My First “Dear Abby” Letter
by Andy Hanson
A question received and answered by Andy Hanson, September 12, 2014
Dear Mr. Hanson,
I have a confession to make. I’ve been reading your Adventist Today blog since the Patricia Moleski days. I guess that makes me a fan. Anyway, since our intellectual instincts seem to be in sync—we don’t believe in a literal seven-day creation and a worldwide flood—and we both claim to be Adventists, albeit real “lefties,” shouldn’t both of us come out of the closet and ask to have our names dropped from the church books? According to our General Conference President, Ted Wilson, speaking at an educators conference in Utah,
Sincerely,
A Fan
Dear Fan,
Thank you for your fanship and your question. While I wouldn’t presume to answer that question for you, here is my answer. I plan to ignore Ted. I will tender my resignation when my local church requests it. After all, Ted is only a member of the Adventist Church. He isn’t an Adventist Pope. His thoughts and ideas are not inerrant. And his willful ignorance regarding the “seventh-day” on a round planet, not to mention astronomy and history, is self-revelatory when he goes on to claim that “the actual seventh day has never been lost. It can be documented through history and through astronomy.”
Anyway, most of my fellow church members shrug off his pronouncements, and if he regards National Geographic* as a publication designed to subvert the minds of the faithful, that’s his personal business.
Sincerely,
*Roff Smith, “Before Stonehenge,” National Geographic, August, 2014, 26-51.
Dear Abby/Hanson,
You mean I could have stayed on board the SDA life boat 40 years ago? With "Sustentation" (that's what retirement income was called then) now deposited into my Bank Of America account periodically? That is, using your reasoning. I could have ignored the credo of the baptismal certificate I received as a dunked kid (baptism)? And, even though I understand it has been altered since then, it still appears be the contract of admission and reflects the core of Adventism reflected by Reverend Wilsons stringent affirmation. You mean when I later became an SDA minister I could have accepted a paycheck in ethical nirvana while being an unsubscriber to its rules of membership? I think I may have grounds for legal action since I left under duress of conscience.
My question to you, Dear Abby/Hanson can I sue for back pay?
Sincerely, Bugs
Respect to Bugs for following his conscience, but no back pay is owed for service not performed. You do, we do, illustrate the obvious point that a person's thinking often changes over time. I was baptized at the age of 12. Now I'm 60 and don't think the same in all ways as I did before. Never in all this time has the church where I had my membership given me a loyalty test or some challenge to verify my continued alignment with all points of SDA orthodoxy. Why? Could it be that thought crimes are just not that important to the church at large?
What may matter more is behavior or public teaching that causes disruption in church community. I would say that inviting everyone who disagrees with me to leave the church would do great violence to church community, especially when I am someone in authority.
OK. Commmon, Fred, if a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich (allegedly), why can't I sue for work I didn't do? Besides, I want damages, for pain and suffering!
I’m not big on inviting people to leave the Adventist faith community per se, but do admire the intellectual integrity and social courage it takes for those who don’t believe what Adventism teaches to leave.
Simultaneously, I don’t understand the thinking of anyone who would voluntarily remain affiliated with any organization with which they fundamentally disagree. To stay because it was mommy and daddy’s church seems juvenile in the extreme. To stay because one has friends who’ve remained Adventist seems needy and psychologically/socially insecure. To stay and cause dissension and controversy instead of starting one’s own community of like-minded believers/unbelievers seems to me rather cowardly.
Everybody is different however; and the Holy Spirit is working with those who subscribe to Adventist doctrine and those who don’t. God will eventually separate "wheat" from "tares." (Circumstances may also do the same thing.) Only He knows who is really what.
Groucho Marx once said he would never belong to a club that have him for a member. That might be me, too!
Very funny, bruh! I find that humor is at its best when it is self-deprecating. (That’s why Rodney Dangerfield was one of the great stand-up comedians of all time.)
I was born and raised in the SDA church, however, I have come to the conclusion that I have only two commandments to live by. Love the Lord with all my heart and my neighbor as myself. About nine months ago I and my wife began attending a local Baptist church and are considered members. I am being spiritually fed and challanged to grow closer with Jesus. Franklly, I look forward to being spiritually challanged.
It seems to me that Adventism teachs how to be seperate, that if we rub shoulders with others we will become contaminated. A recent artilcle in the Review, about the church in Paradise Valley, showed me that at least one SDA church gets it. It's about getting our hands dirty, by being involved in our community, of sharing ourselves and of our resources.
When it's all said and done, I am saved by my relationship with Jesus.
Once, as a pastor, I had a member who reported to me he came to the Adventist church on Saturday for doctrine but attended a Sunday church to enjoy love and kindness.
I understood the dicotomy.
David,
You are so right, it is about getting your hands dirty. Any fear of involvement with others reveals how doubtful a person is about the power of God in their life. Getting our hands dirty gives us the opportunity to enjoy some really special blessings.
I'm just back from spending four hours working (plus more than an hour driving each direction) with two others on the home of a now-retired former pastor who is getting by on a very limited income. There is so much wrong with his house that what we did was minor in contrast with his need. But it was amazingly worthwhile being there because of what it did for his spirit. God is restoring his faith and he told us several times that our coming that far to help him was new proof to him of how much God cares about him. Seeing the joy on his face was such a blessing to me that I think I'll be savoring it all week. I invited the folks from two churches much closer than him than me to help, but no one came. I pity them. By keeping their hands clean they missed a big blessing.
