Disconnecting from Change
by Andy Hanson, May 13, 2015: The following meditation by Richard Rohr was contained in an email sent to me by a close Adventist friend. She simply said that Mike Van’s description of a prophet reminded her of me. I’m flattered, but paraphrasing Amos, “I’m not a prophet, nor son of a prophet.” And I feel certain that my fellow AT bloggers would be equally uncomfortable were they to receive a similar missive. However, all of us at AT strive to support prophetic voices of encouragement, concern and warning.
My wife, who left Adventism after listening to Ted Wilson’s inaugural speech, and is now part of a loving, inspirational, and spiritual Community of Friends, explains AT’s “prophetic efforts” as the result of a “spiritual calling.” (Quakers believe in such things.)
Perhaps my “calling” is grounded in this Kathleen Norris quote:
Disconnecting from change does not recapture the past. It loses the future.
And I want Adventism to have a future because I am a third-generation Adventist, and I am aware of the potential for good that remains unrealized because of the irrational beliefs and actions of my generation’s official Adventist dogma.
Richard Rohr’s meditation is a reminder that institutional religion, once incorporated, begins a journey to irrelevancy and requires loyal insiders with a “spiritual calling” to a prophetic ministry if it is to remain vibrant, timely, inspirational, and attractive.
WHO WOULD WANT TO BE A PROPHET? Richard Rohr’s Daily Meditation
Thursday, February 19, 2015, adapted from The Way of the Prophet by Mike Van
“By definition, the prophet has to be on the edge of the inside of institutional religion. It’s a hard position to hold, and it must be held both structurally and personally, with wisdom and grace. There are many times it would be easier to leave the system or to play the company man/woman and just go along with the game. Jesus understood this. He loved and respected his Jewish religion, yet he pushed the envelope wide open. He often healed people on the Sabbath, which was a deliberate statement against making a practice into a dogma that was higher than human need (Matthew 12:1-8). Yet he honored the same Jewish establishment by telling some he had healed to “go show yourselves to the priests” (Luke 17:14). Jesus walked the thin line of a true prophet, or what Ken Wilber so wisely names as the central principle, “transcend and include.”
“Being a prophet demands two seemingly opposites: radical traditionalism and shocking iconoclasm at the same time. If people see just one of those first, they’ll presume you’re only that. “Oh, he’s just a pious little Christian boy” or “She’s an angry woman!” They cannot imagine that those two can really coexist, tame, and educate one another. Holding the tension of opposites is the necessary education of the prophet, and the Church has given little energy to it. Frankly, it takes non-dual thinking to pull this off, and we have pretty much trained people in the simplistic choosing of one idealized alternative while denigrating the other.
“To put together these two immense opposites demands a good deal of human maturity, groundedness, spiritual intelligence, and readiness to not be liked–even by good people whom you really respect. You must be willing to believe that God is calling you to do this, that God is using you, and that you are an instrument. But don’t believe anyone who is wearing the loud badge of a prophet; it is never anything anyone should or would want to do, it seems to me. It is a calling, and often for only one single issue or time.
“Ironically, a prophet must be educated inside the system in order to have the freedom to critique that very system. You have to know the rules of any tradition, and you have to respect those rules enough to know why they do exist–and thus how to break them properly, for the sake of a larger and more essential value. This is what Martin Luther King Jr. taught America and what Gandhi taught the British. Here is the key: you can only unlock systems from the inside. A prophet critiques a system by quoting its own documents, constitutions, heroes, and Scriptures against its present practice. That’s why they eventually win, but at a huge price to themselves.”
Prophets Then, Prophets Now (CD, MP3 download);
and Scripture as Liberation (MP3 download)
“Disconnecting from change does not recapture the past. It loses the future.”
Unless, of course, our future is not in our hands.
Based on past teaching, the future is frightening beyond belief for Seventh-day Adventists. Yet change is more frightening. Always.
We talk in circles to avoid actual movement … because fright intensifies with change. Always.
