Ellen White Against Being “At Variance”
by Andre Reis
The vote is in; women's ordination is history for at least three Union Conferences: the North German, Columbia and the Pacific Union.
As I contemplate the momentous events of the past few weeks and observe some of the exchanges between the echelons of the church and on the blogosphere, I turn to good old Ellen White for some ideas. I often find her very helpful in matters of church governance, especially now that terms such as "opposition", and "at variance" are used more frequently.
A search in EGW reveals that the expression "at variance" in her writings is mostly used as a state of mind, an attitude, a trait of character, a habit. Variance for her is often synonymous with "stubbornness and self-will". (Counsels on Leadership 11). When talking about the "unity of the church" she uses variance again in the sense of interpersonal conflict, strife, enmity:
"The unity of the church is the convincing evidence that God has sent Jesus into the world as its Redeemer. This is an argument which worldlings can neither withstand nor controvert. Therefore Satan is constantly working to prevent this union and harmony, that unbelievers, by witnessing backbiting, dissension, and strife among professed Christians, may become disgusted with religion, and be confirmed in their impenitence. God is dishonored by those who profess the truth while they are at variance and enmity with one another. Satan is the great accuser of the brethren, and all who engage in this work are enlisted in his service." (5T 619).
When faced with the prospects of bitter conflict among the brethren, she bared her soul saying: "I know that Satan’s work will be to set brethren at variance. Were it not that I know [that] the Captain of our salvation stands at the helm to guide the gospel ship into the harbor, I should say, Let me rest in the grave." (1888 Materials, 29)
And:
"God is the embodiment of benevolence, mercy, and love. Those who are truly connected with Him cannot be at variance with one another. His Spirit ruling in the heart will create harmony, love, and unity. The opposite of this is seen among the children of Satan. It is his work to stir up envy, strife, and jealousy". (5T 28.1)
Here, unity is the opposite of "envy, strife and jealousy", disunity and disharmony.
She also creates a litmus test for the good type of "variance" by asking: "Does this light and knowledge that I have found, and which places me at variance with my brethren, draw me more closely to Christ? Does it make my Saviour more precious to me and make my character more closely resemble His?” (3T 444).
Although she used "at variance" in a variety of contexts, below I list four instances of the use of "at variance" in connection with church relations which may shed light on the current discussions. This list is certainly not exhaustive but may set the overall tone of her views on the matter.
1. Being "at variance" because of emphasis on "conservatism" and "tradition"
1888 provides vital clues to her treatment of conflict in the church. She came to the defense of Adventist authors and preachers who were seen as being "at variance" with the General Conference leaders in 1888. Writing two years after the 1888 conference, she said:
"There are men among us who profess to understand the truth for these last days, but who will not calmly investigate advanced truth. They are determined to make no advance beyond the stakes which they have set, and will not listen to those who, they say, do not stand by the old landmarks. They are so self-sufficient that they cannot be reasoned with. They consider it a virtue to be at variance with their brethren, and close the door, that light shall not find an entrance to the people of God. … Light will come to God’s people, and those who have sought to close the door will either repent or be removed out of the way. The time has come when a new impetus must be given to the work. … We must accept every ray of light that comes to us." (ST May 26, 1890, par. 12)
Ironically, even Ellen White had her run-ins with the General Conference in her day. Her anachronistically dated letters bring ominous revelations of back room dealings at the top echelons of the church. At one point she said: "The people have lost confidence in those who have the management of the work. Yet we hear that the voice of the Conference is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I thought it was almost blasphemy. The voice of the Conference ought to be the voice of God, but it is not, because some in connection with it are not men of faith and prayer, they are not men of elevated principle.”(April 1, 1901, Ms. 37-190). Strong words indeed.
