often the theology, but how some people act like they’ve been Divinely commissioned to beat-up everyone else with their misguided opinions on topics where wasting their time and energies on them does not grow the Kingdom of God, but keep people from wanting to be part of it.
“The problem with being right isn’t often the theology, ……”
But in fact, this is exactly what it is, William. And those who oppose “sound doctrine” often appeal to the way truth is presented, and use this as an excuse to reject it.
In Matt. 23, I don’t think Jesus stirred up much sympathy for the format He used to confront error. It is not likely that when Luther called the Pope “the antichrist, and the devil’s apostle” that many people said, “What a lovely spirit Martin Luther demonstrates in identifying sin and those who advocate it.”
Maybe some will get beyond “who said what?” and be far more interested in what was said, not who said it, and did it suit their fancy?
Having said that, I am well aware that all of us are less than a perfect witness and we must work on our “attitude” continually. We all need an “attitude adjustment.” But……
“He who has a thing to sell,
And goes and whispers in the well,
Is not so apt to get the dollars,
As he who climbs a tree and hollars.”
Truth is the “loud cry” of Rev. 14. Not the “soft mumble” of tolerance without confrontation. I like me here in peace and comfort in the USA. But I see the dragon is busy preparing for his final move. The final delusion will be highly appealing and the way is even now being prepared.
I don’t trust my church. They love affirmation more than the truth. And so they affirm more than a few evils to maintain popularity.
You are very right, the presence and influence of some “demi-gods” in the Church is a major problem, since it obstructs true Christian growth in many people’s spiritual experiences.
The “demi-gods” usually insist on defining doctrine for others, and pretend to be the only ones who possess the truth and the correct theology. Their spiritual arrogance is a destructive agent that corrupts any Christian environment.
Bill S,
You begin …
“Thank God we’re saved by grace, not by being right.”
And this is the basis of your whole faulty ideas and conclusions. Nowhere in the bible
are we taught that “being right” has no bearing on being saved.
Actually, everywhere in the bible we see that ‘being right’ has nothing to do with being saved. There are 104 passages in the KJV that include the word ‘saved’. Scan through them here: https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Saved&qs_version=KJV&limit=500 Not one of them describes being saved as the result of being right about anything.
I see the appeal of being right is the sense that one can bring God to heal. It is an old argument. Some call it The Great Controversy. The author of a book by the same name observes that being right is about arranging things so that ‘The Creator is under obligation to the creature.’ This she describes as the ‘heresy’ of the Catholic who believes they can purchase indulgences.
The result of even just wanting to be right as a Seventh-day Adventist seems at the heart of your concluding comment: “I don’t trust my church. They love affirmation more than the truth. And so they affirm more than a few evils to maintain popularity.”
My sense is that one has to feel no need to be right in order to love. Is this not the Gospel of Jesus, the Jesus who was perfectly right yet became (not just pretended) my sin so that I may become saved?
But does your argument not explain the resultant of being “saved”; not the before or after?
Mark 16:
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Is this not like wanting your cake and eating it toooo? Or is it just wanting the cake and not having it?
There is absolutely nothing we can provide in justification for being Saved. We know that. But is attempting to justify nothing, still not attempting to justify; removing the Sacrifice of Love in and in return for such a great GIFT, from HIM?
Matthew 6:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
“‘The Creator is under obligation to the creature.’”
At no time did EGW contend for this false doctrine you impute to her. And your argument about being right, is as bogus as your false charge against EGW.
But of course, this would support your faulty view of Universalism that is no part of the bible message.
“There is absolutely nothing we can provide in justification for being Saved. ”
This is also false, for “our faith” is what unites us to Christ, and no is justified without faith.
And bible “faith” means you understand that you must keep the law of God to be saved. If you think you don’t have to keep the law, then as James says, “Your faith is vain.” And James shows that obedience justifies as the evidence that you truly understand what faith means.