Andy,
What is the probability your local church would take an action where you would tender your resigation? Are there not other relationships and doctrines that would constrain you from doing that? If not, would a person be correct in assuming that your local church is perhaps failing to nurture you spiritually?
This is in part a continuation of response to David Petersen above.
It seems to me that Adventism teachs how to be seperate, that if we rub shoulders with others we will become contaminated.
Here is the Scylla and Charybdis of Adventism.
Representing itself as the "Remnant," the Adventist church charted a course decades ago as being exclusive, separate, and built an empire to reflect and produce an outcome to fit that proposition. The medical and educational systems were created to keep the "Truth" keepers from rubbing shoulders with the worldly ones, except under controlled atmospheres. Church fathers recognized the teachings couldn't survive in the real world. Its distinctive doctrines, mostly outside of the mainstream but treasured by the church, were internal evidence of its "last days" scenario. Its cocoon-shelter gave "believers" a safe haven from shoulder-rubbing because doctrinal oddities, without appeal, were difficult to explain to the heads on those "outsider" shoulder. It's success can be measured by fairly effective "contamination" prevention and a private membership factory that keeps the system running.
The system lives, but is effectively propped up by a false economy that avoids sink or swim reality.
Adventism without its safe house, probably wouldn't have survived to its present form. Yes, that is wild speculation on my part.
But supposing Adventist kids had only public schools to attend. Shoulder-rubbing probably would have rubbed many the "wrong" way. Adults would have made Sabbath keeping compromises to their feed families. Ancient Adventism would surely have been compromised. And its bizarre doctrines (heavenly sanctuary, 144,000, close of probation, three angels messages, the spirit of prophecy, to name a few) probably would have been modified or disappeared in the teeth of reality.
If it did survive the reality test, there would be Adventist politicians, CEO's, professional airline pilots, Olympic level athletic achievers, pro baseball and football players, etc.etc.etc. And they would represent a religious alternative to a huge demographic that has been historically untouchable by Adventism.
When I chose the SDA ministry, I bought into the myth of the "soon advent of Christ." I ignored my acceptance to engineering school at Walla Walla, believing I could help propel the Advent. I was an adaptive personality. But not stupid. I soon realized Adventism is a little island of cloistered, strange thought, apparently determined to keep doing what is always done.
The rocks (Scylla) await Adventism and the whirlpool, Charybdis (Google it), has the good ship Adventism spinning toward them. Nice "outreaches" by a few idealizing pastors and congregations are helpless buoys in a churning strait.
Historical Adventism survives only by continuing to ignore realty, a direction apparently correctly and perceptibly represented by its present leader. Blinded followers will not rebel. Thinkers face their own version of Scylla and Charybdis.
Bugs,
It is a ‘tell’ that criticisms such as these are exclusively directed at Adventism. Your criticisms of Adventism relative to “reality” of course apply to all religion; or at least certainly to the Christian concept of a personal savior who ‘lives.’ (Evidences of trauma are resurfacing yet again.)
The simultaneous characterization of historical Adventists as ignorers of reality and “blinded followers,” and others (presumably those who aren’t historical Seventh-day Adventists) as “thinkers,” is similar to those who think that ‘remnant’ implies inherent superiority.
So I suppose this makes you a “thinker” and me a “blinded follower,” huh? I’d guess the only way for me to be a “thinker” would be to have the scales removed from my eyes; and either adopt your doctrine or some other interpretation of the sanctuary, the 144,000, of Revelation 22:11, the three angels’ messages, and the spirit of prophecy, among others. You can 'see' what historical Adventists cannot because you after all are “not stupid.”
We may have one thing in common: we may feel pity for each other. I apologize by proxy for whatever Adventism/Adventists have done to you. Please forgive us.
Stephen I didn't have you specifically in mind as I wrote the post, but I should have, it appears. Your histrionics , including diagnosing me with a phantom experience of "trauma," leaves unanswered, my assertion that "Thinkers face their own version of Scylla and Charybdis." Explain to me how that doesn't apply to you, whom I accept, so far, at least, as a "thinker?" The article at the beginning of this thread discusses the issue of the creation of creation in six literal days, a tenant of Adventism, possibly to be reinforced in the near future. Do you now or will you ever perform the mental gymnastics, the mental reservations necessary, or gullibility, to affirm your membership in view of this continuing elevation of myth to fact? I maintain if you subscribe in any way to a literal six day creation, you are openly ignoring the "facts." You would be a "blinded follower" by your purposeful blindness to scientific reality. If so, Joe, in his post below, has a salient discussion of the ability to "believe."
Pelting me with tossed marshmallows ("trauma, proxy of Adventism") doesn't advance your discussion even one millimeter. It is a feeble attempt to neutralize my statements by dismissing me. Your Scriptural quotation and its stilted, for Adventism only, interpretation is unrecognized in "mainline" Christianity.
Set your hurt feelings aside, please address the body of my statement, ninety percent of which you have ignored. Or is the scrum too much for you?
Oh, "pity for each other." That is ego on display. Not mine. Along with Joe Erwin, it is the ability to believe and its transient behavior in some humans, but not all, that interests me. That is in addition to my primary assertions outlined in my post.