2. Being "at variance" because of imposition of ideas
"Many because their brethren do not follow their leading, manifest toward them a spirit of hatred. Is their leading right? Is it wrong? God has never bidden us follow the leading of any man, and he has said, “He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.” Can we not see from this what it means to be at variance?" (KC 109.3)
3. Being "at variance" for opposing advancing truth
"The brethren [at Minneapolis] had all the evidence they would ever have that words of truth were spoken in regard to the righteousness of Christ. I knew that if they had distinguished the voice of the true Shepherd, if they had opened their hearts to receive the light, such speeches would never be made to create sympathy and leave the impression upon the congregation that we were at variance and at enmity one with the other. {8MR 312.3}
I find the statement that leaders "had all the evidence they would ever have" especially germane to our discussion.
4. Being "at variance" for anarchy in doctrine
She warned against being "at variance" for believing wildly different doctrines. Thus she wrote:
"God is leading a people out from the world upon the exalted platform of eternal truth, the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. He will discipline and fit up His people. They will not be at variance, one believing one thing and another having faith and views entirely opposite, each moving independently of the body. Through the diversity of the gifts and governments that He has placed in the church, they will all come to the unity of the faith." (TM 29).
Before the statement above is used against women's ordination advocates for "moving independently of the body", let me remind readers that the recognition of women as duly appointed ministers is not only part of Fundamental Belief 14, but it has also been affirmed since at least the 1990 General Conference. If believing in the equality of men and women to be ministers is used to label Adventists as rebellious, Ellen White would top the list.
* * *
It is striking that we do not see her use "variance" to promote absolute uniformity of practice and policies. To the contrary, she argued for "unity in diversity" and that whereas "there may appear to be dissimilarity, the work is one great whole, and bears the stamp of infinite wisdom." (GCB February 27, 1895, par. 5). She used the variety of the branches of a vine which all work together to produce one fruit.
In what appears to be an oxymoron, Ellen White considers diversity as the key to unity: "Through the diversity of the gifts and governments that He has placed in the church, they will all come to the unity of the faith." (EW, CET 201).
In sum, I believe EGW was very much against being "at variance" in the form of bitter, negative, overbearing spirit. In turn, she was very much for a diversity of operations, methods in church work. She was not a uniformitarian; thus she could write in 1899:
"We believe fully in church organization, but in nothing that is to prescribe the precise way in which we must work; for all minds are not reached by the same methods. Nothing is to be allowed to keep the working servant of God from his fellow man. The individual believer is to labor for the individual sinner. Each person has his own lamp to keep burning… {RH May 9, 1899, Art. B, par. 14}
We can certainly replace "methods" with "same music, same food, same color of clothes" and, alas, "same gender of pastors"!
I believe that, were Ellen White alive today, her pen would be firing off letters of support, copying and pasting her 1895 appeal for the ordination of women and maybe one or two "testimonies" with the ominous P.S.: Light will come to God’s people, and those who have sought to close the door will either repent or be removed out of the way.
Ellen White was not the road – just a road sign.
The more I read from her and about her, the more I recognise that she did not invent many of unique doctrines. In fact, in many cases her main role was to strike down some of the latest theories and drive the Church towards a more 'orthodox' and 'mainstream' Christian tradition. Thus, there is a paradox in that many outsiders think us a cult for having Ellen White, but without Ellen White we would undeniably be a much more cultic group, and probably a bunch of legalistic-Arians.
I am always fascinated how Ellen White's own theology evolved, and that she was a proponent of "present truth", "progressive revelation", "new light" and "advancing truth" I am also very fascinated by the general mindset of ourpioneers, who were pretty open to new ideas, always testing scripture, never assuming they had 'all the truth' and couldn't learn anything new – as many of the denominations they had left had stagnated.
Instead of always focusing on what the pioneers believed (i.e. the myth of the so-called Golden Age that never really existed, if you look at the number of heresies), wouldn't be good if we could capture their Berean spirit and attitude of testing-openness?
More revisionist history, I see. Keep trying to convince yourselves. Enjoy your fantasy world along the banks of the Nile.