Bible faith means you know that Jesus alone has merited and earned salvation and also confesses that the believer must keep the law to be justified. So, Paul states, “The doers of the law shall be justified.”
Sinful man must affirm the necessity of submitting to the will of God and return to obedience to God’s authority, or, he is simply not saved. He is still in rebellion.
The only law we don’t have to keep to be saved is the ceremonial law. It typified faith in Christ. “Obey and live” is the eternal covenant God has ordained for all created moral beings. Unless a person accepts that agreement, they are not saved, and never will be.
The history of religion shows that every few hundred years there is a division. This is true also with non-Christian beliefs: Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, for example have, and continue to have divisions, many with antipathy between them.
Christianity formally separated with the Reformation begun by Luther, but since then has divided again and again into Anglican, Methodism, Puritans, and many more, to name only a few.
What is to prevent Adventism following the same pattern? Did those divisions weaken or strengthen the Christian church? If Adventism divides, which it inevitably will if such strong divisive elements continue, will it benefit or weaken? Could it strengthen the church if there was freedom to still remain part of the church but without 100% uniformity of all practices and beliefs?
It will eventually happen whether desired or not. It will either strengthen or weaken, depending on the attitudes of administration and members. The “church” is the body of all members, not administrators, and when administration adopts the attitude that it is the church, it admits that members are merely pawns to choose for them.
Bill S
Please re-read what I wrote about ‘The Creator is under obligation to the creature.’ This is Sister White’s description of the heresy of believing our salvation is a personal achievement.
As for my statement “There is absolutely nothing we can provide in justification for being Saved, ” I welcome you citing so much as one of the 104 passages in scripture that include the word ‘saved’ that lists anything we do as so much as helping justify our salvation. Just click on this link and scan them. It is easy. https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Saved&qs_version=KJV&limit=500
I welcome your opinions, Bill. I will find them more enriching and engaging as you can provide supporting references beyond reporting only what you sense to be meaningful.
“As for my statement “There is absolutely nothing we can provide in justification for being Saved,……..”
Here is what Paul said.
“For by grace are ye saved through faith……..”
So we must provide “faith” at the outset and this includes an understanding that we must also submit to God’s authority and obey the law. God will take no one to heaven who thinks they don’t need to obey the law of God to be saved.
So we escape the wrath of God for two reasons, 1. Jesus made an atonement for our sins, and 2. We must return to loyalty to the authority of God. And you are not saved, nor will you ever be saved unless you acknowledge both of these requirements.
Adam and Eve came under the wrath of God because they rejected God’s authority and rebelled against Him. Death is the penalty. Jesus satisfies the penalty, and the sinner must return to loyalty. These two factors are imperative or there is no salvation.
God offers us responsible freedom, Satan offers us irresponsible freedom. What you want, Bill Garber, is irresponsible freedom that denies obedience as a component of salvation. There is none in the bible. “Obey and live”. This is God’s covenant with all His children. Jesus did not die, and do away with the law.
Absolutely Bill, but we see a lot wanting to go straight to Saved, without the requirements.
Titus 3:
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
We know that righteousness does not Save us, only Justification through HIS Grace. But many want to get the cart in front of the horse, without the horse. Then feel they have no need for good works or appreciation of such Great Gifts; as others understand:
Hebrews 10:
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
“So we must provide “faith” at the outset and this includes an understanding that we must also submit to God’s authority and obey the law.” –Bill S.
Not only not really, not at all, Bill.
“For by grace are ye saved through faith…” Actually reads, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works least any man should boast.”
Both grace and faith are God’s gift. Paul explains to the Romans (Chap 12) that we should ‘think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.’
Again, as Paul notes in his letter to the Romans (Chap 3) “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”
Faith of … not in … Jesus is what effects our redemption.
Grace and faith both find their origin in God and are measured to us as gifts, Paul offers.
And least one think that belief plays a role, Paul begins by assuring the Romans (Chap 3), “For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?”
In short, our misunderstanding does not prevent the Grace and faith of God from being effective in our behalf.
