How Change Happens
by Ryan Bell
by Ryan Bell, June 26, 2014
Yesterday an appeals committee for the United Methodist Church overturned the ruling against Rev. Frank Schaefer and reinstated him as an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church after he surrendered his credentials at the end of last year. A jury of 13 United Methodist clergy suspended him for 30 days last November after he performed his son's same-sex wedding against the church's Book of Discipline. At the conclusion of the 30 days Schaefer was expected to say he would never perform another same-sex wedding.
Schaefer told the New York Times, "Today there was a very clear and strong signal from the church, and that message is, ‘Change is on the way.’ One day we will celebrate the fact that we have moved beyond this horrible chapter in our church’s life.”1
I couldn't help but wonder about my own case, which in some ways was different than Schaefer's. There were multiple issues for which I was forced to resign, ranging from doctrine to politics to administrative issues, such as being publicly critical of some denominational decisions and not being a "team player" when it came to public evangelism.
If progressive groups within otherwise fundamentalist church groups wish to continue to influence the denomination from within, they are going to have to spend some political capital to come to the aid of those on the front lines who take the hits for what progressives believe. Leaving their wounded on the field while cautiously calculating how to "live to fight another day" will not advance the cause. The only lesson there is for other would-be reformers: do not speak up or act out.
Then again, I'm not sure the news is as good as Schaefer thinks. While it feels good to be vindicated, the appeals committee made their decision on the basis that "a clergyman can only be punished for what he has been convicted of doing in the past, not for what he may or may not do in the future."2 Bottom line: nothing has changed. If he performs another same-sex wedding, he's potentially right back in the same boat.
Which leads me to the conclusion that while it would have felt good to have progressive Adventists come to my defense in a substantive way, it is ultimately a losing cause. As long as the Bible is held to be the authoritative word of God for all time, impervious to new scientific and social-scientific evidence, there is really no hope for those in the church who are committed to human progress, which is the foundation of what being progressive means.
1https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/25/us/methodist-panel-reinstates-defrocked-pastor.html
2https://www.umc.org/news-and-media/committee-on-appeals-reaches-decision-in-schaefer-case
———————-
Ryan Bell was an Adventist pastor for two decades, most recently the senior pastor of the Hollywood (California) Church. In March 2013 he resigned his position due to theological and practical differences. As an adjunct professor he has taught subjects ranging from intercultural communication to bioethics. Currently he is a researcher, writer and speaker on the topic of religion and irreligion in America. He received a Master of Divinity degree from Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan, and a Doctor of Ministry in Missional Leadership from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California.
Ryan, I don't know you personally, but I have followed your ministry with great hope and praise.
We progressive Adventists gladly came to your defense for your progressive and Biblical advances in leading a truly Christlike church program. We protested loud your dismissal as a progressive pastor. But tragically you have become the worst enemy of progress in Adventism I can imagine by jumping ship to flirtation with atheism and unnecessary Biblical diminishment.
All the opponents of progressive Adventism need to do to discredit all the groundbreaking and laudible progress you made with your church family in public compassionate ministry is to say, see! Just look at the end of your progressivism, it just ends up with the denial of Christ and jettisoning the Bible.
While I can on one level understand your reactions to being sacked and I am sorry for your very real soul and body pains, but when everything you have done since being dropped by your church administration justifies their actions, all I can do is cry Absalom, Oh Absalom.
When you were draining off the dirty bathwater of Adventism you had our full support. Is it really going to help now to hack away at the Biblical core of Adventism? Your potential was so great as a leader of Adventist progress, how did you get sidetracked into apparant reactionary faithlessness? Is there a chance we can see you come back to a Jesus promoting, Bible respecting, progressive humanitarian bridge between faith and reason? Can you even now help us unite our Love of Jesus and His return, to the Love of Jesus for the masses?
I can undestand your disapponitment, Jack. The words of support were very much apprecaited, but there was no tangible help. No one offered me a job. No one tried to find me a place where I could continue my ministry. Condolences were very much appreciated, but in Schaefer's case, they found a way to bring him back in. That's what I was referring to. I couldn't remain unemployed forever. I've hit rock bottom twice already. Where is the church family when you REALLY need tangible support?
As for where I am today, it was, indeed, a logical progression. If you can explain to me how you believe in God and the inspiration of the Bible, I would very much appreciate it. Everythying I've studied over the past 20 years, from Seminary to my own reading, led me inexoribly to the conclusion that the Bible is a human construct and so far my conclusion is that God is, too.
Ryan, far better and brighter minds than mine have likely tried to influence you, so I have no confidence that I can do so. But I can tell you what has been the most influential on my mind regarding the Bible first:
Gabriel Josipovici — THE BOOK OF GOD–A RESPONSE TO THE BIBLE, Yale University Press, 1988 was most helpful to me in seeing the Bible as more than a box of unrelate tracts from hither and yon. Josipovici was a professor of English, and not religious, but seriously deep and intellectual when he came as an adult to the Bible. He confirms that the Bible is a unique book, not a hodgepodge, and that internal evidence suggests it has an overarching theme and a truthfulness in its stories not found in fiction. A few lines–
"When Jacob finds himself engaged in a fight in the middle of the night when a 'man' who is also 'God', he does not say to him, as he would in a fairy tale: 'I will not let you go till you tell me your name'. Instead, surprisingly, he asks: 'I will not let you do till you bless me'… Our task is to wrestle with this book as Jacob wrestled with the 'man', in pitch blackness, and not for the mere sake of the contest or in order to wrest the book's secret from it, but in order that we may hear it utter its blessing upon us. But that, we must not forget, is what we would expect of our encounter with any great book."
Regarding God himself, in my own night struggles with him, I have found this book recently the most vigorous and sturdy (although of course C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton smoothed the way to belief in my nonage):
Michael Novak, NO ONE SEES GOD–THE DARK NIGHT OF ATHEISTS AND BELIEVERS, Doubleday, 2008.
"This book is for people who, like me, have spent long years in the dark and windswept open spaces between unbelief and belief. It is about a fairly common voyage through the dark, not only in our age, but in every age… I have met a few others who cannot invest even that much passion in God. They are rather indifferent about the 'God thing'. These are, especially, the people who put higher value on a good lunch than on inquiring after God… Passionate secularists [on the other hand] heap ridicule on the Bible. They tear to shreds Christian doctrine–the whole garment–or with some effort rip out the seams that hold its parts together. Thus I will need to show how out in the dark, and without every wholly coming in from the dark, I have come to understand that what the Jewish Testament and the Christian testment teach us about God, about human beings, and about ourselves is a truer account of reality than any other I have encountered."
These books are truth tellers, and they give evidence of where and why and how they find true the Bible and its stories, as improbable as that may seem.
If you have not already tasted these books on your own, and are not weary of hearing why you might be half right in your present path, I would be pleased to gift you copies of both. Send me a mailing address to drhoehn@msn.com.
Josepevichi was written when you were young and tender, and is no longer in print. Novak and I are both older than you, but then so are brethren Hitchens and Dawkins so give us another chance.
Perhaps a better title would be "How Change Doesn't Happen".
Having a form of Godliness while denying the power thereof is not a novel idea. It has been around for thousands of years – going back at least as far as King Saul. And the consequences speak for themselves. When the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul it was too soon replaced by evil spirits.
Ryan, I dare to believe that God is still working within you. You have great talents that could and may still be used for His cause. The love of Jesus is stronger than any demons that may be tormenting your soul. Saul of Tarsus learnt this lesson on the road to Damascus. Which Saul will you choose to become? Will you become an apostle of Jesus Christ to the atheists?
Thankfully, I am quite confident that no demons are tormenting my soul. If anything I'm bid farewell to the demons that 'were' tormenting me.
What ever happened to the SdA pastor who was forced to resign because he attended a relative's gay wedding?
If you refer to the previous article on Atoday, he was forced out because he signed the formal papers as the officiant. He was not merely an attendee.
I find Ryan's argument somewhat compelling. The long view of the Bible is a story of redemption that is beautifle and soul saving, but we have misused it tremendously over the last few centuries. As long as we are locked into worshiping an ancient text clearly riddled with human interpretation and factual errors, then it will be hard to bridge the increasing gap between ancient traditions and modern science and progressive human development. No amount of rationalization can whitewash this fact which is one of the reasons it is so difficult for the old church to retain its youth. When one is educated in facts and proven science, it is very hard to rationalize ancient tradition as fact. This struggle will only become more and more difficult as time marches on. Either we reinterpret our faith for a modern age, or we become irrelevant and die off with our traditions.
Who is the “we” that to your way of thinking must “reinterpret our faith for a modern age” at the risk of “[becoming] irrelevant and [dying] off with our traditions;” Christianity generally or Adventism particularly?
Adventists, as you know, aren’t the only Christian denomination that regards the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice. In theory at least, most other Protestant denominations regard scripture the same way, Mark.
Are you using “modern science” and “progressive human development” to represent the same thing? Are you saying that “facts and proven science” disprove the miracles recounted in scripture?
Stephen I am not surprised to hear from you so quickly! I would posit that Christianity in general has fallen into the trap of worshiping scripture more than worshiping the God who ispired ancient writers to try to capture His message, albeit imperfectly and with much human error. Almost all church denominations can be accused of using these writings peacemeal to justify their particular brand of Christianity, which is a normal human tendency.
Modern science of course is not without its own faults. A thinking person has to interpret science and its data just as he/she has to interpret ancient scripture for a modern age. To say the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice is to limit our thinking to a collection of writings that were inspirational for their time perhaps but which now seem antiquated in so many ways. Ellen White and her writings have been evaluated in this same way and reinterpreted for us today in ways that keep her fresh and useful for many, but not all Adventists. As to miracles in biblical literature, I have no comment to make, other than to say to each his own. I do not discount the possibility of their relevance for us today, and the underlying message of those stories is the part that is most meaningful for me personally.
Yes, Mark! Exactly. If you haven't run across Gretta Vosper's book, With or Without God: Why the Way We Live Is More Important Than What We Believe, I think you'd really enjoy it! Check it out!
http://www.amazon.com/With-Without-God-Important-Believe/dp/1554684005
Ryan and Mark:
I hear what you are saying about the Bible and the church's religious writings. Things do have to be taken in their setting. But the stories go beyond that. There may be a time when you can't believe them literally–look beyond that place. Look for the spiritual principles that are there–what do they mean? Recognize that the wisdom, for example, in Proverbs is truth. Read the Bible as a message to the heart and not to the modern intellect. The inspiration is there and shows that humanity is the same today as yesterday when it comes to what really matters. We spend too much time trying to prove the historical truth of the Bible instead of living by its spiritual truths.