You can claim that she appealed for the ordination of women, but it isn't there, except by a clever manipulation of her statements. She did say that if "new light" was not accepted after being presented to the church, it should be laid aside and not pushed ahead as is being done with WO. A GC session is the proper place for this to be handled, not independently like it has been. If independent ministries were doing this they would be condemned; but because it is being done at the Union level, it is being given a measure of legitimacy and is called the "moving of the Holy Spirit." The Holy Spirit does not promote anarchy.
Stephen,
Relying on a prophet to interpret the Bible, or add "present truth" relieves us of studying and thinking for ourselves. She had no more sacred insight or inspiration than any serious Bible student in determining what is essential for living the Christian life. She added many questionable guides that cannot stand the test of medical and scientific truth; and many of her statements on those subjects in which she had no education, have led members to rely on her for guides for health and scientific subjects. No one had prescient insight 100 years ago that should be considered factual today.
Elaine, you don't believe in the Bible, especially as a basis for moralty and Christian living (whatever 'Christian living' is). Thus, I am not sure what credence I should give to your tips on how to interpret it.
As to her questionable medical and scientific statements, do you mean like the OT prophets, who thought and taught that the world was flat and covered with a hard dome of water above and a spring of water below? Or do you mean the fact that under her guidance Adventists are the longest living people on earth (together with the Sardinians and Okinawans).
Or do you mean her so-called plagerism? You know, like those people who claimed to write the Torah on behalf of Moses. Or maybe you mean Second Isiah, or the redactor who added that extra ending to Hosea, or additional chapter of Job?
Or perhaps do you mean her false statements about expecting the Lord to return soon? You know, just like Paul who told virgins not to get married because Jesus was just about to return and there wasn't time?
Or do you mean questionable guides, you know, like Paul telling slaves to obey their masters, or that women should remain silent? Or was this even Paul or just someone from the Pauline school who wrote in Paul's name (you know, further plagerism)?
So yes, I think Ellen White's 'sacred insight' or 'inspiration' is actually quite similar to the biblical model. But given you don't really believe in 'sacred insight' or 'inspiration' anyway, again, not sure what your point is?
Well said, Stephen. I don't always agree with you, but I agree that Elaine doesn't have much credibility when it comes to Biblical (or SOP, for that matter) intepretation, and many of her ramblings are not worthy of a response. But you responded well. We can have in house debates about how to interpret the Bible and how to use the SOP, but arguing with unbelievers (or former believers) really isn't profitable.
Stephen Ferguson,
So Paul telling slaves to obey their masters is somehow "sacred" advice? With that type of nonsensical thinking slavery would be the law of the land. Thank heavens we have rejected such "sacred" writings. Maybe you should interpret these texts within their historical context. Pauls admonition on slavery are irrelevant in the 21st century.
Doctorf, I am not advocating slavery at all. Yes of course scripture should be read in is historical context. The problem is you do not appear to believe in reading the scripture at all – in any context. It would seem you want to pick and choose the bits you like and disregard the rest. If you do that, on what basis do you in your infinite wisdom choose?
If you don't believe in the Bible or any OT or NT prophet then there is little point discussing Ellen White is there? That is my point!
It is tragic how much time and energy is being wasted by discussing what Ellen White wrote about this topic or that one when she gave us specific instruction to NEVER user her writings as the basis for any doctrine or belief, but instead to use the Bible and the Bible only.
No one is using the SOP as a basis for any doctrine. We're using it to flesh out our doctrines–which is one reason we were given the SOP. To take your point to its logical conclusion we would forget about her entirely, and igore her counsel in favor of "the Bible and the Bible only." Those who don't like the SOP love to hide behind "sola scriptura," forgetting (or conveniently ignoring) the fact that "sola scriptura" includes prohets in the last days.
Collecting a set of EGW statements and throwing them at those of a different opinion is a far more convenient way of expressing what a person believes and uses as doctrine than studying the Bible and really knowing God. Using her writings as the basis for argument is a horrible abuse of them and a total disregard for their purpose, which is to point us each personally back to scripture. Continued argument about what EGW did or did not say continues argument and insures we are not doing God's work. We're supposed to be connecting with the same Holy Spirit who worked through her so God can work through each of us. I'm here to encourage you to focus on what matters and what will build the Kingdom of God instead of distracting people away from it.