It seems clear that one must read less to make room for one’s own contribution to one’s own salvation.
1 Corinthians 12:
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
Many Gifts are severally divided among us; to be used for HIS Works. It is definitely the Faith of CHRIST and not ours involved in our redemption; but is it effect or affect?
As Bill S. references James 2:
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
HIS Arms are wide open and the Gifts offered. We accept the responsibilities, or as more often than not throw them away; we definitely do not demand such. Both are our failures.
Conviction,
What evidence can you give us to show that you are using the gifts God has placed in you to grow the Kingdom of God? I’ll give you proof to the contrary, that what you imagine is “doing God’s work” is having the opposite result. Just throwing Bible verses at people is exactly the sort of behavior that is making evangelism more difficult because it makes God look arbitrary, demanding and uncaring. That is why a co-worker of mine recently told me drove her to abandon all belief in God as a child. God is working on her heart but overcoming that weight of disbelief created by people like you is a huge challenge even He is having a hard time overcoming.
Did I not just testify that HIS arms are open wide? Did I not testify that the many Gifts are given of HIM? Is that not praise to HIS Glory? Please provide your proof that this is not “doing GOD’s Work”.
Why do you hate HIM, HIS Word, others and yourself so much? Why do you hate those who must be about the FATHERS business? Do you give HIM credit? Maybe the problem is you, creating your own difficulties? Maybe you are the one placing yourself at the front; making HIM look arbitrary, demanding and uncaring? Without telling them HE will take hold and make everything right, if they will let HIM? But instead you fill them with you.
Conviction,
When you ask why I hate God and do not give Him the glory, you are making false accusations in the same spirit as the Pharisees did against Jesus. All I’m asking for is a little evidence that you are actually doing what you keep admonishing others about. When are you going to show us you know how to “walk the walk” and actually apply your statements in ways that are effective at teaching others to follow God? Or, that actually grow the church? I’ve made this request before and since you not provided any evidence, I am being forced to conclude that you have no experience with actually doing the works of God that you talk about, so you’re just full of spiritual flatulence.
And once again, no praise, honor or glory for HIM; the only DESERVING. You are evidence of the hardest of Works; yet you continue to ask for proof of Works. While you are unable to prove or even make a point.
Romans 15:
13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.
14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.
15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God.
16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
17 I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God.
18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,
We Love those that watch over us; while you hate anyone watching out for anybody.
Matthew 23:23 “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”
We have to do that which you have left and…
Conviction,
You like throwing Bible verses at people to condemn them, so try James 2:14-18. You talk about faith but condemn works and accuse anyone who talks about works as if they have no faith or were trying to work their way into Heaven. Man, do you ever have that wrong!
In verse 18, James declares, “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.” I am active in ministry that is empowered by the Holy Spirit and is growing the church. Until you can tell us about how God has changed and empowered you, until you can show us that you’re actually doing anything for God, it is time for you to stop assailing others with your false accusations and admonitions that seem to be having no impact on you.
“Faith of … not in … Jesus is what effects our redemption.”
This is false and one of those “either/or” dilemmas you must use to support your false idea that people have no accountability in the salvation process, not even faith. So, in your theory, whether a person believes in Christ or not, everyone is saved.
This obviously represents your universal salvation that everyone will be in heaven and God is solely responsible to get us there. We have no obligation or accountability to respond and our response is worthless and useless when it comes to salvation. Even our faith is meaningless by your theory.
Bible Christians reject your view as a warped and wrested false idea totally outside the biblical teaching.
How the sinner responds to grace will determine whether that sinner will go to heaven or not. And the sinner is “saved” by responding exactly as the bible proscribes and advocates.
Your whole theory is bogus, Bill Garber.
“So we must provide “faith” at the outset” (cf Bill Sorensen)
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” (cf Paul)
Bill,
According to the verse that you half-quoted, this faith itself is a Gift of God. Even our capacity to accept God’s Grace is a gift of God. This is what Arminius called “prevenient grace”.