"Forgive us?" Awwwwww, For what? Who is "us?"
“Phantom trauma” you say? Maybe that’s it. Perhaps there is another word, a synonym, for trauma that really isn’t actually, technically…traumatic.
In my opinion, Joe has nailed it in his assessment of such resentment and some of the primary reasons for it. What he describes as what “can be devastating” seems like trauma—maybe “phantom trauma—but whatever you call it, it’s something.
Listen man, Adventism is a faith community. There are a number of faith communities. They all have beliefs that differ somehow. Adventism has unique (or minority) beliefs or doctrines; but this does not delegitimize them.
Because you may consider faith to be the hallmark of “blind followers” and because you may consider yourself a “thinker” and “not stupid” (because you don’t have faith), or because you have your own beliefs, does not make you any more right than you were when you believed differently.
Likewise my having faith in the God described in Scripture, or being confident in the inspiration that I believe this same God provided in producing this same Scripture, does not make me superior to you.
I’m not seeking to dismiss you; I’m simply dismissing your suggestion that those who believe differently than you are not “thinkers.”
Your reply is partially valid, except the trauma/traumatic part. However, even here, I believe you are onto something in what turns into a revelation about yourself (and possibly others who cannot be moved). You continue to infer, or even insist, that my position is the result of some kind of trauma. That, my friend, reveals a truth about you. That is, only some trauma/traumatic event could move you to depart from your belief.
Others on this forum, like you, continue to blame my personal disposal of Adventism to some trauma, some event or events, or persons, some source or sources of imputed anger that propelled me out the door in disgust. From that point of view Adventist doctrine survives totally unsullied. I'm the problem, no need to reply to my propositions. Or, as I see it, to face the facts.
What it would take for you to move from belief (Trauma/Traumatic event) is not what it took for me. My exit came due to analytical, thinking, function of my noodle. That's it! Apparently that is not an adequate explanation for you since you apparently aren't disposed to suffer the outcome of that process.
I am not critical of your commitment to your belief. I'm trying to understand how you do that and why present knowledge, which contradicts "Present Truth" on a host of issues, doesn’t seem to affect you.
The fact that you continue to ignore in my post what I think is the most stinging critique of Adventism (cloistering, safe harbor, bizarre doctrines, etc.) may reveal a more simple truth. You know my statement is true, but like the old Country song that wails: The Pain of Having You Gone is Worse than the Pain of Having You Here. Could it be true that your version might be: The Pain of Having Myself Gone is Greater Than the Pain Staying Put.
See, maybe you have transposed your potential exit trauma onto my actual exit.
Bugs,
You are illustrating something that a lot of people in churches (including Adventist) are having a very difficult time understanding: that not everything in the church makes complete sense to them and people leave for a variety of reasons that have typically accumulated to where a person simply decides that staying in the church makes no sense. This is why Adventists lead all christian denominations in North America in the rate at which they are losing their youth (46%). This is why, of the roughly 6,000 Adventist congregations in North America, more than 1,000 have no youth attending. This is why, of those 6,000 congregations, roughly two-thirds are losing members.
This is a serious challenge where we need to recognize that spiritual dissonance exists, that it has specific causes and learn to deal with those causes. I went through a time of great spiritual dissonance where my faith in God died because of the practices and distorted beliefs that I saw in the church. Had it not been for the opportunity to join with others facing similar challenges and to form a new congregation where it is safe to ask questions and be different, I would not be in the church today. One of the biggest lessons I have learned along the way is how many ways people misinterpret the plain teachings of the Bible and how often they twist and abuse the writings of Ellen White to support their particular (and typically highly inaccurate) points of vew.
William,
While I agree with some of what you are saying, I must take exception to your statements about why many NA Adventist churches are shrinking and/or have no young people.
I think if you bothered to correleate the Adventist demographic trends in a particular locale, you would see that they mirror the general demographic trends in that locale. Many older Adventist churches are in rural communities where the young people choose to move away to find jobs, spouses, education etc. After all the young people move away the church (along with the community) dwindles. I could point you to many places where this has happened or is happening, especially in the interior of North America where every generation requires fewer people to work the ever-larger farms. The impact on the local churches is not unique to Adventism. The same thing happens to all the other churches in these towns. First you get ghost churches then ghost towns.
Jim,
I quickly admit to having only a top-level view of the data so I would like to dig more deeply into it. You are correct that there are different situations in various places. Still, when you see one church in six having no youth and the #1 reason the departed youth giving to explain their departure being the unwillingness of the church to let them ask questions and test the basis for the church's teachings, we're dealing with a serious situation.
There are lies, damned lies and statistics 8-).
The problem here is conflating two different measurements (local church demographics and national church participation trends), compounded by the fact that a percentage of those who do not attend church in their 20s tend to return in their 30s when they have children.
Most Adventist youth leave their local church when they go away to college. Very few return to the same church after they find a job and/or (typically much later) a spouse. The 20s are a time of transition for most young people in America, not just Adventists. Those who return to any church usually do not return to the local congregation where they attended as a teen-ager.