I agree with Jean. Furthermore, I recall Spectrum Magazine had an entire article on 'What you Martin Luther King say about WO?' If we can discuss what Martin Luther King would have said and done, and he wasn't even an Adventist, I certainly think it is relevant to discuss Ellen White's views.
William, if you think it is not relevant, why are you here? Isn't just as much a waste and time spending time writing a comment about why you think it a waste of time?
"and he wasn't even an Adventist"
Is that an inference that discredits anything someone says? Because Billy Graham "is not an Adventist" discounts any contribution to Christianity he makes?
This strikes me as demeaning to any and all who are not an SDA in good standing as having anything meaninful to say. Surely, you did not intend to leave that impression, or did you? Shouldn't any statement or opinion be judged solely on its merits, not the person deliving it?
You just don't get it, do you, Elaine? The point he was making was quite clear and was not in any way demeaning to non-Adventists. You might have gotten it if you weren't so anti-SDA. It was akin to saying that if we could discuss Winston Churchill's opinions on American politics (and he wasn't even American), it's certainly relevant to discuss FDR's opinions on it.
Yes that was exactly what I am saying. People always claim we should just 'stick to the Bible' when someone tries to raise Ellen White. Then those same people go off and cite a whole range of non-Adventists and even non-Christian views on a subject. I don't believe Ellen White is the be all and end all. But if it is legitimate to raise the views of non-Adventists and non-Christians on a particular subject, it is certainly legitimate to discuss what Ellen White says on a subject.
Again, Jean and I do often disagree on how one interprets things. But we take a common discourse as the foundation for meaningful dialogue.
William Noel,
The blog does not intend to establish doctrine based on EW. It's simply an analysis on Adventist ecclesiology.
Blessings!
Unfortunately the best of intentions sometimes have opposite results. Discussion of what Ellen White said in this forum more often promotes discord than harmony.
Isn't the article about E White on discord and harmony? Thus, wouldn't discord (i.e. debate) be totally appropriate – in fact the very purpose of Andre trying to stimulate debate with his good article?
That is precisely why we need a new approach to Ellen White's contribution to Adventism, which this blog attempt to present.
Your objective is noble. Unfortunately the probability for success is low because of the number of people who only know how to use her writings to fuel argument. On the other hand, for the majority of Adventists whom I know Ellen White is a curious and possibly inconvenient artifact of church history who has little or no relevance today. You may be able to achieve your objective if you can find a way to pursue them.
Timo,
Adam started out with a great advantage: face-to-face conversations with his creator. Even after falling into sin he still enjoyed intimate communication with God. It just wasn't face-to-face. God offers each of us the same closeness and communication in the Holy Spirit. Yet many remain more committed to messages given a century or longer ago and trying to extract current guidance from them than to receiving the new revelations God has for them.
Not sure I follow…
Timo,
What matters is the closeness of relationship with the Holy Spirit. That relationship is sufficient to teach a person whatever they need to know about God and how He wants us to live.
William and others:
This sounds good, and I believe it. However, we need to be wary of our own subjectivity and over-reliance on feeling as the Holy Spirit. You may feel something is of the Holy Spirit, but if in principle it is not in accordance with the Bible (and EGW used those same principles as guides), you may be deceived by your own desires or someone else's.
A test is the fruits of the Holy Spirit in our lives–how we behave. And that is true as a direction in our spiritual journey. But in spite of our desire to live aright, we don't always do that and can be rude or angry on occasion.
On the other hand the one thing that probably causes many people to leave their church is that they find that there are wonderful, caring people outside the church. Maybe they have bought into the lie that only SDAs are kind, caring, and self-sacrificing and would make good citizens of the new earth. This goes beyond other Christians to nonChristian people as well. It is not true that only a Christian can know peace and feelings of closeness to God. This happens to many who follow Eastern religions, new age, if you please. There is a place in the brain that lights up during prayer and meditation no matter what your religion. And its results bring peace, relaxation and even better relationships with others because it changes brain chemistry. I don't judge these people or question their motives. But be careful not to rely too much on feelings as truth. We need to study to do right and to think truth.