I do not deny that the Fruit of accepting God’s Grace, will be a desire to follow God. But this desire is Evidence of salvation. It does not contribute in any way to salvation.
“This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.” (cf Jesus Christ)
And herein lies one of many Biblical paradoxes. Disobedience can cause us to be lost, but Obedience cannot cause us to be saved. How can this be? According to both Jesus and Paul, Disobedience is the natural fruit of our sinful flesh, whereas obedience is the supernatural fruit of the Holy Spirit, which is Gift of God through Jesus Christ.
Jim,
I think considering that disobedience can cause us to lose our salvation while obedience cannot earn us salvation is not a paradox at all, it simply is a reality that surpasses human logic so there is nothing for us to gain by analyzing it.
My observation is that those who are focused on trying to understand or explain what they see as a paradox are typically also struggling to accept basic elements of the Salvation that God offers us and failing to let God work in them with the freedom that He needs to transform us into what He wants us to be. In the same vein, I do not understand why God would promise to live in me and use me to do His tasks. Such a decision by a perfect God to use a very imperfect person like me seems, at a minimum, illogical. I could get hung-up on trying to understand why God does what He does. However, choosing to accept that He is doing it has allowed me to move forward into discovering what He wants to teach me.
Why does it matter that his wife is a medical doctor?
Donovan asks: “Why does it matter that his wife is a medical doctor?”
The answer is simple. Africans have to prove themselves to be accepted in the liberal world of Adventism. Their secular educational status gives them more worth and credibility on religious matters as opposed to African Adventists with little secular education who by faith hold to traditional Adventist beliefs and practices. These Africans are considered anathema as shown in the road to San Antonio.
First World religious liberals have little regard for African Adventists unless they are well educated individuals by Western (American) standards and who are perceived as being sympathetic to the cultural norms of the West. This doesn’t mean that the author of this blog has bought into this but it’s just the way it is in my opinion. The premise of liberal Adventists in the West is that African Adventists are backward in their thinking and culture because they are uneducated and hold to traditional Adventist teachings as a result of this – yet keeping in mind that there many well educated Adventists in both the West and in Africa who hold to traditional Adventist beliefs and practices.
I’m actually quite surprised that the usual conceited insults hurled at Africans have disappeared from the comments here: such as “when Africans get more educated they will then be able to think like us” and so forth. Much of it clearly bordering on racism and neo-colonialism from what I have gathered.
Trevor,
First World religious liberals have little regard for African Adventists unless they are well educated individuals. Your sentence remains true if you remove the word ‘African.’
All the union conferences have very restrictive educational criteria regarding who can be ordained. About all these unbiblical rules requiring degrees the proponents of WO are silent. We only hear about the one biblical rule they are on a mission to uproot and remove as interfering with God’s calling to service. What about the man-made educational barriers…? – and they are relatively recent innovations too.
Remember what the Pharisees said about the uneducated multitudes that believed on Jesus: But this multitude that knoweth not the law are accursed.
The policies encouraging education for Adventist pastors are not absolute barriers to employment or ordination. Significant numbers have no seminary degree. Read the Working Policy. Look at the surveys. All of these documents are on the Web.
Monte,
I was told in 2014, not that it would be impossible, but it would not be possible, to ordain to the gospel ministry a church school teacher with forty years of exemplary service. I was led to believe his lack of appropriate seminary education was the primary and probably the only reason.
The criteria are effective barriers to ordination. I have no doubt they are not absolute barriers.
I find it curious that you attempt to refute my assertions by siting policies, rather than siting examples. Perhaps you can give me a few examples in the NAD over the last ten years where faithful ministers who lacked the recommended education were ordained to the gospel ministry. Can you get to double digits?
Currently significant numbers have no seminary degrees. Would you care to guess their average age? As I mentioned it is fairly recent change in practice.