On the other hand their ranks are ususally filled by younger children growing-up. Right now there is a dip in teen-age children in many communities (recent immigrants excluded). There are demographic peaks and valleys that tend to average out over perhaps half a generation. So you need to look at longer-term patterns and follow these young people for at least 10 years to see where they actually end-up. These simple single-random-sample studies do not do this. Garbage-in -> garbage-out. You can find whatever "trends" you wish in this kind of study. Which is one reason why they sell so well – something for every agenda.
If 1 in 6 Adventist churches have no young people then they probably have no young families, which usually means they are in communities where new jobs are not being created. People follow economic opportunity – they behave in their own self-interest. They move from declining communities to places where there is more opportunity. This is especially true for young people raised as Adventists because our emphasis on education enables mobility.
For many non-Adventists who grow up in areas of limited opportunity the military is their ticket out-of-town. The two main tickets out-of-town for young adults in the US of A are college and the military. Adventists encourage the former although a growing minority of our young people are taking the latter.
Jim,
I understand what you are saying. Please remember, I haven't had the opportunity to dig into the study in any depth. Two Sabbaths ago we had a seminar at our church presented by Roger Hernandez, the ministerial director for the Southern Union, in which he gave us a download from the Barna study.
While I'm sure what you have described about dying communities happens, it also is happening in growing areas. I can show you one church in a growing community not far from my home where there once were almost 200 members on the books, attendance is generally less than 50 and the average age in attendance is in their 60s. I can show you another that had a peak membership of about 120, but if there are two dozen there on Sabbath morning it is a great day. Again zero children. I can show you at least eight churches in my conference with memberships above 100 where they haven't had more than 5% youth in attendance in more than a decade. They're all in growing communities.
According to what Roger Hernandez showed us, your observation about youth who leave in their 20s returning to the church in the 30s is largely a myth, that the reasons for the disaffection with the church are so deep that the number who return is very small.
I also have observed youth using the military as a way of getting away from the church. Though in some cases I think being in the military was the greater influence separating them from the church. My left the church before joining the military. There are two SDA churches within five miles of his house. One of the physicians on the base is SDA and invited him to church. He went. Once. He said it reminded him of everything from his childhood that caused him to leave the church in the first place.
Yes, there are all sorts of variations among the churches in the universe that was measured in the Barna study. If that ius what you are seeing, then it is easy to understand why you would cite that observation. I think if we look deeper at the data we'll find what you described is closer to one of the thin ends of the bell curve than the center.
It is quite a mystery, isn't it? What keeps some believing, while others find that they can no longer believe?
Clearly, you, friend Stephen, are not stupid–you are not, I think, "stupid" any more than Bugs is "wicked" because he cannot believe what you do.
There is something about individual cognitive styles that that enables some to tolerate cognitive dissonance differently. Some find it easier than others to accommodate to orderly social systems or belief traditions or ignore what others see as irreconcilable differences. Some can remain affiliated, while others cannot–whether or not the traditions seem authentic to them.
I am not sure why we see things so differently.
Stephen, I think you are correct that the phenomena involved are not entirely exclusive to adventism. I have met many people, in the US and abroad, who have had the experience of growing up in a tradition to which they adhered in their youth and left as adults–most often as young adults.
It seems to me that those who harbored the most resentment toward the tradition from which they came were those who stayed in it the longest or who had been the most deeply committed. There is a sense that their time and energy was wasted–that they had been duped and deceived, and that part of their lives had been stolen.
Some of the most resentful ex-adventists I have known have been those who had a deep and enduring commitment–to the point of going through the seminary and becoming pastors and sometimes missionaries, only to discover that they could no longer honestly believe what they were asked to tell people. In some cases, they found that if they spoke honestly of their experiences and convictions they were branded as heretics and not too gently counseled to shut up or leave.
So, what happens to you if you have trained for service as a minister or teacher within one faith tradition and you find that what you honestly believe does not align with what others of that tradition expect you to say or teach or preach?
If you have other skills and some other sustaining vocation–especially if you are warmly embraced by colleagues and associates–the transition can be eased. If leaving is one's own initiative and one is leaving for an identifiable destination or pathway, the separation is not so difficult. If one is forced out, in some way, especially in some (maybe seemingly petty) doctrinal dispute, that can be devastating.
A "break up" with one's church can be alot like a shattered marital or other intimate relationship. The one doing the leaving often suffers less than the one who is left behind. And so we see people who feel the church was unfaithful to them. That they were wronged. That the church did not fulfill its promises to them. Others feel that they simply "outgrew" the relationship.
But the real reason Bugs is focusing on adventism here is because, here on AToday, that is the focus. We are here at all only because we have had experiences with SDA-ism.
But I must admit that I find it interesting that (and I continue to wonder about how) bright and honest people are able to adhere to the traditions of their youth (or not).
Beyond adventism there seem to be "stayers" and "leavers." I live in rural south-central Pennsylvania, in a county that has only about 15,000 residents. The population here does not change very much–it grows a little, but not much. Many people leave as they reach adulthood. Those who go away to college seldom return to live here. They find challenging work elsewhere, and just return for family reunions. Half of the employed residents are employed outside the county, and half of those outside the state. Even so, many people from outside the county are employed within the county. There is a mismatch between the qualifications of people inside and outside the county.