Ella M
You've been studying about God long enough. It's time you graduated from school and started having real experience with God in the Holy Spirit.
Like you, I have seen people leave the SDA church to find greater fellowship in another denomination, or adopt an eastern religion in their pursuit of peace. There is no greater proof about a church having a form of godliness while lacking the power of God. Contrast that with the hundreds of Buddhists, Hindus and even Muslims I have personally seen become Christians because of the greater power and peace of mind they found in Jesus.
I have met the Holy Spirit. He guides and empowers my ministry. I have seen Him guide me in times of danger and provide what I needed when I didn't know I needed it. I've seen Him work through me and members of my team to transform lives by directing attention to God. Along the way He has taught me that a number of traditions and practices I grew up with in the SDA church were, in fact, contrary to God's will. But I have never seen Him lead anyone to believe something not taught by scripture.
As for studying the writings of Ellen White, I don't need them because I'm connected to the same Holy Spirit who spoke through her. When will you let God make that same connection in your life?
As for studying the writings of Ellen White, I don't need them because I'm connected to the same Holy Spirit who spoke through her. When will you let God make that same connection in your life?
Besides this being (or appearing to be) a nauseatingly “holier than thou” statement and question; it begs the question as to whether you, William, have concluded that you may not “need” the Bible because you consider yourself “connected to the same Holy Spirit who spoke through” the holy men of God who wrote under inspiration?
(Of course, for obvious reasons, I intended to place William’s statement in quotation marks.)
Thanks. I do agree sometimes we become focused on thinking the Bible is the Word of God; whereas, the Bible itself admits in John 1 that Jesus is in fact the Word of God. In many ways, the Bible is just another 'lesser light' (but perhaps the 1st amongst equals) as is revelation, tradition, reason, philosophy/science, nature/natural law and experience etc.
The Bible is not an end in itself – and again the end of the Gospel of John notes that it doesn't have all the answers. It says it if all the info about Jesus was written down there wouldn't be enough books in all the world!
Again, only Jesus is the ultimate Truth (capital T) and the Word (capital W).
I would not call the Bible 'first among equals'. The other things are tools to understand the Bible, not its equals. I think that is something people misunderstand about the Wesleyan quadrilateral: it is concerned with our understanding of the Bible, not the Bible itself. We use Scripture itself, reason, tradition and experience to understand the Scripture, and to check our understanding, but Scripture itself remains alone, not one among equals. We use science and other human knowledge, as well as our experience, to understand what Scripture says, and what it means, but there is never an option – as some seem to think – of choosing anything else over Scripture. Scripture remains the foundation on which we stand and on which we build our faith.
Our problem is usually not that we elevate the Bible too high, but that we don't have a sufficient knowledge of God and so do not put him as high as we should above all things, including the Bible. If the Bible is inspired – the canon of belief and practice – then it is alone. The problem we have is working out in theory and practice how Ellen White fits in if she also is inspired. Nothing that is inspired by God can be in any final way irrelevant to Christians. It may not speak directly to every issue, but that is different ot being irrelevant.
Isn't that the difference between sola scriptura and prima sciptura? I hear what you are saying though and do adhere to sola scriptura (at least at this point).
Prima Scriptura is where Scripture is the final human authority. Sola Scripture meant the same thing in Reformation times (all the Reformers also read widely and used all the tools at their disposal to interpret Scripture), but some have since interpreted it to mean only the Bible, with no use of any outside source (except the Holy Spirit). That allows people to sit down with the Bible and read it, coming to their own conclusions, and not have their understanding corrected by anyone who disagrees with them, as it is wrong to listen to the views of man when we should just obey what Scripture says. Many people today use the slogan 'The Bible alone' – by which they almost invariably mean 'My understanding of the Bible alone'.