There is substance to my observation which your remarks do not acknowledge. In tax law its called, ‘substance over form.’ The union conferences, in practice, exclude from consideration for ordination men who do not have seminary training. But of course you are technically correct, there are no absolute barriers.
William Abbott,
I am not Monte Sahlin.
However I do personally know pastors who have been ordained in North America who did not attend Seminary or hold a theological diploma of any sort. However, they had been serving as unordained ministers for many years. There are also examples where experienced school and other denominational administrators have been ordained. However all of the above are exceptions that prove the rules. The barriers in policy are deliberately set very high for such individuals. Their years of service in pastoral roles, certainly exceed the numbers of years required to earn the diploma.
So Monte is technically correct. But statistically you are correct. And it is easier for church administrators to simply appeal to policy when they do not want to discuss the pros and cons of ordaining any specific person, beyond the boundaries of the “club” (ie committee) of ordained ministers who make these decisions.
Sometimes I wonder if they don’t realize how bigoted their views are. The pride, the arrogance. Western ideology vs The Word of God. Most in the west have turned atheist. I don’t want any golden rule, I have the Word, Truthfully I think it is awesome, amazing the king of all books, 1611 KJV. Let God be true and every man a liar. The Word is God.
And once again, you fail to reverence, honor or give GOD the Glory that belongs to HIM. You wish to only honor and raise yourself above HIM. While the rest of us honor and Glorify HIM in deed and Faith and Works; which you are blind to.
We have no Gifts, they belong to HIM. We have no Works, least they are destined from and by HIM.
James 2:
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
But do you not claim Faith and then also claim HIS Works. Do you Save others and grow the Church? Are you empowered in the Holy Spirit of righteousness; or self-righteousness? Do you need HIM? All the rest of us reverence HIM, praise HIM and give HIM the Glory, and Love others enough to tell them such; because we need HIM. We don’t tell them what they want to hear or what we want to tell them; but what HE says they need to hear. That is the difference.
Conviction,
Not even God the angels bring railing accusations against those who are in sin (2 Peter 2:10-11), so why do you persist in blaspheming against the followers of God with your continual accusations against people whom you don’t even know? I think it is time for the moderator to cut you off because you are violating the most basic rules of civil discourse and being grossly disrespectful of people who love God with their whole hearts.
You started it, like some bullying child. Can you not handle when an adult steps in?
2 Peter 2:
9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
Are you a brute beast, self willed and not afraid to speak evil of dignities already?
I accused you of not giving HIM credit and you still do not give HIM credit; yet demand sympathy respect? From whom? Do you contend that you have given HIM sufficient reverence and praise for what HE as done for you? I could never praise HIM enough. Then you wish to cry for protection and respect? We are back to James 2:9 “But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.”
Why do you go crying and begging to the moderator to discriminate against others child? They will not interfere with HIS Work.
Conviction,
You keep asking when I will give God the glory He is due, yet you never do that. All you do is cut-and-paste scripture and launch attacks against the sin you see in others, but not in yourself. Have you not read any of my postings? Have you not read the many times I have given praise to God for the mighty and wonderful things I have seen Him do? Obviously not, because you persist in claiming that I do not give God the glory He is due. Since the words you write are the expressions of what is in your heart, I fear to imagine what falsehoods and delusions of righteousness that lurk there. I say that because the people whom I have heard quote scripture the most and who were the most consistent in accusing others of not glorifying God were possessed by demons masquerading as advocates for God so they could deceive others. I look forward to hearing the testimony of praise that you will give to God when you have been freed to begin praising Him for His mighty works.
“is time for the moderator to cut you off because you are violating the most basic rules of civil discourse and being grossly disrespectful of people who love God with their whole hearts.”
And who gave you the authority to declare you know the people, “Who love God with their while hearts.”
We see as usual, the liberal is the most judgmental when he can’t get his own way. But true believers already know that about the liberal agenda that attacks the idea of anyone “judging” but themselves.
Sometimes I wonder why is it that some people cannot discuss ideas, opinions, beliefs, and even hypotheses without resorting to ad hominem attacks? Attacking people is not part of a good site, it’s actually a very low level of interaction in any discussion.