There is much beauty in the Bible and positive things about God when you consider the whole picture. When one looks for the brutal, they will find it, for it is honest about humanity's failings. And those who recorded it were inspired but not perfect in their interpretation. It was how they saw things in their era.
There are footsteps of God in many world religions, but there is evil when not practiced in love.
As I can imagine, Ryan, you were hit very hard by your experience when you were just trying to do what you thought was right. This firing triggered giving up. It escalated ordinary doubts to ultimate unbelief. I didn't know much about this event or who it was, but now that I do, I am sorry. A church like the one in Hollywood certainly would need a different approach to its community than others.
You are in my prayers; what else can I do?
Even if one believes the stories of the Bible are myth; they are myths with meaning that can bring one back to belief in a God who loves.
“Even if one believes the stories of the Bible are myth; they are myths with meaning that can bring one back to belief in a God who loves.”
If the stories of the Bible are untrue myths, i.e. similar to Aesop’s fables, then there is no "God who loves;" and "belief in" Him is therefore folly. That may be the point that Bell ‘gets,’ that some who ‘advise’ him don’t.
Disbelieve the Bible yet believe in God; believe in God yet disbelieve the Bible. It makes no sense either way friends. No one has approached making any sense of this philosophy; because it is nonsensical.
Stephen,
Are you being a little rash? There are people who don't believe the Bible, but believe in God. I'm not sure that beleiving in God must automatically cause one to believe the Bible either.
I for one do not say there is no God. I do suspect that if there is a "God" he, she, it may be very different from out usual conceptions of such, but I do not exclude the possibility. On the other hand, I am very sure the Bible is just the scribblings of men; mythical sribblings perhaps, but scribblings just the same.
There may in fact be no mythical scribblings, Bible or otherwise, which contain any or much truth about God as such. Any Reality beyond our material sphere may be quite "other" than we can as yet begin to imagine. Just because I ditch so called sacred books does not make that possibility any less real, nor does believing such writings make it any more real if it is ultimately BS and there is no greater reality beyond or sphere.
Beliefs in anything beyond our sphere should never exceed the observable or verifiable evidence imho.
Mythical sribblings are not evidence or verification..
Myths are neither true nor untrue in a literal sense as they are inventive, imaginative stories that give a universal principle just as Christ's parables. Do Adventists accept that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is a literal description of hell? Why not? Is it because you accept that it a story, just like Aesop's fables that point out principles in an easy way that a child can understand.
Millions can accept and understand much of the book of Proverbs and it is useless to try to determine whether they were literal or figurative examples.
As noted here before, all readers of the Bible should first take a course in the literature of the Bible: the various genre of a variety of books and multiple authors rather than seeing it as one book by one author. It covers at least a thousand years and no book or writers can be expected to express the same ideas in similar ways over that length of time.
God loved us enough that he was willing to look past our offenses and do what was required to redeem us. I think it would be wonderful if church leaders decided to do the same. There is much the church could gain from reconciling and restoring Ryan Bell. It could be a great experience for all parties in learning to love in spite of an offense or our feelings about it.
Actually Mark I had resisted commenting on this piece because Jack Hoehn sort of predicted that people like me would now be able to say, “See, I told you so.”
This does come down to how we regard the Bible and what inspiration means; but to indicate ‘no comment’ with regard to Biblical miracles, or say “to each his own” is a major league copout. The fact that “[you] do not discount the possibility of their relevance for us today” is pretty open-minded of you (facetiously).
If the scriptural miracles are not true, then there is no relevant underlying message; and there was no inspiration from God. The miracles denote that God isn’t us. They alone serve to demonstrate God’s existence. This is why the slope that Dr. Bell (among others) is on is slippery.
How many examples of this (on this site?!) are necessary to clue us in?
In any case, I would like to know what you mean (and what Dr. Bell means) by human progress.
I'm intrigued.
While someone like Ryan Bell, and no doubt many others like him, are involved in groundbreaking and positive ministry, "progressives" cheer them on. Admiration for their compassion, insights, widsom, courage and committment abound.
Why is it that the moment any such person applies that wisdom, discernment, committment and courage to following where that wisdom and insight lead, they are described as having evil spirits, as Absolom, as the worst enemy of Adventism, as a Saul?
Does it not occur to those who heaped praise upon such "progressives" one moment and condemn them next, that if such people, with so much to lose, are compelled to follow their convictions, conscience, passions, compassions, and insights where they may lead, that just MAYBE there is something about their journey seriously worth understanding?
It seems to me that rather than saying "see, told you so" opponents of "progressive Adventism" ought rather to get off their knees, out of their bunkers, open their eyes, and, at the very least, question how fast they want to make their church totally irelevant to the human cause and human progress.
It equally seems to me that "progressives" who are so quick to call the devil down upon such people, should do some serious soul searching into their real motivations and honesty. If they are so "progressive", what is it about their attitude, thinking, search, honesty, and courage that causes them to not make the same journey? Is it because people like Ryan Bell are deceived? Or is it because there is an absence of courage and honesty in some? Why ultimately are they even "progressive"? Is it really nothing more than their personality? Their chosen culture? Does actually seeking out the best answers to questions play a part? Would they follow their convictions in spite of the cost, if they were convicted of any answers, such as Ryan Bell has hinted at?
I note from Ryan's blog:
"As long as the Bible is held to be the authoritative word of God for all time, impervious to new scientific and social-scientific evidence, there is really no hope for those in the church who are committed to human progress, which is the foundation of what being progressive means."
Can anyone truly be a "progressive Adventist" without letting go of the idea that the Bible is to be held as the authoritative word of God for all time? And, if they do let go of such an idea with courage and integrity, there seems to be no evidence, logic, or reason why they will not, perhaps should not, follow a similar journey as Ryan has taken…
Jack: "When you were draining off the dirty bathwater of Adventism you had our full support."
I've asked you before, I think, who made you the arbiter of what is and is not the "dirty bathwater of Adventism"? Just wondered..
Chris, please, one doesn't need any degree or office to know when a pastor leads his flock to focusing on the needs of their commuity from the love of Jesus and love of humans made in God's image, to ignore the possibly damaging, and unnecessarily restrictive strictures in Adventism that would stop this Christ like ministry. Please don't turn my praise of Ryan's Ministry into anything else. The metaphore is widely used and generally understood.
Ryan is quite right when he suggests "WHY THE WAY WE LIVE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT WE BELIEVE". But living that WAY has been taught to many of us by Adventism, and in agreeing with him, we are unwilling to accept that the Bible is done and God is questionable. There are millions of firm God and Bible believers who have no problem with scientific facts and free and generous humanitarian service. I have spent my life career for the last 43 years in taking care of the needs of non-Adventists and non-Christians, because Adventism taught me both why and how to do so. The organized church paid me to do so for 13 years in African mission hospitals, and the Adventist related health organization in the USA continues to provide me a very fine structure to still do so to this very day. Many people seek me out not because I am a doctor, but specifically because I am an Adventist doctor. There is still a wonderful healthy Baby of a Church in authentic progressive Adventism although hindered and surrounded by some muddy thinking and dirty fear of scientific truth in Ryan's church of record.
Ryan – I am truly sorry that you suffered so greatly because of your change of beliefs, but nevertheless, by placing mankind above the Bible you have now become a humanist, and a humanist is basically one who puts himself above God. There is nothing new at all when it comes to higher criticism of the Bible (questioning its authenticity as God's inspired Word) and evolutionary thought—these things have been around for centuries, and you just recently imbibed them. But humanism in any of its manifestations can never fill the void in one's life, never. It all goes back to the words of Jesus, that we must become as little children, trusting, believing, submitting. You need a good dose of God's love. I'll be praying for you.
Jim
A secular humanist would not say they put themselves *above* god. They would say, there is unlikely to be a god and we are all we have. Humanists don't necessarily feel a void. At least no void that isn't filled by meaningful relationships, civic participation and so forth. Do a little reading into humanism. You may be surprised.
Mark, I have seen many times just what you posted. "That Christianity in general has fallen into the trap of worshiping scripture more than worshiping the God who inspired ancient writers to try to capture His message". It is not about us – but about Him. The scriptures show us how messy lives can be, yet God is always there and big enough.
ryanjbell, ryanjbell, are you here?? So, the Bible is a human construct. Yes, i believe it is. And, perhaps God is too?? i don't know you ryan jbell, some how i really don't think you believe God is fictional, a myth. i understand you were one who would seek out those who were oppressed, distressed, and getting their confidence, would tell them of the love of Jesus. What drove you to be this type of person concerned with those the Church turns their face away from and won't invite into their midst, for fear of contamination?? Was it because of your love for Christ, or had you considered it just going through the motions, you really didn't believe in? i can fully understand your outright unbelief, and yes, even anger, at the Organization that paid your stipend, would react to your ministry to the very souls that Christ associated with. Ironic, isn't it, that an organ. supposedly carrying the name Adventists, would deny the witness of one called to go out into the highways, and byways, and "BRING THEM INTO MY WEDDING SUPPER", would be challenged to back away and stay in the safe cofines as dictated by the Earthly hierarchy, "we didn't hire you to be a GOOD SAMARITAN". Thus nullifying the command of JESUS CHRIST. The SDA Church has its Pope and its Curia. The voice of Jesus is calling you not to give up the battle for souls for His Kingdom. Don't let your former slave owner gain the victory by stating "see, we were right, ryanjbell is a shallow fellow indeed, just as we thought he was". Ryan. i am in my upper 80's. i became committed to Jesus Christ 44 years ago, a Saul/Paul experience, and i go to bed every night with His name on my lips, and the first thing i think of when awaking is, Praise my God, and through out the day, i truly believe The Holy Spirit abides with me. No ryanjbell, God is real. Regardless of how that message penetrated this dense computer of mine, while i was content with the garbage i was constantly feeding it, is a miracle in itself. You shouldn't just walk away from the Wisdom of the Ages. He isn't at fault for your travail.
We are Truly blessed and priviledged to know our Jesus, and HE KNOWS our souls, which are from everlasting. My time is short in this life cycle, and although i am not afraid of fire, cremation is my choice, i entertain no doubts that when He calls me from the ashes, my soul will be restored, as it was for this life. Our eternal God created us in His Image, as we have been in the past, and will be when we assume His glorious Spirit form. HE did not bring us here for this life only, to permit His gifts of intelligence to be for only one lifetime, but an eternal progression in the eternal cycle of our sharing with our Godhead. Look up ryanjbell, we are in this Earth's last days, as we know it. All hell is about to be displayed. The world we know is in turmoil. Doubt it will last this century. The heavens declare GOD's GLORY. ISN'T IT BEAUTIFUL. None of this happened from nothing. It is the MASTER'S plan. God bless you and keep you r y a n j b e l l.