We are psychologically very well defended against change.
This is from where the ‘leave us alone’ cry arises in articles like Bill Knott’s “Am I an Adventist?” http://www.adventistreview.org/1510-19
We stay or we leave for the same reason.
As I learned in Psychology 101 in the Behavioral Science Department more than 50 years ago, we are each at every given moment of our lives acting in what we individually consider to be our own best interest at that moment.
While it is possible to externally manipulate circumstances that will result in a given behavior, the underlying truth remains, we perpetually behave in what we consider to be our own best interest in the moment.
Fortunately, while we are judged by our behavior, we are saved independently of anything we do, did, or can yet do. We are simply saved by God’s grace.
And when that becomes clear by reason of the First Angel’s proclamation, the world order changes, as described by the Second Angel, because otherwise life is untenable, as described by the Third Angel.
Oh, and none of us are angels.
For the moment ‘a little lower’ and then, ‘in the moment in the twinkling of our eye’ higher ….
“Fortunately, while we are judged by our behavior, we are saved independently of anything we do, did, or can yet do. We are simply saved by God’s grace.”
And this, Bill, is the false gospel that much of Adventism has embraced in the last several decades and is exactly why the church has little identity or meaning.
And I would ask, what meaning would you attach to your comment, “while we are judged by our behavior”?
If the judgment of our behavior has nothing to do with out salvation, how can any exhortation to obedience have any relevance? If God don’t care about my behavior, why should I?
People are sometimes rather slow to see and understand the meaning and dynamic of a phrase, until time eventually interprets its meaning by way of experience.
The bible presents two factors that make up salvation. The divine factor, and the human factor. The human factor is how we respond to the divine factor, namely, how we respond to the gospel.
So even if you limit the human factor to “faith alone”, which it is not, you still admit some response is required and your statement will not hold water.
Sanctification is not by “faith alone” as Venden tried to sell to the church and was embraced and endorsed by church leadership. And thousands are continually being deceived by this false doctrine advocated by the SDA church.
The only thing that is by “faith alone” is when we accept the fact that God can “make believe” some things by way of His own law and we benefit by this “make believe” concept that God ordained.
So, we “make believe” we died on the cross, when we did not. And God will “make believe” we have never sinned, when we have. And ultimately, God will “make believe” we are equal to Him when we are married to Christ who is equal to the Father. These concepts and related concepts are “by faith alone” because they are not an inherent reality. Concerning “make believe” righteousness, Paul states in Rom. 4 that “God calleth those things which be not, as though they were.” And thus God “makes believe” something is true in the present, when it is not.
But sanctification is an inherent reality and not just some “make believe” righteousness. So it is by faith and works. When the false gospel is presented, it destroys motivation big time. As one has said, “If legalism has destroyed its thousands, antinomianism has destroyed it tens of thousands.”
And bible history bears this out clearly. So, the false gospel in the church has destroyed the real intensity for law keeping and thus whether we advocate male headship or WO is not relevant to many if not most church members. And this applies to many other issues as well.
By their fruits you shall know them, indicates that our behavior is evidence of our conversion. But our behavior is NOT the means of our conversion. Please do not confuse the fruits of conversion with the root of conversion.
Ellen clearly says the the Righteousness of Christ is BOTH our Title to Heaven and our Fitness for Heaven.
Our behavior cannot make us fit for heaven, but it can be evidence of our fitness for heaven.
Mr. Sorensen, I’ve read and re-read your post. I don’t get your point. “Saved by Grace not by works”. (Works) Law keeping is our response in gratitude for the gift given us. Could you explain your position more clearly?
I think your idea of faith _and_ works has some basis. Paul emphasizes grace but does not dismiss works. Other New Testament writers seem to emphasize works. What I don’t understand is the charge of antinomianism. People often disagree about various moral issues, but I can’t see how differences of opinion could be tagged with the epithet of antinomianism.