Unfortunately not everyone has the skill of talking about issues cordially, respectfully, and with room for diversity of opinions. This is, indeed, tragic!
Yes Mr Tichy it is indeed tragic.
In your first comment of the day you stated being a Methodist sounded pretty good. You state that University Churches are better than some created classification that you call isolated. Do you teach our children at the University Churches to be Methodists?
You state in your second comment, A Christian community that practices discrimination is certainly an oxymoron. Luckily CHRIST not only discriminated against, but defeated sin, giving us victory.
In your third comment you denote the influence demi-gods as a major problem in the Denomination. We all agree, why do you create them and “insist on defining doctrine for others, and pretend to be the only ones who possess the truth and the correct theology”?
Why do you resort to ad hominem attacks? Why are you unable to present or justify any hypotheses? Why are you unable to discuss anything? Are you ever going to present something to discuss?
You do seem proficient in attempting to impose your views, definitions and concepts on other in absolute discrimination though. But I honestly don’t see much of a need for these proficiencies. Is this what you teach others? Just asking.
Time to become calm here … yet on what basis?
Where is the peace that passes understanding among us?
The struggle to understand is at the heart of fusillade conversations; my attempting to prove my hunch by weakening yours is what dooms not the other but myself.
It is only in truly understanding an other that I can understand myself. We are each other’s mirror of ourselves.
It feels instructive, indeed fundamental that Paul, after wrestling with the crazy congregation in Corinth for most of a letter’s worth of heavy rationalization, exhaustedly gives up on his rational explanation of what it means to be individually yet collectively the very body of Christ, and offers … ‘yet show I unto you a more excellent way.’
It is right at this moment that Paul starts over, calmly, in the first person … “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.”
No, I’m not suggesting that we ask the percussion section to give the piccolos a turn. Paul is done with orchestral conducting. He has put the baton on the music stand and is speaking from the heart rather than the head.
What is common to our hearts, here?
Seriously.
What brings us, here, together, today, still?
It is not our differences.
We have already made room for our differences.
How can we put ourselves totally into this space which includes our differences?
Bill,
Respect for differences requires that we not assume everyone else is trapped in the grossest of sins or that they are failing to respect and follow God. Neither does it give anyone the privilege of continually condemning others based on the delusion that they are all opposed to God just because they do not measure-up to an imaginary standard that exists only in the thoughts of one person. Yes, I have strong opinions on some topics and I speak my mind, but I do so with respect for others and I try very hard to not condemn, but to encourage and uplift our attention to God so He can work in each of us as I have seen Him working in me. The person writing as “conviction” has been unable to provide even the tiniest bit about their experience with God. In the past I have encountered demon-possessed persons who spoke in exactly the same way so I cannot help but wonder if they are not in the same condition. God drove-out those demons so I look forward to reading the personal praises of God that “Conviction” will post when they have been freed.
I think the level of diversity in Adventism exposes the faith in certain ways, mainly that the role of the Holy Spirit is not highlighted the way it should be. There is a general slant to legalism in the design of Adventism that creates a problem in dealing with diversity. one of the challenges is that the culture and religion for the Hebrews were intertwined. So we find now that for instance for African the way the faith was received has coagulated and in certain ways was consistent with the culture but now the westerners have moved on certain positions and africa is like left behind. So the real disappointing thing is that adventism fails on its promises of progressive truth and remains and entertains conservatism against the better light.
The general stance on women ordination and gays and lesbains for instance is very harsh.
What would Jesus do !
He would probably say something like:
John 5:14 “Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”
HE said sin no more quite often. Since HE is the Mediator for our sins and our Advocate; maybe we should listen?
Conviction,
I must agree with your comment, as regards violation of clear commandments of God, (eg regarding marriage and adultery including hetero and homo relationships outside Biblical marriage).