Hello Ryan, I have followed your journey somewhat closely and also read your blogs on your patheos site. I have listened to your lectures at atheist forums and read your posts on Adventist websites. At the atheist conference you have stressed that throughout your ministry your views changed from that of the denomination (eschatology, inspiration, prophecy, view of the Bible) to the point of contemplating and documenting atheism months before your forced resignation (Patheos, April 10 2014) but on Adventist websites the general tenor is that you were a victim of an administrative inquisition that didn't understand or value your ministry as a good (and progressive) Adventist pastor. I am not a defender of the organization nor do I dare stand as an accuser, in my mind this just raises some cognitive dissonance. Maybe you could help me understand: if the former is correct why should the denomination have continued to employ you (an atheist pastor would have been quite the novelty)? If the latter is correct is the abandonment of all faith a counterreaction against the denomination? Or is there a way to harmonize the two?
It's a little of both, Peter. I think the denomination should be able to grow and adapt to a new world. Christianity's greatest trait, and the reason it is as strong as it is today, is it's ability to adapt. Galileo challenged a Biblical cosmology and was punished, but we adapted. It's happeend hundreds of times since. But some institions are inherently rigid and immovable because to them, movement = unfaithfulness.
So, while I wish the denomination could adapt to include me, I understand that this is very likely impossible. Also, my views today are very different than they were in 2012 and early 2013. It would be even harder for me to be included today and, indeed, would not want to be associated with the church, especially as an employee.
Hello, Ryan. As others here know from my previous posts, I was raised as an adventist and became an enthusiastic Christian who accepted grace by faith and sought truth. For a time I was a theology major at PUC, but I came to regard the message of Jesus as a rejection of legalism and dogma and of petty wrangling over scriptural texts. As I grew up and interacted with people from diverse backgrounds, I came to see adventism differently–or, in a sense, as similar to many other denominations and sects. I began to see the Christian life as a good way to live for its own sake–not to gain a heavenly reward or avoid fiery torment. And as I met people from other nations and cultures and religions, I found that there were many people who seemed to just live honest and constructive lives, quite parallel to what I had seen as the positive Christian life.
When I began to seriously look at scientific evidence (geology, biology, etc.), I began to see that the adventist tradition of trying to explain all that evidence away was very poorly substantiated. Those weak rationalizations continue to be made, and accepted by some. It really only took me a few years, as a young person, to see that I could no longer honestly remain an adventist. More than 40 years after having my name removed from the church membership rolls, I have no regrets at all about doing so.
It must be very difficult, though, for someone who remained in the church, and became vocationally committed to the church, to move on from an estrangement of the church. I think many adventists who eventually find that they can no longer believe the fundamental dogmas of the church are unable to break free of the organized, cult-like, insular, organization. Doing so becomes unthinkable. "What would I do? Where would I go? What about my relationship with my family?" The longer one waits, the more courage it takes, and the more difficult it must be to rearrange one's life.
But, Ryan, you are a talented and honest person–a courageous person. You do not have to be an adventist minister, or any kind of minister. You can write. You can speak. And your writing and speaking does not have to be about religion. You can successfully do other things. I intended to have a career as a college professor. After a three-year post-doc, many scientific publications, and teaching for several years as an adjunct, I had to face the fact that I was not going to succeed in academia. Fortunately, I was able to find an array of nonacademic opportunities–as a zoological curator, as a scientific editor for National Geographic, and eventually as VP of an NIH research contract company. Along the way I held academic appointments in psychology, anthropology, physiology, and pathology, including appointments in medical schools and veterinary schools. I continued to collaborate with academic colleagues and produce published research results. It has has been an interesting and rewarding life–all beyond the boundaries of adventism.
Hi Joe,
I am very happy to be beyond Adventism and I haven't looked back. I am much happier now. My only point in this piece was to say that IF the progressive wing within conservative churches like Adventism wants to seriously work for change then they should come to the aid of their exiles.
For those insulated in the cocoon of Adventism it often takes time to realize there's a great big world beyond Adventism that offers challenge, excitement, and an opportunity to spread your wings in whatever pursuits you enjoy.
Often, I think of the many young people whose talents were in dancing, acting, and many professions that were "off limits" because of the church. I have heard many who expressed sadness that they were never allowed to dance and in watching dancers they are all happy, smiling, and it is both wonderful exercise and a very pleasureful hobby. The pioneers were so dour, inhibited, and Puritanical as expressed by H.L. Mencken: "they are worried that someone, somewhere is happy."
Part of what brought my relationship with Adventism to an end was my involvement in that "big world beyond Adventism."
After ten years of SDA ministry as a pastor, Bible teacher and Chaplain, at the age of 34 (forty years ago) I left the SDA ministry and church because of the "big world beyond Adventism." I had become intellectually aware that underpinning of religious belief was metaphor and myth, not facts, and that strictures were self-imposed. I have also become aware that the symbols and language of Christian discourse is based on a defunct cosmology. Traditional images of God, Superguy, is the creation of man in his image. I believe this reality is seeping into current culture and mainstream Christianity is on the decline because of it.
I believe there is a new/old dialectic, it is : God is Love. That is all there is to Christianity, nothing more needed.
Bugs, I think you have been misinformed. Your prediction of the demise for the Christ Way is premature!
Decline is not the same as demise. Most Christians are not going away anytime soon, they sail along without questioning, since there faith is satisfatory in its current form as a way of lubricating their lives with hope.
Make a joyful "noise" unto the Lord, "all ye lands". In early Bible history, the people worshipped God with "harp, psaltery, viol, lute, horns, timbrel, tabret, and cymbals. Doubt there was a lot of harmony when these instruments collided, but there was definitely a joyful noise. The people praised their God with what they had, and God accepted it in the spirit it was given. There was joyful dancing. i dare say the whrilling Dervish spinning until exhaustion was a form of worship before Mohammed. Our God wishes to communicate with His people in our worshipping. There is nothing wrong with "NOISE" in praising God, except when the lyrics are unnhealthy.
Ryan, Shakespere said it best "to thine own self, be true". Don't even consider what other concepts or voices are speaking.
The concept of "worship" implies a slave/servant relationship where the slave attempts to win favor and avoid possible punishment from the lord. Worship is an outmoded concept since we don't have either lord or slave these days. Why does "God wish(es) to communicate with his people in our worshipping?" Superguy God might want to be worshiped as an extrapolation of human ego (since he is an alter ego created by us in our image). In that sense we worship ourselves.
God as love communicates endlessly, perpetually in my life. God of love can't be worshiped, just experienced.
Whether you read the Torah, the Prophets or the Apocalypse, there are only two authentic bases for worship – gratitude to God as Creator and gratitude to God as Redeemer.
Worshipping any god(s) or demon(s) or human(s) to avert their wrath or gain their favor is paganism. Bugs-Larry makes a very strong case that paganism is rampant within Christianity and even within Adventism.
Please elaborate on this statement Jim. What exactly did Bugs say that makes any case, strong, weak or otherwise, that “paganism is rampant within Christianity, even within Adventism”?
What you’re saying may or may not be true about “rampant paganism;” but what did Bugs say that "[made] a very strong case” for the existence of "rampant paganism within Christianity and even within Adventism”?
Stephen,
The concept of "worship" implies a slave/servant relationship where the slave attempts to win favor and avoid possible punishment from the lord. Worship is an outmoded concept since we don't have either lord or slave these days.
To me this suggests that Bugs-Larry's Adventist upbringing and theological training was seriously deficient. Apparently he never "got" one of the most important messages in all of the Bible. He seems to have "gotten" the message that Adam and Eve after they fell tried to hide from Yahweh because they thought Yahweh wanted to kill them. Yahweh did not come to kill Adam and Eve but to save them from certain death. This is just an example of the message repeated throughout the Bible. (I chose this example because it is the first one in the Bible. I do not attribute it to Bugs-Larry.)
How tragic that so many Christians and even Adventists still don't get the point of this story. Or of many others in the Bible. They still think of God like Bugs-Larry's Superguy. Stephen, I am wondering what you think about this story? And about God?
Some of my former Adventist PK friends who "wandered off" have come back to God when they finally "got it" that God is not about revenge and fear but about incomprehensible love.
God as love communicates endlessly, perpetually in my life. God of love can't be worshiped, just experienced.
So Bugs-Larry is hearing the voice of God as the voice of love in his life. He just doesn't recognize it as the voice of God because of the pagan voices he heard in our church. So he can't figure out how to worship because he associates worship with paganism. I hope and pray that when Bugs-Larry gets to heaven and meets Jesus face-to-face he will finally recognize that voice of love he has been hearing and responding to on this earth.
This is how I interpret what Bugs-Larry has written several times. (I interpret Chris somewhat differently but I write this in response to Bugs-Larry's comments here.) Apparently in the past two years you have come away with different messages. Could this be yet another example of confirmation bias? Could your own confirmation bias make everyone who does not completely agree with you look rather similar in your eyes?
With reference to Bugs, it seems that you’ve made another assumptive leap. Bugs’ actual statement had to do with the concept of worship generally being an anachronism. He didn’t say anything about Adventism or Christianity. (Did you possibly project what you think?)
But I’ll leave that where it is. You asked me about what I think of Adam and Eve hiding from Yahweh and about God, so I’ll address that.
I am a preacher’s kid too Jim. I used to think like some of our friends here and actually argued against the great controversy theme in my youth.
Now, I see this story like you. God was always looking to redeem mankind. His foreknowledge did not affect their choice. God’s nature ultimately compels His every action. Bugs appreciates that love is God, but may not appreciate that God is love. So the concept of a personal relationship is at this point apparently not accepted.
My father’s best sermon (besides his life) was entitled “The Force that Controls God.” He preached it numerous times (perhaps under various titles in a variety of ways). Now it’s clear that worship is an acknowledgment and appreciation of God as Lover, Creator, Sustainer, Protector, Provider, Redeemer, and Father.
With reference to Bugs, it seems that you’ve made another assumptive leap. . . . He didn’t say anything about Adventism or Christianity.
Given that Bugs-Larry was raised in the Adventist faith and served as an Advenist pastor and academy chaplain for more than a decade, I think my assumption that he acquired his inital attitudes towards worship within this culture is reasonable. Of course I cannot account for wherever else he has been spiritually since he left Adventism.
Stephen,
I am glad that your father taught you about the love of God. I suspect you also felt the love of your father for you. One of the most precious gift a father can give to his children is the gift of love. Whatever else I may have done, I tried every day to assure my sons that I loved them. Now I am trying to do the same with my grand-children.