Educational attainment of adults in our county is astonishingly low. It is similar to some counties in eastern Kentucky and northeastern Mississippi–although maybe not for the same reasons. All are part, however, of what is called "Apalachia." There is some sense that those who leave are those with ambition and/or intelligence, but it might have as much to do with "bonding" to place and family–if not some sort of xenophobia. I do not claim that people who are "stayers" are "stupid." But I do think there may be something fundamentally different about the "stayers" and the "leavers."
Stephen and Bugs. Good thoughts from both of you.
What I am suggesting, and what interests me (as a person, as a scientist, as a psychologist, and
as a former SDA), is that similar psychological processes are probably at work both within
"faith communities" and in secular settings. There are religious cults (and semi-cults), and there are cults and cultish groups that are secular. And there are religious and non-religious groups that are somewhat or less than cultish. Some groups are very permeable. Others not so.
I'm pretty interested in social organization, and what makes groups more or less permeable. I'm interested in the processes as they apply to humans, other primates, and other mammals–even non-mammals. What processes promote cohesion? What processes promote xenophobia? How does recognition of "sameness" differ from recognition of "different?" And how do we behave toward those we see as "like us" versus those we see as "different?" How do we enforce compliance? How open are we to diversity of opinion or other individual or group characteristics?
Thank you both (and others) for helping to explore such issues.
As Bugs suggests above, it is easy and plenty common for people to "project" their own
concerns or motivations onto others. Have a look at "Projection" as one of many defense
mechanisms.
Bugs,
How am I avoiding your point brother? Maybe the vehemence with which you deny trauma is causing you some distraction. This may explain why you missed the fact that I've acknowledged that Joe nailed what I’d perceived as ‘trauma’ as resentment.
You also seem to have whiffed on my acknowledgment that Adventism, as other faith communities, has a set of beliefs or doctrines that seem at odds with "reality."
I keep coming back to this but it really illustrates my point; is it more plausible to you that Lazarus was resurrected by voice command or that God created the world in six consecutive days? Aren’t both things equally implausible to you given what we can perceive in “reality”?
Besides, there are a lot of fundamentalist Christians who believe the Biblical narrative yet who are not members of my church. Faith in a personal yet all-powerful God is something that others claim as well.
Joe, if you are perhaps suggesting that I may be projecting on to Bugs, again I acknowledge that your take on “resentment” (for having been let down, or whatever) is probably closer to being true; so I don’t quite understand the connection.
Communicating with you is similar to talking to the Watch Tower. Except they don't call me a liar.
You are entirely entitled to your belief and your opinion about me.
From my point of view, you are entitled to eke out an existence on the little island of Adventism, conjoined with other "fundamental Christians" who enjoy life in a make-believe world. Willful ignorance, I contend, is your opiate for sleepwalking peacefully down a path that is too threatening to be realistically encountered.
You are not stupid or dumb. I am not smarter than you or better than you in any way. You are on Pluto, I am on Mars. That's all.
Bugs,
You really should read more carefully. When I said that Joe has “nailed” what I’d perceived to be “trauma” as actually “resentment;” that was an acknowledgment that trauma was not the most accurate assessment; and that resentment or anger was closer. I mean, you are protesting too much. In my corporate career we would refer to that as talking past the sale.
So I’m not calling you a liar. You say you aren’t/weren’t traumatized so, OK. You may however admit some resonance with Joe’s observation as regards “some of the most resentful ex-Adventists [that he’d] known [having] been those who had a deep and enduring commitment–to the point of going through the seminary and becoming pastors and sometimes missionaries, only to discover that they could no longer honestly believe what they were asked to tell people. In some cases, they found that if they spoke honestly of their experiences and convictions they were branded as heretics and not too gently counseled to shut up or leave.”
Perhaps to some extent you can relate/agree to “there is a sense that their time and energy was wasted–that they had been duped and deceived, and that part of their lives had been stolen.”
Your last two paragraphs are clearly contradictory; but I suppose as long as you don’t consider Mars a planet of “not stupid” “thinkers,” and Pluto a planet of and for others, we have no issue.
Stephen, you have a bloated speculative sense about my motives for choosing a course other than Adventism. Because you can't imagine yourself making such a decision based on intellectual analysis, you can't, from your little Adventist island Cocoon, simply believe it happens that way because it couldn't happen to you. At least without the aggravations you impute to me. You definitely demonstrate Joes' defense mechanism of Projection.
You are still calling me a liar, a deceiver, or at least goofily unaware of my own experience, motives and actions.
Free of anger. Never duped. Free of trauma. Free of Resentment. Free of ever being branded a heretic. Never counseled to "shut up." That was my experience. Finally realized there is no The Truth as proudly proclaimed by Adventism for itself.
I doubt your ability to follow my thinking and experience. Anyway, I have never felt or expressed in any sense that I wasted my time as an SDA minister. I have no anger at anyone I left behind. I was not cross-ways with any of my superiors. I paid my tithe to the end. I'm not angry, now or never, at the church. My fellow ministers weren't aware of the direction my mind was taking me. I had no desire to make my experience theirs or have then walk out the door with me. I walked proudly out the front door. It was my decision, for me, mine alone. I concluded that the God who gave me my mind wouldn't be angry at me for the ten years I spent exercising it. I walked happily out the front door, based on conviction.