Bill, I know your name is not that uncommon, but are you by any chance the son of Dr. Sorensen who lived in Victorville, CA?
It’s interesting that I see your concept of the gospel as the false one. It seems to me that it is the false picture of God that Satan has always tried to promote. God is love; He wants to save everyone and will do anything He can to save us. Why is that not Good News to you? If you see God as such a severe, judgmental dictator of the universe, then you must see other people that way, too – including yourself. Does that make you love God more?
I’m sorry to say this but you are wrong. I’ve written to you about this before and your main proof texts are in James but James isn’t saying that we are saved by works but he is saying just as the physical body and the spirit makes a soul so to faith and works makes a faithsoul persay (I’m going to be Paul here and create my a new word as he did many times in scripture to clarify his points). Also, James isn’t going after Christians who aren’t keeping the commandments of Christ but he is addressing the major short coming of many of the Adventist Churches today in that we go to church, sit in the pews, and obey God’s laws thinking that is enough. What James is saying is that’s not enough and if you have true faith that good works will be manifested in your life. You take what James is saying to a place it shouldn’t go to and make works the emphasis which is a pitfall so many fall into as the stagnate in the pews. Doing the right thing won’t win you salvation. Working with the Spirit to do the right thing will and that is accomplished through faith alone. This brings both Paul and James into alignment without having to split them apart.
Andy,
Thank you for sharing that with us. Seldom have I seen such an on-point and insightful exploration of what is required of a prophet.
“By definition, the prophet has to be on the edge of the inside of institutional religion.” Unfortunately, we’ve moved the prophet herself to the center of Adventism so that everything else is on the edge where it is more easily abused.
“Being a prophet demands two seemingly opposites: radical traditionalism and shocking iconoclasm at the same time.” This is true for more than just prophets and applies to anyone who is working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit because He demands absolute loyalty to Him, which itself often contrasts sharply with the practices of the church.
“It is a calling, and often for only one single issue or time.” While I am not sure I would quite agree with that author’s view there is much to consider in what he said because, while all prophets are called to speak for God, the largest and greatest work of a prophet is delivering individual counsel from God that guides people in their spiritual path and draws them closer to Him.
Oh, that we as a church would learn these things and esteem the giver of the prophecies instead of esteeming the person to whom they were given!
“Oh, that we as a church would learn these things and esteem the giver of the prophecies instead of esteeming the person to whom they were given!”
There is no difference as long as the person to whom they were given, articulates what was given.
When did she ever accurately recount what was shown to her? Please, read again her description of the difficulty she had describing what she was shown because the contrasts between Heaven and earth were so great. She also warned us to never, under any circumstance, esteem her or heap praise on her because God is so much greater than any of us. No! We must stop esteeming her and esteem only God because of His incredible love.
“It is a calling, and often for only one single issue or time.”
A Prophet may be speaking in our own time, but his/her message is rejected because some are swayed by the teachings of the “prophet” who lived many years earlier.
The “voice” of God through the prophets of today are not heard, when one seeks council from the dead. Our God is the God of the Living, and not of the dead.
The history of God’s people is that He has always placed multiple prophets among His followers to give them intimate guidance. If we are not receiving those messages today it likely is because we have placed so much emphasis on a dead prophet instead of the current, indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit who calls some to be prophets. Yes, He calls them even today. But He knows well enough to not waste His efforts if the people who claim to be God’s followers are refusing to pay attention.
William,
Totally agree.
I once visited an Adventist Sabbath school class renowned as a poster-piece for historic Adventist teachings. The class teacher and I had enjoyed a fairly robust relationship over time, often discussing controversial issues but never allowing any differences of opinion to explode into a state of personal schism.
During the discussion I did not hide my opinions under a bushel (though I did not press my views to the exclusion of others), until one of the “regular” class members vigorously admonished me verbally that in this particular class, it was required that opinions come accompanied by text and verse from a Spirit of Prophecy book, article, or manuscript, and the individual was not contradicted by the teacher, so I assumed that what had been said to me was indeed ex cathedra for the class.