All too many children grow up without this important lesson. This emotional lack is compounded if adults are telling them to think of God as their father.
Jim,
You are correct about my Dad. He and my mother both showed us self-sacrificing love and demonstrated this toward others.
I would say that my respect and admiration for my parents—and encountering life being informed by their example and values—have been the major influences in my attitude and perception of God as Father. Telling children about God is one thing, showing them what He’s like is another.
Perhaps had I detected any phoniness or artifice in them things would’ve been different. I try to tell and show my children and grandchildren, but come up short. Thankfully God’s grace is (amazingly) sufficient Jim! Their all good people (especially the grands;-).
Another thing my Dad did was to allow me to reason (argue) with him. I could argue any point of view on any subject with him at all. He didn’t have to remind me to do it respectfully because I respected him. (Well…maybe he reminded me one time: https://atoday.org/article/1134/opinion/foster-stephen/2012/the-lesson) The point is that he encouraged us to reason with him, which was wise. It was with him that I started to argue against the validity and fairness of the great controversy theme, predestination, etc. Clearly, most PKs were/are not so fortunate. Had he not allowed debate, who knows…?
We were not traumatized by Adventism Jim. We had the little red books, and my parents were fairly orthodox Seventh-day Adventists; but I don’t recall them quoting Ellen. In fact, my brother and I attended New York public schools until high school. We played sports and actually got the school system where we attended to not schedule our basketball games on Friday night.
The only 'trauma' I can recall is that my father required us to be Pathfinders of which I hated every minute. And he made us attend prayer meeting up with him as adolescents (until academy); which I also hated, by the way.
On the other hand, he bought a pool table, taught us to shoot pool, and took us to the bowling alley. He is also the reason we golf. Man, I could go on and on!
Funny about that, Stephen. I really liked Pathfinders alot, and summer camp too. I enjoyed getting lots of honor badges–although, the thing was, I had already done in real life most of what was required for the badges. Prayer meeting? I started attending because wanted to. Eventually, I quit, and I don't remember why. I think it kind of scared me that when I would pray, old ladies began to sob and weep uncontrolably. I began to feel like I might be praying just to get emotional reactions from people. It seemed to me that public prayer was not really as important as private prayer.
Just because many gods are mythical does not mean that all gods or Gods are (or are not), but most concepts of god or God seem to me to be very much be inventions of humans. That is not a lie. Remember, "it isn't a lie if you believe it."
I loved…and I mean loved summer camp! (My Dad was the Junior Camp chaplain and camp facilities superintendent in upstate NY.) I liked the opportunity to engage in some sporting activity six days a week. But I didn’t like outpost camping, etc. (I am a suburban kid at heart.)
I don’t understand your last paragraph Joe. Are you suggesting that if you have been somehow deceived and believe it, then what you believe is true to you; and if so, then it is true? That doesn’t make any sense at all; but maybe that’s not what you’re saying.
I am equally sorry for you Ryan, you have bought into The Lie!
Which lie is that, Darrel?
That God is a myth
There is a self-righteousness exemplified by your statement , Darrel, that implies you have all knowledge and are qualified to make such a statement. Have you investigated all religions, faiths, sects, churches, denominations and phiolosphies, to qualify your apparent arrival at the exact, only true one? There are countless ways to live life outside of your club. And most of them don't make any claim to exclusivity or cast curses on those who opt for a different one. A person exiting your club harms you not one bit. I hesitate to say this almost, but the Big Lie is that you have an exclusive hold on all knowledge and all truth.
For me, leaving Adventism was the best choice I ever made, not because I hated it, but because there was a big, unlimiting world waiting for me. When I croak (hopefully a long future time away) please pass by my casket (my wife won't cremate me, she vows) and see the big smile on my face for the great life I have had! I am not trying to put you down, just pointing out how you come across. I know, Ryan doesn't need my help, he can speak for himself!
Darrel, what a very unchristian and discourteous reply. Has anyone replied to you when you told them you were an Adventist with a similar comment: "I am sorry that you bought into a lie"?
Oh my! Like Larry (surprise, surprise) I am not inclined to worship anyone or any thing. Due respect? Of course. Sure, I can be "a fan" (SF Giants & 49ers), but not a fanatic. I suppose I am somewhat inclined to worship my wife, but not really much more than my dog. [Note: Nancy does not read this, nor does my sweet dog, Catherine Rose.] I guess those who consider me irreverent are correct. Not that it matters to me if they think so. Yes, it is a pity that people are easily misled (or as my partner, Nancy, says: "mizzled"). The Eden story is sort of true to life because Eve was so easily beguiled by the serpent and Adam by Eve. Could the Almighty have created humans as less gullible beings? If not, why not? Is it really to "be as gods" to have "knowledge of both good and evil?" Are we to be as innocent as children, or are we to put away childish things? Or both…. Wishing you all well. Believe whatever you can, but love and respect one another.
I find it hilarious how often my are ideas distorted when addressed and how often what I didn't say was "referenced," as if I had said it. Or even more, how often my stance is credited to "deficiencies."
As a young guy, while a minister, I went through ten years of sifting through what I had been taught in as a born-into SDA, thirteen years of SDA education, reached a point where I actually walked outside, held my hands to the sky and said, out loud, to whom it may concern something like: "You gave me the ability to reason so I am not afraid of you, and I think you are proud of me!" Then I "turned left at Albukerke."
No, I don't "hear voices" Not even of God. I experience love. (A minor example of being credited for what I didn't say)! However, in the current milieu Stephen Foster correctly notices Jim's "assumptive leap."
At any rate being allowed to participate on this forum with the give and take it affords me is priceless. I learn far more than I would on a forum of thinkers like me (well, there might be one someone of my ilk out there). How boring that would be!
Please, can't someone address my assertion that traditional Christian discourse is constructed on a defunct cosmology leaving myth and metaphor as the last refuge of foundationless thinking?
Bugs-Larry,
I am sure you are aware that "hearing" is a figure of speech. You and I differ in our understanding of the ultimate source of love. I consider that source to be God. For me love is the essence of God's nature. You on the other hand seem to consider God as the ultimate source of spiritual abuse.
You regard love in high esteem but so far as I have read you have not identified its source. Is love a spontanwous thing that spawns within you? Or did you have to learn love from someone else?
What do you think is the source of love? I am sure you know this question is very closely related to another one – what is the source of life? Is love like s##t that just happens? Or is it a gift we are given and can pass along to others?
Love has no source. It is. And it is God, in my estimation.
Do the laws of nature have a source? Not that can be detected. Neither does Love. You can go on a mental field trip in your mind and construct an originator. You can submit to the unnecessary human-created need to posit a beginning. But at the terminus is belief, an exercise in mental stimulation, that is all. If that is good for you, that is fine with me. We all live via myth. That's not a put down. Just that my myth is different than yours. Mine doesn't include a "creator."
What is the source of your life, Jim? Could it be a remarkable singularity at the end of probably tens of thousands genetic couplings over the eons of past ages that by maybe one trillionth of a shot you arrived at you? Any minor genetic deviation in that unimaginable course of history would have left you undiscovered? It's a pleasant dream to imagine that "God knew you before you were born." But there is no evidence to support it.
Grumpy Grandpa, Superguy, conveniently gets credit and blame for every good and irksome phenomenon. God as love is undefinable, unwhippable, and simple. And experienced by everyone.
So we are operating from different working hypotheses.
I suspect that neither of us can prove our working hypothesis.
I'll show you my proof if you show me yours!
A hypothesis is something you belive is probably true but cannot prove or have not proven.
Picky, Picky!!! I'm just an ex precher. I knew I shoulda turned left at Abukerkee and become an engineer!
I could take your suggestion elsewhere and agree that we can proposition with each other instead of hypothesizing or conjecturing with each other.
But then some might think we were discussing "alternative lifestyles" in the sense of sexual orientation. Everyone has attached specific meanings to what were once generic words.
From the standpoint of a materialist world view the "source" of love is selfishness. In fact "love" is a myth 'made up' to lubercate the mind with "meaning." Francis Crick , who collaborated with James D. Watson in the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA, says in his book, The Astonishing Hypothesis:
"You, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." This is the "Astonishing Hypothesis"
Michael Ruse's words are logical given materialism. “Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.”
“I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).
I recommend reading The Astonishing Hypothesis. Crick was writing about the challenge of neuroscience finding consciousness and self awareness. He devoted most of his post-Nobel life to fostering neuroscience of consciousness research (while he was at The Salk Institute in La Jolla). Some of the work my colleagues have done draws on Crick's hypothesis, and provides interesting examples of the process of science.
I like the idea of Love is God as indicated by Larry. I also like the "love thy neighbor as thyself" concept. These are really both based on treating others as one wishes to be treated–giving due consderation to others. It is probably difficult for those who have long relied on a concept of Almighty God to conceive instead of there being nothing with such a role.
Please remember that no one speaks for everyone. Just because someone says "evolutionists believe" something does not mean that all who accept that evolution occurs believe what anyone, pro or con, asserts (about morality or anything else). And, of course, everything that is logical is not, necessarily, valid.
So Joe, you disagree with Bug's logic?
It's an interesting post, Ryan, and I appreciate your vulnerability. I'm not sure what you mean by "spending political capital to come to the aid of those on the front lines." You talk about "leaving the wounded on the field," which strikes me as a rather different issue from refusing to spend political capital. Personally helping you to support yourself, and personally making sure you are cared for physically and emotionally, are acts of love and mercy that have more to do with self-spending than expenditure of political capital. "Against such there is no law."
May I gently suggest that one of the weaknesses of progressivism is that, at a fundamental level, its mission is to develop, through the political process, rules and regulations, incentives and disincentives, to get other people to believe and do what progressives think they should believe and do, or persuade other people to stop believing and stop doing what progressives think is harmful or counterproductive. What often begins as self-sacrificing personal acts of compassion, love and mercy toward those who are hurting and suffering quickly evolves to self-empowering ideological anger and grievance against those who succeed in the societal structures which seemingly allow and perpetuate the inequities and injustices that progressives believe are responsible for hurt and suffering.
Controlling and changing other people makes us feel powerful. Enacting laws to make sure that no one's feet go unwashed is a grand, noble undertaking. Going to places where feet need washing; taking the towels from around our waists and demeaning ourselves by personally washing dirty feet? Well, that's surely not the most effective way to make sure no feet are left behind. But perhaps it is the most effective way to show others what the Kingdom of God feels like and looks like. And it requires knowing who one is, knowing where one has come from, and knowing where one is going – not particularly progressive stances.
