My First “Dear Abby” Letter
A question received and answered by Andy Hanson, September 12, 2014
Dear Mr. Hanson,
I have a confession to make. I’ve been reading your Adventist Today blog since the Patricia Moleski days. I guess that makes me a fan. Anyway, since our intellectual instincts seem to be in sync—we don’t believe in a literal seven-day creation and a worldwide flood—and we both claim to be Adventists, albeit real “lefties,” shouldn’t both of us come out of the closet and ask to have our names dropped from the church books? According to our General Conference President, Ted Wilson, speaking at an educators conference in Utah,
Sincerely,
A Fan
Dear Fan,
Thank you for your fanship and your question. While I wouldn’t presume to answer that question for you, here is my answer. I plan to ignore Ted. I will tender my resignation when my local church requests it. After all, Ted is only a member of the Adventist Church. He isn’t an Adventist Pope. His thoughts and ideas are not inerrant. And his willful ignorance regarding the “seventh-day” on a round planet, not to mention astronomy and history, is self-revelatory when he goes on to claim that “the actual seventh day has never been lost. It can be documented through history and through astronomy.”
Anyway, most of my fellow church members shrug off his pronouncements, and if he regards National Geographic* as a publication designed to subvert the minds of the faithful, that’s his personal business.
Sincerely,
*Roff Smith, “Before Stonehenge,” National Geographic, August, 2014, 26-51.
Dear Abby/Hanson,
You mean I could have stayed on board the SDA life boat 40 years ago? With “Sustentation” (that’s what retirement income was called then) now deposited into my Bank Of America account periodically? That is, using your reasoning. I could have ignored the credo of the baptismal certificate I received as a dunked kid (baptism)? And, even though I understand it has been altered since then, it still appears be the contract of admission and reflects the core of Adventism reflected by Reverend Wilsons stringent affirmation. You mean when I later became an SDA minister I could have accepted a paycheck in ethical nirvana while being an unsubscriber to its rules of membership? I think I may have grounds for legal action since I left under duress of conscience.
My question to you, Dear Abby/Hanson can I sue for back pay?
Sincerely, Bugs
The issue is spiritual credibility, isn’t it? If a Roman Catholic decided the pope was not “head of the church”, would it be honest or credible to still claim you are Roman Catholic? I think we can assume that something like 95 per cent of all professing SDA’s believe in a six literal day creation with the 7th day being the Sabbath. Did anybody take a straw poll?
Neither is Ted Wilson just another church member as was stated. His influence and authority transcends the simple church member definition. But the fact is, all of us must on some occasions decide if the church represents what we believe and do we represent the church by what we believe? It is simply dishonest to claim the name and not represent the teaching, at least substancially. The concensus belief on creation is overwhelming for the obvious reason. And in this light, pastor Wilson’s comment is not so “off the wall” as some seem to think it is. If a Sunday keeper is convinced of our Sabbath position, we don’t expect them to stay in their church and keep bickering about the Sabbath Sunday issue. Yet some want to stay in the SDA church and bicker on and on about the creation/evolution fiasco. A strange sense of reasoning in my opinion.
Bill Sorensen
A great article, Andy, and a fascinating discussion, all.
Strong feelings all around, which is probably unsurprising.
I think there can be a temptation to smear others in ways that are unfair, in both directions, and perhaps unintentionally. Saying something like “My personal integrity required me to leave when I found that the discrepancies between my own beliefs and the official beliefs of the denomination became too great” is fine, but it is often read as an indictment of the personal integrity of those who have made a different decision.
For my own part, I have a deep respect for those both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’. Some believe there is more value in working from within to heal the denomination, others that they can no longer identify as SDA. (Of course, there are also some who believe the only thing the denomination needs to do is double down on and further tighten the beliefs.)
So perhaps we can *all* refrain from maligning the integrity of others, and say something more like “This is my story – now please tell me yours”. Maybe it’s Pollyannaish of me, but I do believe truth has a power of its own, and doesn’t fear open discussion.
The issue is not credibility or pensions, the issue is truth. If a Roman Catholic decides the pope should not be considered infallible, to become a Lutheran is a cop out. To help the RC church understand their error is the spiritually credible way.
For an Adventist who has seen a bigger, better, more honest interpretation of Creation to leave the church is a cop out. Dietrich Bonhoffer staying in Germany to fight Hitler as an insider was the moral decision, instead of remaining safe and not involved in the US as he had a chance.
Ellen White says it this way, “Agitate, agitate, agitate! The subjects which we present to the world must be to us a living reality. It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith, we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments that will not only silence our opponents but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny…” CW p. 40.
“If a Roman Catholic decides the pope should not be considered infallible, to become a Lutheran is a cop out. To help the RC church understand their error is the spiritually credible way.”
I don’t think you can “sell” this agenda to very many people, Jack. It would seem that you deny any denomination the right to define itself and than discipline any member who attack the stated definition. And if your view was credible, there would never have been a reformation that was forced out of the Catholic church for the obvious reasons. Neither would EGW or others who agreed with Miller felt the need to come together and oppose the views of the various churches they had been members of. They would have continued in their various denominations claiming they had a right to advocate their views contrary to the stated position of their churches.
Bill Sorensen
Ted Wilson is NOT a pope; nor does he represent all the members of the church. He can ONLY speak for himself and no one else. His beliefs should not intimidate members as their beliefs are personal and only their local congregation can rule on their membership. Popes and presidents are NOT infallible.
Thanks Andy for the chuckle! You made my day!
I also hope that in the midst of all the disagreements we can extend grace to those who find themselves disagreeing. And as for Ted, while I find myself in disagreement, its not in what he says, but in how, yet I still pray for him and know that leadership today is a difficult, hazardous journey.
I could wish that Adventism was known first and best for reflecting their core values of Love – Choice – Respect – Freedom in Christ. Which just might mean that we love our enemies, and do good to those who disagree with us, maybe even in this blog! Keep up the good work Andy!