Joe's observation is valid, but not for me. My best bud left the Adventist ministry when I did. He is angry and embarrassed about his time in the church. He won't tell anyone he was an Adventist minister. One of my college roommates rages with anger after 35 years, regretting his time wasted. Both of these guys have found spiritual values for their lives unencumbered by the self-imposed restrictions required by Adventism. So have I. Not long ago I had a conversation with a longtime friend from Academy days who spent many years working in the GC, now retired. He has left the church in rage and anger, I never asked why.
You have determined the world of modern science, astronomy, and geology are myth. And the scriptures are not. You have to love the current GC president.
Wow! You really won’t take “yes” for an answer! I said “OK” and admitted “trauma” may have been an overstatement; but you insist on this victimization by way of being called “a liar” by me.
Not even asking you if you Joe’s observation resonates with you somewhat or if you can relate to parts of it is enough for you these days Bugs. I accept you made an “intellectual analysis;” because you are a “thinker” after all—and also because you are “not stupid.” As I say, you’re protesting too much.
I get it now, you know others who have travelled a similar path who are resentful; and some resentful and ashamed. But you are not resentful toward Adventism. I’ll try to remember that next time I read something you write about Adventists/Adventism.
Seriously though, I think you’re in denial. That’s not calling you a liar Bugs. I just believe that you are somewhat oblivious to your current motivation for critiquing Adventism with such gusto, shall we say. Just as you think I’m in denial about reality, I believe you are too.
As for “modern science, astronomy, and geology” being mythological, I have no idea what you mean; that is, other than the fact that I don’t believe it’s possible to determine what happened on earth a million years ago (much less much more than that). However if that is what you meant by that, then I must plead guilty as charged; just as I will of “[loving] the current GC president.”
Okay, guys. Can we turn down the heat and examine these issues?
I've mentioned before my own experience with leaving leaving the church, but I'll touch on it
again here. There was some light and some heat involved.
The light shown in from all sorts of angles and experiences, mostly beyond the edges of SDA-ism
(but also with some interesting experiences with SDAs in Europe, who seemed considerably more open and–dare I say–more Christian than was typical in my US [California and Arizona] experience). And then there was objective science, from geology to biology. The YEC myth simply became incredible to me. It is difficult for me to understand how anyone could seriously consider and think about the abundant evidence that exists in tangible reality and conclude that YEC is valid or makes any sense (aside from being just a legend–a traditional tale or myth about origins).
But I did not yet have my name removed from the books. As a graduate student I had barely enough financial resources to pay my rent and eat. Other than that, all the costs were covered by the UC program I was in. Even so, it irritated me when I received endless solicitations for money from the church. After receiving a particularly offensive request to remember the church in my will, I contacted a conference official who I knew. I think he was treasurer and membership secretary, or something of the sort (I recalled him from when I was an SDA elementary school teacher, as the person who negotiated my contract inflexibly when I had been paid $2500 to teach all subjects in all grades in a one-room school–less than I would have earned as a gas station attendant and far below minimum wage).
I asked the gentlemen to get my name off the mailing list for the endless solicitations. He replied that everyone on the church membership list got the mailings. He could not just have me stop getting the mailings, so I would just have to live with them (typical of the brittle inflexibility of that individual and the church). My response was, "I know how to solve this problem. Okay, remove my name from the list of members." That happened, and I was, and continue to be, fine with it.
So am I bitter? A little, but I am not seething with resentment. I already knew that I no longer believed much of what the church taught as "The Truth." In fact, I consider the church fraudulent, in that it deliberately teaches people how to not think clearly about reality. It even encourages people to pay to have their children protected from "dangerous" information. But, hey! It is not the only fraud on the face of the earth. There are plenty of frauds to go around–something for everyone who wants to live a fantasy.
But remember, it isn't a lie to you, if you believe it is true.
So there is no need for us to add heat to the discussion by calling one another liars.
Joe, we pastors were periodically called in for a "workers meeting" and pressured to pledge from our very meager incomes for some fund raising project, which we pretty much had to do. That was in addition to tithe and offerings. Whoops, now Stephen will declare victory as he now has the heretofore concealed evidence for the "resentment" motivation for my exodus! Darn. Shouddaaa kept my trap shut!
One other thing. In reviewing the wreckage of my dialogue with Stephen Foster, I have determined the downward spiral is his fault. Therefore I am just going to let bygones be bygones! In other words, I forgive him!!!
Way to go Joe, “turning down the heat and examining the issues” and all…
Here’s how/where/why we agree; and why I am not now, nor have I ever, called Brother Bugs a liar or prevaricator: he is talking about his own life. He is an expert on his life; and “it isn’t a lie to you, if you believe it is true”—and apparently Bugs believes that he harbors no resentment or bitterness or animosity toward Seventh-day Adventists/Adventism.
I am, shall we say, somewhat skeptical about that simply because much of what he writes provides ample evidence to the contrary; but it isn’t a lie to him, since he believes it is true. Therefore it isn’t a lie to me.
Insofar as “examining the issues” are concerned; it appears that faith in and interpretation of the Bible has been problematic generally for people such as yourselves, and that specific idiosyncratic and/or cultural (intra-denominational) occurrences and/or events have been likewise problematic (for some who have been seriously involved or denominationally employed Seventh-day Adventists); causing you (both) to conduct an “intellectual analysis” which concluded in your decisions to leave the church.