So I replied gravely that this was somewhat of a tall order, since I was a visitor and had not received the outline of the study in advance, But that I would do my best to make sure any comments I made were consistent with the Spirit of Prophecy and the Bible, and that probably from memory I could supply what she needed in terms of references. Even so, I repeated my view that hers was a “tall order” for a visitor.
I n this context, perhaps the fear that Ellen White’s writings will be made of “none effect” so overpowers us at times, that we safeguard her teachings hoveringly as final canon, never to be expanded, never to be altered, but set in stone as eternal fundamentals of our faith. This would seem to militate against the probability that Ellen White will ever have a chronological and spiritual successor in our church. In this matter surely there is a “closed door.”
This is terrific, Andy! Very thought provoking. Thanks for sharing it.
Andy–Well done. Many excellent points. Where did I once hear that real prophets are typically rejected by the orthodox in their religious communities because the orthodox can only look to the past for their source of truth and authority whereas a prophet looks to the future. Seems to apply very well to one who frequently posts here.
Ervin,
“whereas a prophet looks to the future.” Do you see the work of the prophet as “looking to the future” or “testifying of Jesus” in some way? I see Prophecy as the Spirit Testifying of Jesus Christ and glorifying Him in everything that He does and has done. This is why it says in Revelation that the “Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy”. Rev.19:10.
Erv,
Technically that is correct. The problem , is when we look to a single prophet in the past as the complete, total and final fulfillment of that statement instead of just one fulfillment. Worse still is when we look to that single fulfillment as a substitute for everyone’s need to be using the gifts the Holy Spirit offers them. Unfortunately we have a lot of preachers teaching that our total need of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled in Ellen White, so there is no need for any of the rest of us to get involved.
Try Mark 6:4-6. 4 Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor.”
5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.
6 And he was amazed at their lack of faith.
The root problem was unbelief. Yes, the people had plenty of self-affirming “knowledge” about God, but very little belief IN Him.
What if we thought of prophets more as musicians? William suggested that God has always placed multiple prophets among his people to give them guidance, and there is perhaps something wrong with us if we don’t see that.
Well yes… There have always been musicians, poets and artists. But there aren’t a lot of Bachs or Mozarts; there aren’t a lot of Michaelangelos or Rembrandts; and there haven’t really been a lot of literary giants to rival Shakespeare – at least not recently. And I think we severely truncate our sensitivity to truth, beauty, and goodness if we do not recognize and give extrordinary weight to the dead greats of civilization.
I think it is quite difficult for prophets – at least in the Biblical sense – to arise today and be recognized as such by current well-educated generations. We are too individualistic and independent in our thinking and behavior. There is a lot to be said for individualism, but it is not fertile soil for prophets. Overwhelmingly, the “prophets” I hear in contemporary society are false prophets, who stir the masses and whip up the mob through the rhetoric of greed, envy and hate.
“Sophisticated” Christians who like to challenge the establishment easily yield to the temptation of confusing iconoclasm with the prophetic spirit. Yes, the prophet does challenge institutional authority. But the prophet at the same time establishes an Authority which confronts and challenges the motives, aspirations , and objectives of us who individualistically seek freedom from instituional authority. In freeing us from false authority, the prophet calls us to submit, as a people – not simply as individuals – to a Higher Authority.
I’m not sure we’re ready for that. I suspect historical circumstances may well bring about another prophetic age in the West, characterized by a more communal spirit where disempowered, God-fearing people look to inspired, fearless prophets to lead them. But if I’m honest, I have to admit that I don’t relish that idea, because I’m pretty individualistic in my spirituality. I fear that if a true prophet arose, I wouldn’t really care for him/her, because the prophet would not only challenge the GC, but would also challenge my cherished beliefs and confront my own hypocrisies, prejudices, and inconsistencies. I want a prophet that will go mote-hunting with me.