Much of the discussion on this thread has dealt with the intellectual merits of a posture of belief, rather than the effect which believing has on one's heart for self-spending service and servanthood. At the risk of being presumptuous I wonder if what got you into trouble at the Hollywood Church, Ryan, was a shift in emphasis from self-sacrificing acts of love, mercy, and service to those in need, to an ideologically driven emphasis on acquiring and using political capital to force cultural change; together with a theological emphasis on forcing the Church to view its "go and sin no more" message as incompatible with Christian love and compassion.
Anger and resentment are human responses to hurt, loneliness, and suffering; compassion is the divine response. Progressivism thrives on seeing what's wrong and fighting it. It makes the ideal the enemy of the good. The response you have seen from the Adventist progressive community, Ryan – anger, outrage, condemnation, indignation against the value and belief system that hurt you – is completely predictable. It is just progressives morally responding as they have been conditioned to react. It is difficult to offer compassion and love with a closed fist and a heart filled with condemnation and judgment.
If you want to see what compassion looks like – compassion that would never be actuated without a belief in Jesus as the incarnate living Son of God – come spend some time in the world where my wife serves. See how she actually makes life better for kids and gives them hope through acts of love and mercy. And by the way, how about sharing stories with us about how you are modeling in your own life the kind of compassionate caring for the wounded that you wish Adventist progressives would demonstrate toward you. You might be more persuasive if you told and showed progressives how you are doing it rather than scolding them about their imperfections. But then…you are, after all, a progressive – and that's what progressives do best, isn't it?
Why don’t you, Ryan, do us all a favor and give us a brief summary of what got you 'in trouble.' It’d be good to hear your version.
In lieu of that, instead of just labeling his problem as progressivism run amok; tell us, Nathan, if it was political ideology or theological beliefs that were problematic. As you well know, progressive Adventists don’t have to be progressive in their politics; although I take it that Ryan is.
My point, Stephen, was not to say that progressivism run amok got Ryan into trouble. It didn't run amok. It was just being itself. I argue that the fault he finds with progressives' lack of engagement on a personal, self-spending level is inherent in the nature of progressivism. Ryan chides progressive Adventists for making an Adventist martyr of him, while not stepping up to the plate with tangible support.What got him into trouble in my opinion was his political theology. I'm not going to jump into the either-or box you want to force me into.
I realize that progressive Adventists are not necessarily politically progressive. That's a tangent I don't want to go off on. My critique of the progressive mindset is equally applicable to both the Church and politics.
Except for the fact that you’ve referenced progressivism, what does what I’ve asked of Ryan—and in lieu of his answer, your answer that his ‘trouble’ emanated from his political ideology rather than theological beliefs—have to do with your generalization ‘argument’? (Or what does your generalization have to do with what I’ve asked you both?)
You stated opinion; I've asked for information/facts from which I might form an opinion—as to whether Ryan was treated justly. I’m not trying to force you into any box or to take tangential ramps (you’ve managed that by yourself, thank you); although I certainly understand, given your sweeping and undocumented generalization of all progressivism, why you wouldn’t want it pointed out that some progressive Adventists are quite conservative politically. Some of us (like me) had never heard of Dr. Bell except through AT. Bell appears to utilize this forum to speak to the progressive segment of Adventism, and inform them how/that they’ve abandoned him. Some of us who are not included in that segment would like to hear a first hand version of his story.
So as to your unproven, anecdotal “critique of the progressive mindset,” please remember that a similarly unproven, anecdotal, and broad critique of the conservative mindset is “equally applicable;” which is to say just as ‘valid.’
Correction: In re-reading your answer to me, I see that your opinion is that Bell’s “political theology” is what was problematic. So I take that to mean it was the combination of him being both politically liberal and theologically liberal; in tandem.
This is all the more reason why I’d like to hear his story told. I must admit, that combination does not appear to be very prevalent within Adventism.
No, Stephen. That is not what I meant. A political theology can be very fundamentalist or very liberal. Either can get one into trouble if it is wielded against the Church. Had Bell been an outspoken advocate for Sunday closing laws, I suspect he may have suffered a similar fate. To me, the hallmark of political theology consists of conflating politics and religion, to where one seeks to use his religious beliefs coercively in the civic arena, and to use his civic beliefs coercively in the realm of religion. Such actions become particularly problematic for a Church employee when he actively uses his clerical credibility in the political arena to undermine the dominant moral values and religious beliefs of the group that employs him – in this case, the "sisterhood of churches" in the Southern California Conference.
I wouldn't say that political liberalism and theological liberalism is prevalent in the SDA Church. But it is quite common, especially in institutional centers and among Adventists with post-graduate degrees in the humanities. It is noteworthy that the SDA professors who signed a petition against Proposition 8 (defining Marriage as between one man and one woman) when it was on the ballot in California suffered no backlash from the Church. Why the difference? First of all, they were sheltered by the protections of academia. In other words, they were not subject to censure by the benighted canaille of conservative SDA pew sitters. Secondly, they were not actively undermining the Church's official stance on marriage. One can be in favor of public policy favoring same sex marriage and still theologically support the Church's position.
Trevor, your attitude to "save the old church" would have put you on the side of the Papacy against the Cathars, Albegensians, Waldensians. On the side of Church of England against the Wycliffs, Puritains, and Methodists. God's truth is progressive, and holding to the "old ways" puts us into the dustbin of history. Adventists were radicals, revolutionaries, and strongly opposed by the Church Authorities.
Ellen White and family were kicked out of their Methodist church. Adventists let a woman preach, changed the traditonal day of worship, trashed the long term doctrine of hell, opposed slavery, pushed through an alcohol freedom bill, and were general rebel rousers in the Church.
Ellen Harmon, James White, Joseph Bates were the Ryan Bells, the Desmond Fords, and the Adventist Today Bloggers of their day. Trouble for the old ways, and salvation from the old ways.
The idea that Jesus and Truth is static, is a doctrine of devils. They wish it were so, but thank God it is not. Gallileo is the hero, not the popes that opposed him. Progressive Adventists are the only authentic Adventists. Ryan Bell was used by God to move his church forward. Shame on us that we pushed him out into his present sad estate.
Ryan Bell – –
As for where I am today, it was, indeed, a logical progression. If you can explain to me how you believe in God and the inspiration of the Bible, I would very much appreciate it. Everythying I've studied over the past 20 years, from Seminary to my own reading, led me inexoribly to the conclusion that the Bible is a human construct and so far my conclusion is that God is, too.
Jack Hoehn – –
Ryan Bell was used by God to move his church forward. Shame on us that we pushed him out into his present sad estate.
So for 20 years God was using Ryan to push the Adventist church away from – God ?
Or for 20 years the Adventist church was pushing Ryan away from – God ?
Sorry – for me this does not compute ?
“The idea that Jesus and Truth is static, is a doctrine of devils.”
God said that He doesn’t change (Malachi 3:6). Jesus is God and represents The Truth. Hmmm…” a doctrine of devils” you say?
“Progressive Adventists are the only authentic Adventists.”
Oh, really? There’s a pretty ‘tolerant’ statement. Now, that is an example of the sense of entitlement to a double standard. Imagine if I had said that “Conservative, historic Adventists are the only authentic Adventists?”
(The sound of crickets comes from ‘progressives.’)
“Progressive Adventists are the only authentic Adventists” This is news to me!
In my humble opinion authentic Adventists are the ones who every day they think, they talk and walk like Jesus is coming today.
If the best of progressive Adventism is what I read in AT then I can say is just bunch of distraction and not a serious action to the great commission.
Jesus will surely come to check up on how far we have advanced along the Way he left us , Neo, and bring us our reward. And we will rewarded according to our works. So how about working on present larger deeper more radical truths that advance the cause of Christ in 2014, instead of holding firmly to past partial truths that served in 1863? I ask you to remember what our prophetess said,
“The rebuke of the Lord will be upon those who would be guardians of the doctrine, who would bar the way that greater light shall not come to the people.” Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 37.
~~“The present attitude of the church is not pleasing to God. There has come in a self-confidence that has led them to feel no necessity for more truth and greater light. We are living at a time when Satan is at work on the right hand and on the left, before and behind us; and yet as a people we are asleep. God wills that a voice shall be heard arousing His people to action.” Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 41.
I'm not asking you to believe this because Sister White said it, but I am suggesting you stop and question just for a minute if it might not still be true? Were the Ryan Bells, like the A.T. Jones of yesteryear, doing God's will, arousing God's people to action?
Comparing Ryan Bell and A T Jones?
How much do you actually know about A T Jones?
The rebuke of the Lord will be upon those who would be guardians of the doctrine, who would bar the way that greater light shall not come to the people.
The present attitude of the church is not pleasing to God.
God wills that a voice shall be heard arousing His people to action.
Excellent advice from Ellen.
I am struggling to understand how this could apply to Ryan Bell, who denies the existence of God? Is Ryan really bringing greater light to God's people? Is his present attitude pleasing to God? Are you claiming that Ryan is being used by God as a voice to arouse His people to action?
You could be right because God used a (formerly dumb) ass to speak to Balaam. But apparently that particular beast could see angels, even if it knew nothing about God. And continuing with that particular story, God proceeded to use Balaam to bless Israel though he desired to curse them. And at the end of the story Balaam died in a battle against Israel. We do not know what happened to Balaam's donkey – was his beast collateral damage or was it spared? Might this story warn of the hazards of being used by God against your own will?
And we will rewarded according to our works.
True enough. But what kind of works does God reward?
Jesus told Nicodemus that the honest man comes to the Light (e metaphor for Jesus Himself) that it can be seen that his (the honest man's) works have been wrought in God. (This does not exclude the possibility that the honest person may not realize his works were wrought in God until he reaches the Light.)
Paul tells us that God works in us both to will and to do His pleasure.
Jesus told the "goats" to "depart from me, you workers of iniquity, for I never knew you". (Many Christians seem to twist this into "you never knew me".)
Ryan denies that his works have been wrought in God. He claims not to know Jesus. That is not a spiritual place I personally recommend, though I like to think that God who knows us better than we know ourselves, still knows Ryan.
Regardless of whether or to what extent we are aware of God, when God proclaims that He no longer knows us we cease to exist. I do not say this as a threat. I do claim that there is no existence apart from God. It is only by the mercies of the Lord that any of us are not consumed. "Consumed" here does not refer to Divine revenge or retribution but rather to the self-destructive consequences of separating ourselves from God, the sole Source of our existence. God does not destroy us but He does at some point very reluctantly allow us to destroy ourselves if we so choose.