And you’re on this site as frequent contributors mainly because of your interest in, or curiosity about, how others process information; and that while you admit to some bitterness and consider the church “fraudulent,” you are not on a mission to undermine it or convert others to your way of thinking about the church, or scripture.
Have I summarized “the issues” somewhat fairly?
Here are edits to two paragraphs which were made but weren’t posted by mistake:
Insofar as “examining the issues” are concerned; it appears that faith in and interpretation of the Bible has generally been problematic for people such as yourselves, and that specific idiosyncratic and/or cultural (intra-denominational) occurrences and/or mores have been likewise problematic (for some who have been seriously involved or denominationally employed Seventh-day Adventists); causing you (both) to conduct an “intellectual analysis” which concluded in your decisions to leave the church.
And you’re on this site as frequent contributors mainly because of your interest in, or curiosity about, how others process information; and that while you admit to some bitterness and consider the church “fraudulent,” you are not on a mission to undermine it or persuade others to your way of thinking about the church, or scripture.
Pretty good "edits," summation, in my case, at least, Stephen. Except for the word "bitterness," but that is an unproven judgment I will no longer address!
Incredulous might describe my view better. This morning I heard a report about quite a large group of adherents to the view the moon landing was a hoax, a faked event by the US Government back then. I view adherents to the view of the inerrancy of Scripture (the creation story, et. al.) in the same sense of amazement. How can belief trump facts for some and not others? True believers, reinforced by my encounters on this forum, appear unmoved by data that, in my mind, totally contradicts their "belief." So, if I have correctly understood your stance, Stephen, I'm astonished at you!
Are their external factors that buttress belief at the expense of data, or are there physical brain differences as part of our uniqueness?
I’m not sure at what age Adventist children should be gently and carefully given the opportunity to compare the reality of the Adventist world of mirrors—Jesus loves me, this I know—with reality that occurs when those mirrors become windows. The following is my version of a Christian philosophy of Adventist education.
There can be no “education” without confronting questions, and educated Adventist men and women will, invariably, question their religious beliefs. If they come to believe that the foundational beliefs of Adventism cannot be supported by rational and/or scientific evidence, these young people have to make a decision about what to do. It’s at this point that the Adventist community should be prepared assure them that personal integrity should not be compromised to make anyone more religiously comfortable, and questions are part of healthy spiritual growth. They should be assured that they will always be members of the Adventist community in good standing, regardless of way their quest for answers shape their lives.
This scenario, obviously, is currently a faint hope, but where there is hope, there is at least a spark of life.
“If they come to believe that the foundational beliefs of Adventism cannot be supported by rational and/or scientific evidence, these young people have to make a decision about what to do.”
Yes, this is true; the point at which anyone comes to believe that the foundational beliefs of Adventism [and Christianity for that matter] cannot be supported by rational and/or scientific evidence, these young people have to make a decision about what to do.”
“It’s at this point that the Adventist community should be prepared assure them that personal integrity should not be compromised to make anyone more religiously comfortable, and questions are part of healthy spiritual growth.”
I agree with these words; but these words are interpreted very differently by me than what was apparently meant to be communicated by the individual who wrote them.
“They should be assured that they will always be members of the Adventist community in good standing, regardless of way their quest for answers shape their lives.”
This is at odds with the idea that those who come to certain conclusions about “the foundational beliefs of Adventism” have a decision to make about what to do. This suggests, or says, that there should be no decision to make—regardless of how anyone’s “quest for answers,” or the answers they accept, “shape their lives.”
This is, thankfully, a non-starter. Why would those who conclude that “the foundational beliefs of Adventism” are insupportable want to continue to be Adventists anyway? How is that, in any way, considered rational? No one has ever even attempted to address that perfectly rational question, Andy. Why should Adventists who subscribe to “the foundational beliefs of Adventism” desire the fellowship of community with those who fundamentally disagree with their faith and consider it fundamentally insupportable?
Stephen,
You wrote: "Why should Adventists who subscribe to “the foundational beliefs of Adventism” desire the fellowship of community with those who fundamentally disagree with their faith and consider it fundamentally insupportable?"
First, we want to see them redeemed by God's transforming power. If not, we are not working for the salvation of others as Jesus told us to do. Second, we want to experience God's transforming power in our own life and, unless we're being challenged by the issues they raise, we're not growing in our relationship with God. Third, if we're not seeing them changed and their faith restored by interacting with us, then we have proof that we're at least spiritual impotent, if not spiritually dead.
If you look at the results of the study done by the Barna Group for NAD last year about why the Adventist Church is losing so many of its' youth, you will see that unwillingness to permit and deal with questions is one of the reasons we are losing more of our youth than any other denomination.
You actually make some very good points William in response to that second question. Of course by, “fellowship of community” I actually meant “community of fellowship,” as co-members. Yes, by all means, we want to see everyone “redeemed by God’s transforming power.” Naturally, you’ll disagree with much of this; but one doesn’t have to be an Adventist to be redeemed by His power. In fact heaven will be primarily composed of saints who have not been SDAs.
It’s one thing to be challenged by the issues that those who believe that the foundational beliefs of Adventism are insupportable; it’s another when the answers that they accept are in fundamental opposition to faith. We don’t have to be challenged by such issues—especially from within our faith community—in order for growth to occur.