It seems to be a Christian concept that only Christians are kind, loving, and caring. This is utterly false, but it continues to be a given in many conversations.
There is no qualification, and no origin of the Golden Rule, but it has never been improved upon as a simple, moral imperative.
Elaine, I don't think any Christian (except the most extreme kind) would think that. Jesus himself noted that even pagans give their children bread and not scorpions. I think that is just more of your typical anti-Adventist jihadist hyperbole.
Elaine's anti-SDA jihadist hyperbole? So Stephen we are now reduced to name calling? You have a faith but you have no more "assurity" in the rightness of your faith than any other religion.
Are you suggesting Elaine doesn't have a clear anti-Adventist agenda? Are you suggesting that the phrase 'seems to be a Christian concept that only Christians are kind, loving, and caring' is not a gross exageration, which in of itself is extremely demeaning to Christians?
When did "anti-Adventist jihadism" originate? Why add such derogatory labels to those who disagree with certain positions? Why do you feel it is necessary to add that to a simple statement? That should be beneath someone who should be able to make a statement without such additional and demeaning statements.
And how about the 'shruken heads'?
Andre, I see this exact same article is also published on Spectrum. Yet I see on Spectrum the discussion seems to be able to somewhat stick to the topic, without the necessity of having to defend whether the topic is worth discussing, or whether we believe in God, Jesus or the Bible.
Back to the actual topic per Andres' article, I agree it would certainly be interested to think of what Ellen White would be saying about the issue of WO if she were here today. I agree no doubt she would be firing off a huge number of letters about it. I think we might also be quite suprised by what she said.
As someone else commented, the book Great Controversy is some 60% or more about being 'at variance'. Looking at the history of the office of prophethood, prophets typically promote reform – not unity through tradition. It is the priesthood who normally promotes unity through tradition.
If you look at all she wrote in regard to the 1888 controversy, you might find she was more concerned with how we treat each other than with the 'correctness' of a doctrine. I am not sure I would want a letter from here were I on either side in this latest 'battle'. If we lose sight of the larger issues
– why we are here, and what we should be doing – then being right becomes irrelevant. I don't think using the Bible, Ellen White or the Holy Spirit as a blunt weapon against the other side really puts us on God's side. When we can all use them as tools to come to the will of God together, then we will be on God's side and may have a chance of finding a workable solution.
References to "anti-adventist jihadism," "satanists," and "trolls" and "trolling," do not strengthen the case that SDAs or Christians have exceptional compassion. Nor should we conclude that SDAs are, as a group, more or less loving than anyone else, just because someone who self-identifies as SDA resorts to using such terms.
Respectfully, Stephen, can't we all just get along without injecting language that drives wedges between us? Let's do what we came here for: conversation, communication, clarification, and advancing knowledge and understanding of one another and of our reasons for existing.
I herewith declare that I do not come here to trawl, bait, troll, or disrupt. I come here for some fellowship with people with whom I share some history and background and questions and concerns. Among other things, I come here in an attempt to understand some of the reasons others with somewhat similar backgrounds do, or do not, share my current perspectives. All this can be accomplished within a context of mutual respect. If I continue to visit this site at all, I will try to hold up my end of the bargain.
Fair enough Joe – I always appreciate your really good attitude. I hope all parties could likewise refrain from the continual 'shruken heads' comments and the like.
P.S. I don't think Adventists are any or more less loving than anyone else either. Our community of faith shouldn't be a place where sinners can hang out but a hospital for sinners. I am certainly not willing to be the first to cast the first stone.
Sorry, that should be, "community of faith shouldn't be a place where saints can hang out but a hospital for sinners."
One would hope that a 'hospital' would at least be able to demonstrate some signs of recovery. Otherwise it ould indicate that the 'medicine' is not working.
Kevin I do believe Christian people, including Seventh-day Adventists, are good people. I would even say 'Christian countries' are more generous than 'non-Christian' countries – at least that is what statistics on giving show. But no one is suggesting Christians are perfect people.