My, O' My. Not having the whole picture sure does change things. When first i addressed this issue, from comments raised here at Atoday, i assumed that Ryan Bell was an evangelist out in modern society chatting up the sinner segments of society that the SDA Church was scared to death they would darken the doors of our comfortable pews. Maybe he was, but hearing from him directly, indicates that he was possibly a closet atheist going through the motions of a SDA pastor, a devout Christian. So what kind of message was he giving his contacts?? If he has serious questions of a Creator God, (being a people construct concept, but not true, or seriously questioning that God exists), and God's plan of salvation for sinners, how could he possibly carry out the Gospel commission that he was receiving his subsistence from?? If this is true the church was correct in giving him the boot. As a Christian, in love with my Saviour, i find it impossible to believe he has turned his back on Christ, if he truly had accepted Christ as his personal saviour. He first mentioned he was giving God up for a year, to question his Christian association, and to pursue worldly interests. This had to be brewing in his psyche for a long time, not a kneejerk reaction to being sacked, And to expect compassion from progressives, of which he feels should support him in his decision to not give any consideration for God, maybe not just a year, but forever, assumes that all progressives are agnostic, or non-belivers. The believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, even though He slay me, is perhaps a majority of progressives on Atoday. His being twinned with Desmond Ford is a travesty. Ford and his belief in "Righteousness by Faith theme" and his continued serving his Lord in ministry, is a great contrast to Bell turning his back on God. The 1844 fiasco, adopted by the Whites,and stating Jesus waited until 1844 to judge His creation, is phony baloney. Jesus knows each of us better than we know our selves . His ministry of sinners is known. He doesn't require 1800 years to decide the fate of sinners. We all deserve the death penalty. But each and every sinner is saved already, except those who opt out by choice. This is the GREAT GOOD NEWS. Interesting how many assume God spends every moment of every day, GOD'S TIME, or Earth's time, grinding out
in court, the death sentences of sinners. GOD is active in heavenly pursuits in HIS ministering to His UNIVERSES IN TOTALITY. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS IN CHARGE OF EARTH.
Back to the little conversation above between Jim and Larry….
Actually, being very picky, a hypothesis is just a guess about what might be true. One need not
believe in a hypothesis to advance, suggest, or test it.
A hypothesis is usually a carefully structured statement that can be demonstrated by evidence
to be false. A "testable" hypothesis is one that can be "falsified." In most cases, hypotheses
are not "verified," although sometimes an evidence-based choice can be made between
mutually exclusive alternative hypotheses.
Evidence that is merely "consistent with" a hypothesis does not prove the hypothesis true.
I'm just saying that careful, evidence-based hypothesis testing does not require one to
believe the hypothesis one proposes. All it requires is a clear statement that can be
falsified by objective evidence.
True enough for scientific hypotheses. Spiritual hypotheses are another matter. I thought that Bugs-Larry and I were discussing he latter.
Perhaps you would prefer that we use a different word like conjecture?
synonyms:
theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate,proposition, premise, assumption; More
notion, concept, idea, possibility
"his “steady state” hypothesis of the origin of the universe"
a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
Me, Bugs, thinks this hare is getting too splitted! So I plagiarized the above definition from Google, where (no credit is available).
Not being a scientist, I am only an expspurt (Jim, you have to allow me a little latitude!) on religious discourse which is nothing but proposition and its twin brother, conjecture. Evidence to support it is either mired in the miasma of history, founded on collective myth, nonexistent, the result of wishful thinking, or simply hope. Investigation is the churning of misinformation, an exercise in futility. As an example, what of the sayings of Christ did he really say? (Yogi Berra said of himself ,"I didn't say all the things I said!")
No one subscribes to a religious view based on knowledge. There isn't any. One opts for what he "likes." Jim, you appear to like the SDA faith and the shibboleths accompanying it, some of which are the quotations from the scriptures as your source of ammunition. (Those virtual bullets have no lead in them except for what your targets agree is a threat).
Last word: you so tomawto, I say toemaatoe, you say pootaato, I say potawtoe. We still end up with the food on which every preacher can speak as an expert about of attendance at interminable pot (un)luck meals POTATO SALAD!
Ryan I’ll not sugarcoated, don’t give up man, and remember the strongest convictions are product of profound experiences. The reason why Peter, John, Paul and thousands of Christ’s followers were able to support all kind of adversities even martyrdom was the experience of the love of God.
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long, we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Yes, “For your sake we face death all day long, we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
So say many Muslims as they blow one another apart in their Holy wars in the cause of their God. eg Iraq Sunnis vs Shiites.
Conviction is not evidence of truth, right, God, or even his existence.
Actually, here's a better version:
"For your [insert name of chosen god, God, ideology etc] sake we face death all day long, we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered
Cris, for the life of me, i can't understand your position of continually listing doubt of a soul who has accepted a Creator God, and loves Him. Because in your belief system, you have doubts, and always point out, "it can't be proven" that God is a reality. You are unable to appreciate that the "belief" isREALITY, to those who love their GOD. You are content, you say, with your situation. So be it.
Earl,
Neo made his statement as that of fact. He is welcome to the view.
But… as a reader of such comments, I don't like that people make such statements, as though totally unaware of the incredibly faulty logic upon which they are built.
I am content with my situation. I am not comfortable when I read statements that are imho nothing more than assertions.
Earl, I know this stuff about "belief" is REALITY, but that is pretty much my point. Belief for a Muslim, a radical etc is also reality for them, and look where it leads some.
There is a great need imho for us to come to a place where the "uncertainty" of religious beliefs bears fruit in LESS certainty and dogmatism among people of ALL faiths. Only then will we have a world where religious tollerance can truly exist. If I expect it for a radical Muslim I can and should expect it from folks like neo.
No offence meant, but yes, a call for more clarity of thought:)
Earl,
Let me cut to a deep issue I see here, perhaps for you, perhaps for others.
My Dad passed away a couple yrs ago. At 76 a life of hard physical work caught up with him. For decades I can recall we used to discuss all sorts of church and theology related things. He was in volunteer ministry for a good number of yrs in later life. Some time before Dad went, he reached a point where discussion of theology issues, and the big question type stuff were best left out. It would have been just too much for him to handle. A life lived in faith, belief, hope etc.. It would have been the worst thing for him to have that pulled away so late in his life.
I know the impact on me when it first dawned on me that much of what I had believed, comitted my life and work to, had spent time, energy, money on, may have been less than certain. I know the sense of loss at opportunities I missed, sacrificial choices I made, and so much "wasted" effort.
Just one example: We had the opportunity to peg multiple gold mining leases, which later did sell for multi millions of dollars. We deliberately chose not to because the End was coming. I ended up going into Ministry instead!! I could go on.
My key point Earl is that I deeply respect where you are in your life. Perhaps I have been deluded and all the things you hope in are real, and I am wrong. Always possible. But, even if I am right, I'm not sure I want you to find out. For my dad there was an age and a stage where faith and belief were too important to risk. No doubt you enjoy AT, and folks like me need to take care and respect where folks like you or others may be at, but it does also have value as a place where ideas and challenges faced by the church can be examined. So, please bear with folks like me.. perhaps you would be wiser to ignore us… I don't intentionally set out to hurt, just as I did not with Dad, but the nature of AT would have made it a risky place for my dad.
Earl, just look after your heart. Don't lose what matters to you, because, yes, it is real for you, and whilst it makes you a more loving, caring guy with hope in your heart and a smile on your face… that's the heart of the matter…
Cheers
Chris,
My dad passed away a few months ago. He chose to forego more lucrative career opportunities to pursue a life in the gospel ministry. As have many other Christians over the last two millennia. As the Apostle Paul remarked to the early Christians, if there is no resurrection of the dead then we (Christians who anticipate the resurrection) are above all to be pitied. To take up the Cross of Christ is to turn your back on many worldly opportunities.
The passing of my father and the discussions over funeral arrangements revealed the spiritual divide amongst my own siblings regarding this very question. There is a very real difference between those who stake their hopes in this life vs the postulated life to come. In my own case I have (foolishly in your eyes) turned-down several opportunities where business associates of mine became multi-millionaires, because my wife and I wanted to raise our family according to our particular values.
We are not in poverty but we are not wealthy in this world's goods. We would not trade the "wealth" of our family relationships for the family wreckage experienced by most of those same business associates of mine. The son of another life-long SDA workers' family who found-out that I was giving away a substantial percentage of my income, remarked to me "you are too heavily invested in the church to leave". He was probably right 8-).
I am also heavily invested in my family. Yesterday we took our grand-children (with their pastor father) to Sabbath School and Church. Then we visited our newest grand-son and his mother in the hospital, where I was able to hold him for the first time. Later I spent over an hour with our toddler grand-daughter simply playing with a balloon. At my hourly billing rate I have invested literally $ millions of time in my family and in various religious causes (this web site being but a small fraction). In the eyes of the unbeliever I am perhaps to be pitied for my profligate waste of time and money. Sorry but I would have it no other way. For me the smiles of children (and not just my own children) are priceless.
My family is my religion and all I need. How many times has religious differences separated families even when both are Adventists? It most certainly did during the Ford era when there were churches that split and part of a family taking one side, and the rest of the family taking another. It may be jut as bad when one accepts Adventism in a strongly Protestant or Catholic religious belief.
I treasure my family infinitely more than than any religion. My church will not care for me when I'm sick, or old, or disabled, but it will be my family because we love and appreciate each other and love is the greatest of all things as Paul wrote.
It's my contention that God is Love. Families are the best evidence of that.
Would that be the God that is a figment of our imagination? Or the God we cannot see or hear but can feel His/Her/Their love?
If all that is left for you of God is love, then you have certainly kept the best part. Now if you could just find the other pieces?
Unless you have a terrible family.
My message was for Ryan assuming that I point in his life he experienced the deep love of God, His joy and peace.
Chris appears to me that we going in different directions. Enjoy your journey! I’m enjoying my.
I grew up as unbeliever I accomplished most what a person could dream and my credentials could match or pass most of my peers (in the field of my expertise). But all what this world offered to me does not compare with night when God manifested His presence in my life; the peace and joy were overwhelming. I been touch by the presence of GOD it is a magnificent experience. All my previous arguments theories were put to the trash. That is the most important and happiest moment of my life. That beautiful song “ you could have all this world just give Jesus” is for me!
Neo, you've blessed my day. Praise the LORD.
Ryan got kicked out of the club. Clubs have rules and rulers. So, what's the fuss? Clubs ordinarily are governed by committees whose perceived task is to maintain decorum in perceived harmony with tradition.