Regarding Ordination of either men or women, there is no commandment in the Bible either to ordain or not to ordain. Here we are debating Practice rather than Doctrine. And no, the SDA church has never proposed nor voted a Doctrine regarding Ordination.
2 Corinthians 5:
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
HE is our Advocate and Mediator, but we will stand before him. We can take comfort in that. But HE is much more than a lawyer to fight for you. HE will mask the wrongs, to be remembered no more, if we will allow HIM in our repentance; but not in some self declared right to do wrong. I don’t think HE die in pain and agony for your continued right to do wrong.
I missed capitalizing HIM in the first sentence, second paragraph.
Maybe some of you just like to argue, but if you weren’t so quick to react to the negative posters here, and instead simply ignored them and responded to the article itself, I would find the discussion much more profitable and enjoyable!
I appreciated the recognition that people and cultures are distinctly different around the world. I first learned this when we went to Singapore as missionaries and I simply assumed that Canadians, British, and Australians were just like Americans! Missionaries from these countries reacted quite strongly to being classed with Americans! And my worldview was broadened considerably by learning how different their cultures were, not to mention the many Asian cultures represented in Singapore.
God who know the number of hairs on each of our heads, and so much more about us that we may not even know, interacts with us individually, bringing to our attention the things we individually need to learn. I am thankful that we are encouraged to study for ourselves, although this ideal is so often not recognized by church leaders.
We should all study HIS Word in Love for HIM, if not then at least for our own sake. If we wish to speak from there, instead of what we have learned from the world; then by all means we should do so. We all share and learn and keep each other steady that way. We are baptized into one Body and drink of one Spirit.
I don’t think HE will allow us to just ignore the negative posters here; for their own sake. I know HE will allow us to ignore stumbling blocks created that impact others. HE Loves us all.
As for speaking to the article, I am sure GOD does not need us to help HIM in HIS leadership role. I have no idea what the United Presbyterian Church is; but the Presbyterian Church of the USA along with all of the other Mainline Protestant Churches have lost 5 million members over the last few years. While the Presbyterian Church of America (the Presbyterian split off representing HIS authority) and the other Evangelical Protestant Churches have gained 2 million members. All the Protestant Churches that support HIS Authority are growing and the others are failing.
To make statements without looking at or being involved in the bigger picture is easy. To not Love HIM and others is alluring. The world is alluring. We are self serving; the world revolves around us. We need to deny ourselves, take up our crosses and follow HIM.
I find it rather disingenious to advocate that cultural differences are grounds for departing from our traditional Adventist beliefs and practices. One big reason is the fact that throughout the world, wherever our traditional Adventist teachings are taught, across the spectrum of cultures, we have people who don’t support Women’s Ordination to the role of a pastor (or elder); they follow our health reform message; they accept the SOP without reservation; they (both men and women) dress modestly without wearing makeup and jewellery; they recently voted “no” in San Antonio; they don’t support same gender marriage and other forms of deviant sexual behaviour; they use the same Church Manual; they believe in the worldwide flood and seven day week of creation as taught in Genesis; and they use the Sabbath School Quarterly where available – to name but a few. If not having general agreement or consensus on any of our traditional Adventist beliefs and practices are grounds for departure then it would be a free for all with a “that which is right in our own eyes” approach which in my opinion is advocating a total breakdown of Adventism as a whole. What it boils down to is Christ or culture?
I would also add that there are many Africans who worship the West and its alluring sophistication. Ironically, this may have stemmed from the aftermath of colonialist oppression which strongly portrayed Western culture as being superior to that of African culture. As a result of this, many Africans are desperately trying to avoid being labeled as backward or inferior to those living in the West. If this is the case then the Church too will be affected by this. As Western influence gains ground in African society through its various means, the acceptance of dominant Western cultural trends such as feminism is inivitable. Adventist supporters of WO in Africa would most likely come from this group. African Americans aren’t exempt of course with the likes of crazy people like James David Manning. Of course he’s an extreme case but my point is that such people do exist even in the West.