The 'medicine' you talk of is the hope of salvation despite our sinful behaviour – not because of anything we are doing. Sure, there might be 'signs of recovery', but again unless you embrace the doctrine of perfectionism, a Church very much remains a hospital where everyone has a terminal illness.
But surely you would expect some 'growing in grace' to be happening? When we read that church members differ little if at all on most measures from non-Christians, it does call into question the effectiveness of Christianity. We may remain sinners, but there should be some observable 'recovery'. And, no, I would not personally be looking for a strict law keeping as the evidence, but perhaps a little more in terms of behaviour than from the 'pagans' could be expected?
And what evidence do you have that Adventists or Christians are not 'growing in Grace'. I can only talk about what I see around me personally. I still see many, many young people going to Outback Aboriginal communities on StormCo trips. I still see Churches running Christmas programmes such as Road to Bethlehem, which attract thousands of non-Christian visitors each year, and is a beacon to the whole community. I still see people doing bread runs for the poor, working in soup kitchens for the hungry, and heavily involved in prison ministries for the incarcerated and forgotten (in WA the local non-denominational prison ministries, 3 out of the 7 on the Executive are Adventists from my local Church).
Thus, I would strongly dispute how whole premise that there are not demonstratable signs of recovery. If you living under a tree which isn't producing good fruit, I suggest you go visit another orchard.
Despite that, when it comes to abuse, divorce, and other issues, we do not show any positive difference to the world. I have sometimes wondered if how we teach the gospel leads people to focus on what they do rather than on what they are? We excell in doing good works – a good thing in itself – but that does not always extend into our personal relationships, even with those closest to us. I think it was of Dostoevsky that it was said that he loved humanity deeply, but mistreated his family because he found it so difficult to love individuals. I don't want to disparage in any way any of the good works, but I was asking about our personal behaviour when we are not in public, and when our deeds can indeed be hidden – at least for a time.
I am sure you have read the posts re Dr Pipim. He could claim all sorts of 'good works', but do you not stop to wonder if he was really allowing the gospel to work in his heart? We are none of us sinless, and it might be foolish for any of us to be sure we would not do what he did in his place, but is it not in the less public areas of life where the gospel should perhaps have its strongest impact? We may do all sorts of things as churches or groups, but do we, as individuals, love other individuals as well as we should?
William,
"You've been studying about God long enough. It's time you graduated from school and started having real experience with God in the Holy Spirit."
I can't believe you would say this–you don't even know me! It is not only insulting but unkind to judge someone elses spiritual life. Yes, I live my life through the guidance of the Holy Spirt, and I was not questioning your experience. Apparently you didn't get what I was saying. It was a warning to anyone that feeling is no way to judge the Spirit. There are many who experience feelings of awe, peace, or relaxation just by following certain exercises or being in nature. This method of meditation is used extensively in medicine for pain relief, stress, and for mental health issues. It is not a spiritual practice but can be used that way as the Eastern religion discovered and based their religions on it in the distant pass. (Think Bhudda's enlightenment.)
Christian prayer can be experienced the same way with the additional truth that we worship a God who hears. I believe God works through "natural methods that are confirmed by brain science.
I experience the Holy Spirit in coincidences, impressions (that are biblically sound), answers to prayer, through other poeple, and study of the Bible, research attended with prayer, and a multiplicity of common-sense approaches. Sometimes it includes feelings; sometimes not.
While I do not judge those who use charismatic practices, I can see that they are also based on feeling and emotions rather than the Holy Spirit (though they believe this is the Holy Spirit).
Again, there are people outside Christianity who practice Christ's principles without knowing him. I believe the Holy Spirit guides them as well, because they know how to love. God has His people all over and they are not just Adventists. You can be an Adventist/Christian without being born again.
We have a God who is with us no matter how we feel at the moment. Consider the person with Alzheimers. Does God desert him when he acts strangely and even may curse?
I believe in a balance of the emotions and the intellect. Some people go too far one way or the other, but we have no right to judge their relationship with God as some have done here to Elaine.