As an observer having left the club (SDA), thirty some years ago I made a voluntary exit based on three conclusions. One, I concluded that I had no ability to adjust the rules to suit my growing disagreement. Two, I realized there is more than one club in the world. And third, being a member of any club is optional, even a religious one.
Pity, sympathy, concern for his soul, hand wringing about his beliefs are all wasted effort. Like me and many others I'm satisfied he has learned the lesson that the straightjacket of "TRUTH" and particularly "THE TRUTH" is highly overrated. In fact, doesn't exist except in minds dedicated to their self-appointed elevation to all knowledge.
The exit from a club for reasons reviewed here are seldom without bruises. Ryan's purple marks are evidence. I had mine. The conference wrote my last check for $00.00.
Please, if you are satisfied with "the Truth", your SDA faith is solid and of great value to you, nothing said here nor any stance taken by Ryan or anyone else, is a threat to you. Practice your faith with good heart, but realize there are alternative ways other humans find to live their lives. Wish them well. They will not return to their old ways and they will not require your to travel their road.
Bugs my appeal to Ryan was more fundamental than just been associated to particle church or group. He wrote to Jack “As for where I am today, it was, indeed, a logical progression. If you can explain to me how you believe in God and the inspiration of the Bible, I would very much appreciate it. Everythying I've studied over the past 20 years, from Seminary to my own reading, led me inexoribly to the conclusion that the Bible is a human construct and so far my conclusion is that God is, too.
My appeal was assuming that at period of his life he experienced the overwhelming love, joy, and peace from GOD. If he did, remembering will help, I he didn’t is another matter.
The reason I believe in God is because he manifested his presence and I felt an indescribable joy after I asked for forgiveness. The Bible that was a dry and death book became to be words of life. Since then I recognized his influence in ordinary and extraordinary events of my life. In more than one occasion his angel literally save from a guaranty death, and I was privilege to talk to him.
Neo:
I am pleased for you in your spiritual experience. Each person is entitled to his own. The violation of the first commandment, it seems to me, occurs when one decides his is to be universally applied, that others are not valid unless identical to his own.
Since you’ve mentioned the first commandment Larry, please elaborate on how it is broken; or how you think some of us who disagree with you have broken it.
And then there are others who when rejecting the only religion they know, feel a very heavy burden lifted.
Does anyone know why one can't comment on Thomas's article about homosexuality? Ryam Bell's article seems to contrast greatly.
Bell: 'As for where I am today, it was, indeed, a logical progression. If you can explain to me how you believe in God and the inspiration of the Bible, I would very much appreciate it. Everythying I've studied over the past 20 years, from Seminary to my own reading, led me inexoribly to the conclusion that the Bible is a human construct and so far my conclusion is that God is, too.'
Elaine: 'As noted here before, all readers of the Bible should first take a course in the literature of the Bible: the various genre of a variety of books and multiple authors rather than seeing it as one book by one author. It covers at least a thousand years and no book or writers can be expected to express the same ideas in similar ways over that length of time.'
I have to say, I both identify and share many of the experiences here, and yet have had the total opposite experience. In many ways, I feel my spiritual journey has actually been in the opposite direction to many of our ex-Adventist and anti-Adventist friends here.
At the end of this year I will complete a theology degree. However, it is a degree from a State University run by Anglican (Episcopalian to you Americans) liberal theologians. It heavily pushes historical-criticism, with an emphasis on demythization of supernatural events, existentialism (to tap into Bugs "Super Guy" idea), prophetic utterances as altered states of consciousness (i.e. mental delusions), text criticism, literature criticism, redaction criticism, genre criticism, structural criticism and other such ideas. I remember in the very first lecture the professor coming out and saying the Bible is not historically true.
To many of you grounded in the SDA Church, and then Adventist educational institutions, you probably only came across such ideas gradually and through your own study. For me – I through myself into that environment – and deliberately.
I probably had the advantage in that I am a bit older (35) and already have several previous tertiary degrees (Military Stuides, History, Anthropology, Political Science, Management and Law). I also have a day job as a lawyer, which I have had for over a decade, meaning I engage in critical thinking all day, every day. And most importantly, I have only done these recent studies as a personal hobby, so there is no issue of vocational fear or baggage that goes with it. I learn only for self interest and would be quite free to leave the SDA Church at any moment without fear of losing job and money.
And yet after all these studies, my faith has been strengthened as well as my belief in Adventism and its special mission. Of course my faith has raddically changed in many ways, but not destroyed – just transformed.
Probably the greatest change is how I now read the Bible. And ironically, it is in some ways an approach to inspiration I see in both the life and the guidance of Ellen White. The more I learnt about the human elements of the creation of the Bible, the more I realise that the common criticisms against her are unrealistic as well.
Some passages from her about the nature of revelation that seem absolutely true to me include the following:
1. God's Bible writers were His penmen, not His pen
‘The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers.
It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God.’ (Selected Messages, book 1, pages 19-22l Manuscript 24, 1886; written in Europe in 1886.)
2. The Bible is not given in grand supernatural language, but is imperfect and given for a practical purpose
‘The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes.’ (Selected Messages,book 1, pages 19-22)
3. Inspiration is not infallible
‘In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness or shadow of turning.’—Ellen G. White letter 10, 1895.
4. The Bible is limited, and knowledge is progressive
‘We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed.’ (RH: July 26, 1892).
‘And the years of eternity, as they roll, will bring richer and still more glorious revelations of God and of Christ. As knowledge is progressive, so will love, reverence, and happiness increase. The more men learn of God, the greater will be their admiration of His character.’(Mar 373.2)
‘The Word of God presents special truths for every age. The dealings of God with His people in the past should receive our careful attention. We should learn the lessons which they are designed to teach us. But we are not to rest content with them. God is leading out His people step by step. Truth is progressive. The earnest seeker will be constantly receiving light from heaven. What is truth? should ever be our inquiry.’—SDABC, vol. 11, p. 1000.
5. Human experience and imagination is involved in inspiration
''The Lord gave His Word in just the way He wanted it to come. He gave it through different writers, each having his own individuality, though going over the same history. Their testimonies are brought together in one Book, and [p. 22] are like the testimonies in a social meeting. They do not represent things in just the same style. Each has an experience of his own, and this diversity broadens and deepens the knowledge that is brought out to meet the necessities of varied minds. The thoughts expressed have not a set uniformity, as if cast in an iron mold, making the very hearing monotonous. In such uniformity there would be a loss of grace and distinctive beauty
all readers of the Bible should first take a course in the literature of the Bible
Another preposterous claim that harkens back to the false teachings of the Rabbis and the Bishops and the Mullahs. The unlearned masses cannot possibly understand the Scriptures, so they need us to interpret for them. Nobody shoud read the Scriptures except in Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek or Latin or Arabic.
By your line of reasoning Jesus Christ was not qualified to teach (John 7:15).
Centuries ago men and women died so that the Scriptures could be published for, and read by, the common people in the vernacular languages. Following your advice would completely undo the Protestant Reformation.
Thank you Steve!
Then why is all that education wasted on seminary students who must learn more than how to read the Bible in Greek and Hebrew.
There is sufficient information in the Bible for all literates to read; but that does not always imply that it is equally simple to understand. The Jews have a long history of interpreting Scripture; Christians have looked to priest to interpret it for most of Christian history when people were illiterate.
As any college teacher can testify; the ability to "read" does not include the ability to critically think and understand all the meanings of the words on the page–and even then he will probably need a dictionary to understand their meaning.
Dismissing education is what the SdA founders claimed–because none had more than high school education. It is always those who have less education to look at those who have graduate degrees as being too intelligent to appeal to the simple folk. Is this a claim that our pastors and teachers are wasting their time and money on expensive, time-consuming education?
Jesus was recognized at the temple as speaking like a rabbi, which certainly was qualifications to teach in Judea at that time.
Following your advice would eliminate all SdA seminaries and colleges. Simply return to unlearned and uneducated pastors and teachers.
There are a lot of false choices being thrown around here. I didn't read Stephen's comment as a suggestion that a course in the Bible as literature is a prerequisite to understanding scripture or hearing/responding to God's voice. Nor did I read Jim's comment as anti-intellectual so much as it was anti-elitist. I think Jim misinterpreted what Stephen was saying, and then Elaine misinterpreted what Jim was saying. Those who do not have MDivs and PhDs are not necessarily unlearned and uneducated.
Elaine, did Ellen White dismiss the importance of education? I take a dim view of the notion that there is, or ever has been, a very direct and continuous correlation between one's moral wisdom or probity, and one's level of education. At a certain level, education tempts one to think that his conclusions and moral insights are freer of biases, prejudices, and emotional baggage than the conclusions of those without post-graduate degrees. History demonstrates that great learning and education create great potential for evil. The greatest evils in the history of humankind have often been perpetrated and enabled, have they not, by highly educated people? It was the progressive intelligentsia of the early 20th Century who cheered on communism and fascism.
Where do you get the idea that Jesus spoke like a well-educated rabbi? And even if He did, it certainly didn't make Him part of the educated elite. He spoke as one having authority – NOT as the scribes and Pharisees. He went out of His way to point out that His authority did not come from WASC approved institutional centers, comparing His authority to that of John the Baptist. I am a big fan of study and learning – not so much a fan of formal higher education, which overwhelmingly seeks to instill counter-cultural values and beliefs implied by the presuppositions of philosophical materialism, rather than critical thinking skills that are open to the value of transcendent realities on which Western Civilization was founded.
Thankyou Nathan
Yes, the suggestion to me from Elaine and indeed from Ryan Bell himself is that this higher biblical education, learning about historical-criticism and the like, will inevitably lead one away from Adventism, if not from the Bible, or in Bell's case, even God.
I was simply recounting my own experience, to show that is not necessarily the case. I tried to put out that learning all the historical-criticial stuff that seemed weaken the faiths of Elaine and Bell kind of had the opposite effect of me. It changed my faith, and how I understand the Bible, but did not weaken it.
And then I pointed out the greatest irony of it all was to day it dawned on me that all the criticisms against Ellen White were totally unfair. That if the Bible writers were inspired but otherwise very human people, then we better judge her by that biblical standard and not some artificial pedestal idea. And finally, it led me to Ellen White's own view of how inspiration works, which in many ways was what I was learning from the professional Anglican liberal theologians!
Yes, when I was in college, I read extensively from religious existentialism – Tillich, Bultmann, and the theologians with whom they were in conversation. They deepened my sense of the spiritual and mystical, leading me to Thomas Merton and other religious philosophers. They opened my eyes to whole new dimensions of spirituality.