Ella,
For any offense I have caused you, I apologize.
Let me clarify what led me to the "graduation challenge" statement. Your description of relationship with the Holy Spirit was typical of so many people I have known through my life where there is a desire to produce the fruits of the Spirit but a great fear of allowing ourselves to become immersed in the Holy Spirit for fear it may be an emotional experience like Charismatics experience, or that it will somehow take us away from our study of scripture. This has led Adventists to talk about the Holy Spirit, but to reflexively reject any evidence of the Holy Spirit as a Satanic deception.
It is one thing to talk about the fruits of the Spirit. It is quite another to be using the gifts the Holy Spirit gives all believers so they can be effective in ministry. Those gifts have several purposes. First is transforming the church into a harmonious fellowship where God's love reigns supreme and members work together. The benefits members enjoy in this fellowship are so great that just sharing about it with their non-believer friends creates interest where those friends want to enjoy the same blessings, so they become interested in the church. Second is empowering us to do things that obviously are well beyond human capability. These demonstrations of power cause people to become curious about God.
Being a participant with God in all these things is a very emotional experrience. My heart has been touched to tears seeing the needs of people I have encountered in the course of my ministry. I've also been raised to heights of joy I never knew were possible as I watched God work and then began praising Him for all I had seen Him do. The greatest joy comes from seeing someone commit their life to God because of the love I have helped share with them.
Do you know how God has empowered you for ministry? Do you have a ministry that you know from experience is empowered by the Holy Spirit? Are you seeing people brought to a saving relationship with God because of your ministry? If you can answer "Yes" to all three questions, you've graduated. If not, you need to graduate.
Sorry, I never meant to say that there is no emotion in religion–there certainly is, but it's not the goal or focus. Having being accused of being too emotional in the past, I have tried to change that. I have a love of learning and enjoy theology and sharing it. My ministry is telling people that God is more wonderful and loving than they have been taught or heard about. My gift is writing, and I have had more than two hundred articles published. The feedback has been good, but I do not know how many or who or if any have been "saved." I don't need to know, and leave that with the Lord. Most of my contacts are other SDAs and they need spiritual help too. I can only hope I have made a difference.
Your question is a bit like asking someone if they have been saved. You must know how that can come across. To have a criteria as to whether I have "graduated" or not is a bit —–(you fill in the space)
I am so happy that you have found your niche in the service of the Lord. Since being retired, I have not transitioned well and am only gradually getting back to my writing. I have had to struggle with mild ADD (not hyperactive) all my life, and this means not being able to focus well if not in a structured working environment. That's why I get so defensive of those who struggle with in-born physical issues they cannot help. We are not all made alike, we have different personality types. I am sure you are more assertive than I am in a crowd.
BTW I find that the New Hope Church where David Newman was the pastor until he retired, to be that kind of church you describe. The local church where I teach a SS class twice a month is also harmonious, and I have not been aware of any disunity the many years I have attended and where my parents attended.
Ella,
Apparently you and I have a lot in common. I also am a writer and have ADD.
Please, do not apologize for being emotional. Far too many people hide their emotions behind walls where they do not want people to reach inside and thus increase their suffering where they could more easily be healed. A loving touch and a sympathetic word can do amazing things to break down those walls and build relationships that grow in the sunlight of God's love.
Your challenges in transitioning into retirement may be your golden opportunity to discover the gift-based ministry God has waiting for you. Your greatest challenge will be letting God reach through your preconceptions about what is or is not "ministry" so you will recognize it. Your personality type does not matter because God will empower it and prepare the way ahead of you.
We think of Jesus as a great teacher or preacher. But that was not his primary work. He spent most of his time doing miracles. He healed the sick, raised the dead, fed the hungry and comforted the hurting. The first result of every one of those miracles was an improvement in the recipient's life. Ask God to show you how He wants you to improve the lives of others. Then be ready to step out in faith when He gives you opportunity because you're in for the adventure of a lifetime.
"good old Ellen White"??? Hmmmm!