So this notion that the more we know and understand, the more puerile and nonsensical religious life will become, suggests to me an emotional turning away rather than an intellectual journey, and an unwillingness to joyously explore and creatively encounter one's own faith tradition. I never really embraced Adventist rigidity, despite my intimate familiarity with it, so I guess I didn't take it personally when I discovered that, like all belief systems, Adventism had plenty of faults, nonsense myths, and hypocrisy.
I feel sorry for those whose experience in the Church seems to have blocked their ability to see and experience a living God who cannot be confined by doctrine or churches, but nevertheless speaks and acts through them. I easily get frustrated and angry with those who insist on confining God to doctrines and churches in order to either validate or vilify Him.
Yes pretty much the same for me.
I wonder to what extent those who have become the most anti-Adventists were at one time in the staunch more fundamentalist Adventist camp? I know that will certainly not be the case for all, but I suspect it will for some.
No doubt they were brought up in a certain rigid way within Adventism, so no doubt felt a sense of betrayal when they were exposed to these other ideas. Where as for me, I never started from that same starting point to begin with.
While it may be true, who is to supply evidence, that the worst crimes in history have been performed by highly educated people; it is also true that without the great minds of highly educated people we would be far worse for that lack. I can name dozens of highly educated who changed our world for the better, but that should not be necessary for those who know history.
Quite true, Elaine. Charles Murray's book, Human Accomplishment, is a fascinating demonstration of what you say. I think life is incomparably richer for those who develop their minds; who have the ability to see things from different perspectives; who can move to higher levels of abstraction to resolve conflict.
But overwhelmingly, throughout history, the minds of those highly educated people were formed by, and bent toward, belief in God – particularly the God of Judeo-Christian history. In fact, after surveying great minds throughout human history, Murray suggests that the explosion of creativity and intellectual progress at particular times and places in history was the result of an unprecedented unleashing of political and religious freedom, the confluence of which produced a deep sense of devotion to God and conviction that a better understanding of His laws would lead to the betterment of humanity.
Toward the conclusion of his book, Murray tells the story of 15th Century stone mason whose job it was to carve the gargoyles that adorned great buildings and cathedrals. As he came down from a lofty flying buttress one day, having painstakingly put the finishing touches on an obscure gargoyle that could scarcely be seen by the naked eye, someone stopped him to ask why he would expose himself to such danger, and spend so much time perfecting the detail in a work that few would ever notice, much less appreciate. "We can understand why you would spend much time and effort on prominent gargoyles that guard the entrances to palaces and cathedrals where royalty, cardinals, and popes pass. But you spend just as much time on the figures that will scarcely be seen. Why?" "Because," replied the stone mason, "I carve for the unseen eye of an all-seeing God."
Is it not that primitive conviction that characterized the life of the Patriarchs, the Prophets, the Apostles, and yes, the life of Christ? Somehow, my life has always been the richest, the most fulfilling, and the greatest blessing to others when I carve for the unseen eye of an all-seeing God. "Truths" that undermine that conviction, and the realities that flow from it, suck purpose from my life and impoverish me.
We might well find much about which we would agree, if not for your reflexive penchant to politicize everything under discussion. But if that’s the prism from which you see the world, so be it.
Like you Nathan, I am somewhat ideological. But temporal political ideology doesn’t influence everything. I see conservatism much like you see progressivism—as ideologically exemplifying flawed/fallen/sinful human nature; as a character deficiency played out politically. We are both probably wrong about this. That’s the part you seemingly don’t get.
It was actually something you had said recently in another post somewhere (about progressives cheering on Nazism, or something like that) that got me thinking about this, frankly. As I recall, I was agreeing with whatever points you were making until then.
So just what is your point, Stephen? Because I have extolled political freedom and religious commitment as key factors that have historically promoted intellectual flourishing and creativity, you kitchen sink that I politicize everything? How is that political? If you're thinking about something I said in another post, maybe you should respond there, so your comment doesn't leave me scrtching my head trying to figure out how what I said to Elaine could possibly have set you off.
May I gently suggest that you have exceedingly sensitive filters, Stephen, and tend to look for straw man, contrarian spin to put on most of what I say, even if it means taking the side of post-Christian, anti-Adventists who post comments here. Apparently the mere mention of Charles Murray is an emotional trigger for you. Did you hear a dog whistle somewhere that you want to talk about?
I pointed out yesterday, in response to your spin of my comment, about a week ago, that political theology can be either conservative or liberal. So just who is it that has a "reflexive penchant to politicize everything under discussion"? And more importantly, how does such a subjective, personalized value judgment serve any legitimate purpose? How is it qualitatively different from William Noel questioning whether you have a Spirit-filled, service-oriented life?
I believe that my observation of the fawning admiration early 20th Century progressives exhibited toward communism/fascism was in response to a paean someone offered to progressivism as the fount of all human blessings (Why did you not see the comment I was responding to as political?). I don't believe I ever said that progressives cheered on Nazism. That's your spin. They definitely were more enamored with the policies and politics of Mussolini and Stalin than with those of Hitler. If you disagree with my observation, then why not respond to it instead of the comment I made to Elaine? But first, you might want to read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. The history he documents is pretty compelling.
It at least appears you got part of what I was trying to say. I perhaps should be grateful for that. Yes, Charles Murray is, for me, an emotional trigger of sorts; because I consider him to be somewhat analogous to the right’s version of Drs. West or Bell; or perhaps more appropriately compared to the late W.E.B. DuBois or Alain Leroy Locke; but coming from the complete opposite approach.
I’m thinking that Jonah Goldberg for me is as Tavis Smiley or DeWayne Wickham might be for you, shall we say.
I don’t recall recently taking the side of the “post-Christian, anti-Adventists who post comments here.” I’d bet any of them would like to know when that was too.
Questioning why you have a political spin on seemingly everything is quite a bit different, I hope, than what Noel does; but the fact that you might see it somehow similarly indeed gives me pause.
You’re right, I should’ve said something wherever you posted about progressivism cheering on dictators; and let the Charles Murray thing stand. First instincts are often the best ones. But then first instincts led you to cite Charles Murray and Jonah Goldberg, huh?
Quite obviously in the west both sides of the political spectrum have previously supported dictators; and have, in hindsight, regretted it. In most instances both have rationalized that they were supporting the lesser of evils (based on the leanings of the dictator).
I would love get Nate and Stephen in a room together and moderate a debate between two very sharp minds who both seem to be able to distill points to their essence and yet are blinded (as we all are) by their own journeys to see things from a somewhat narrow point of view. Anyone else think that would be fun?
Or with pistols at dawn
Elaine: all readers of the Bible should first take a course in the literature of the Bible
Nathan: I think Jim misinterpreted what Stephen was saying, and then Elaine misinterpreted what Jim was saying
Might Nathan have misinterpreted to whom Jim was replying? My comment was not directed at Stephen's response to Ellen. It was directed at what Elaine herself had written. And Elaine's response to me was what I anticipated.
Elaine acknowledges that Jesus was a great teacher. But she does not acknowledge His sources of knowledge (diligent study of the Scriptures themselves rather than the voluminous commentaries produced by previous rabbis, and deep personal communion with His Father).
To put it in a more scholarly way, Jesus preferred to learn from primary (inspired by God) sources rather than from secondary (human speculation and interpretation) sources. I objected to Elaine's first comment because she appears to me to be claiming that the secondary sources of knowledge take precedence over the primary sources.
In Desire of Ages (a book that I highly recommend but that I doubt Elaine would recommend 😎 Ellen writes that every person can learn as Jesus learned. But that of course implies that we must first recognize and accept the Divine Sources of knowledge. Elaine herself is reluctant to acknowledge any Divine agency in the Bible, so the human agencies have become her own primary sources.
My comment was not directed at Stephen's response to Ellen.
Oops! – make that Elaine. With due apologies to both women, I would not intentionally interchange them 8-).
Excellent points all Nathan!
Bugs, who is promoting cloning experiences? That is unrealistic. We share experiences to encourage to the ones are looking for, no to have an identical one but to find their own with the Lord. I’m eternality grateful to the person who had the courage to share with me the wonderful life found in Jesus. When I have the opportunity I do the same. Some of the people who were receptive also found similar uplifting experiences.
It is funny but often we are more eager and confortable to share or comment about sport events or a good movie than to share our hope.
It that aspect I have more respect for secular people even atheists who are vibrant about theirs believes. Jose Mujica gives one of the most realistic examples. This man for his convictions was put in cell for 14 years, now is the president of Uruguay. He walks the talk; he did not bend in the adversity or prosperity. Even now he still lives in the same single bedroom house and donates 90% of his salary to singles mothers to struggle to get day by day.
This has been a fascinating read. Thank you Ryan for prompting this discussion. I love and welcome the fact that people as diverse as Stephen Ferguson and Joe Erwin and CC25 and Jack Hoehn are comfortable sharing their lives here. I have learned a great deal. I am not the same person I was 50 years ago. In some ways more liberal in others still conservative.
Hi David. We need to reschedule our lunch arrangements in Frederick. I'm back-and-forth through there even more than before, because I'm putting my townhouse in Montgomery Village on the market soon.
To everyone inclined to think about such things as "emergent mind," I recommend reading Terrence Deacon's book, Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. I'm only urging that you read and think about it–not that you should accept and internalize what Terry says. And please do not just read reviews of the book or what others think of it (there's nothing wrong with reading reviews or discussions, but JUST doing that instead of actually reading it, will not be enough, in my opinion).
Yes. Joe. Email me two time options
I am reading that book Joe. Very difficult writing style. He says that Mind didn’t exactly emerge from matter, but from constraints on matter. It’s basically that mind developed from symbiosis of matter—matter helping matter and this is where ethics as such finds its nascent beginnings.
It is just another reductionist spin!
I am in chapter ten now, where he speculates that through a symbiosis of “autocatalysis and self-assembly” production of chemical species that have or develop these “containments” like "cell walls" from “autogens”??
It reminds me of the “Accidental Mind.”
The author provides no details of how autocatalysis provides all this, or on how this proposal explains the emergence of values is not made clear.
The “emergence of teleodynamics” is as close as he gets in explaining morality, when two agents have symbiosis and do things "for" the other agent. It is this “emergence” of end-directed nature that we should trace the origin of values to.
His writing style is very convoluted and difficult to follow, But Joe did you get anything more out of it that this?
Hi Darrel. I'm glad you are reading Terry Deacon's book. I think there are some interesting ideas in it. Keep in mind that he is a physical anthropologist, not a zoologist or psychologist or philosopher. Before I weigh in much on this book or the ideas in it, I'd like for others to have a chance to read and discuss it a bit.
Wishng you well.
David, sometime next week might work for me.