There is a lot to be said for allowing youth to challenge and question. I credit my late father for wisely permitting me to challenge and question everything. (Those who know me realize that I challenge ideas and assertions with some relish.) However if the only answers that I would eventually accept were those at variance with the idea of faith in God, then I would have long since exited.
Everyone will not necessarily experience God’s power as a result of interaction with anyone. Judas interacted with Jesus nearly every day; or at least was in close proximity. From a logical perspective, the fact that Judas’ life/faith wasn’t renewed and restored by such interaction certainly was no indication/”proof” that Jesus was spiritually impotent or spiritually dead. The Holy Spirit isn’t a magic spell. Relationships with God don’t occur by osmosis. Such a relationship is not a contagion. If someone is determined not to believe or intellectually persuaded against faith in God, then those who are willing to believe can only love and pray for them. They can love them by interacting with them, but such interaction need not include membership in the same community of faith.
For someone to remain in a community of faith wherein they dispute the notion/concept/idea of faith in the power of God is counterproductive to them and the community. For those who do believe yet dispute doctrines upon which a community is founded, why is it necessary to remain there? One doesn’t have to be an Adventist. The kingdom of God is not entirely composed of members of my particular denomination.
The unanswered question remains, why would anyone voluntarily belong to any organization with which they have profound conceptual and foundational disagreements?
Stephen,
You wrote: "It’s one thing to be challenged by the issues that those who believe that the foundational beliefs of Adventism are insupportable; it’s another when the answers that they accept are in fundamental opposition to faith." I most vigorously disagree. When you say that, you are telling us that you are expecting them to resolve their questions according to your time schedule and that they should arrive at the same understanding you have. You are also dismissing the desire and power of the Holy Spirit to lead them.
You wrote: "The Holy Spirit isn’t a magic spell." Agreed. Still, there is an untapped immensity of power in the Holy Spirit that God expects us to allow to overflow us, empower us and guide us. The Holy Spirit is the presence of God in us. But Adventists have made Him the ignored member of the Trinity by reducing Him to a spiritual theory when He doesn't behave according to our misconceptions. It is the Holy Spirit who is promised will guide us into all truth. Why do you doubt and ignore Him when He is essential to your spiritual growth?
You wrote: "Relationships with God don’t occur by osmosis. Such a relationship is not a contagion." Apparently you have never seen a church that is led by the Holy Spirit. Relationships with God grow at fantastic rates when they are touched by the power of God through the ministry of God's love to them. The LAST thing Jesus did was teach people after a whole lot of loving. But Adventism has inverted that model He gave us and we're seeing the tragic results.
You wrote: "The unanswered question remains, why would anyone voluntarily belong to any organization with which they have profound conceptual and foundational disagreements?" If all you're giving them is intellectual discussion without any of the power of God, then the question is on-target. But if the church is infused with the power of the Holy Spirit, the person with "conceptual and fundamental disagreements" is exactly where they need to be because they will see the power of God at work. No, like Judas, not all will be transformed by that power. But we'll see a far greater amount of transformations than we're seeing today.
I totally agree with your statement: ". . .why would anyone voluntarily belong to any organization with which they have profound conceptual and foundational disagreements?" Exactly what I have previously said. But my next question remains unanswered: How can any thinking person remain with an organization whose primary premise is based on myth elevated to fact (Inerrancy/creationism)?
Are our primary premises indeed those of inerrancy and crationism? If this were so, would not our name be something like "Biblically Inerrant Church of God the Creator"? Perhaps these premises are emerging as prime directives, but if so they are derived largely from Sunday-keeping Fundamentalism. The Bible and Ellen White's writings have always been represented as the imperfect literary products of human construction, based on revelation received by men and women of faith, and selected by spiritual men and women through the ages, including a number of Catholic prelates in the selection of New Testament books and hired Church employees in the case of Ellen White's work. Literarily inerrant, indeed!?
As to Creation, the Genesis account has always been represented as primarily a promulgation of the creative omnipotence of God, but the concept that it is a blow-by-blow articulation of exactly how creation actually occurred is rather new on my fifth-generation Adventist horizon. I've always been taught (for example) that the cosmos existed before creation of life on Earth, and that the sun, moon, and stars are part of that pre-existing cosmos that became visible during creation. The idea of a totally literal function of the Genesis account is not original to any conservative Adventist viewpoint I know of, other than apparently Brother Wilson and AT guest columnist-Crackerjack Ron Spencer's.
Your statement: "The Bible and Ellen White's writings have always been represented as the imperfect literary products of human construction. . ."
Edwin, you must belong to a different church than I did.
Edwin,
In my humble opinion, the greater issue here is not inerrancy and creationism but faith in God that is functional and empowered.
“How can any thinking person remain with an organization whose primary premise is based on myth elevated to fact (Inerrancy/creationism)?”
Bugs, essentially I’ve said this before, but this question is not materially different than you asking why a thinking person would become or remain a Christian; since Christianity is based on a literal belief in the death and resurrection of someone who was born without the utilization of human sperm.
This is something that is lost on those who fail to see the importance of these issues; while simultaneously purportedly understanding the importance of belief in God’s power. It’s a chicken and egg thing logically.
I have previously asked you whether it’s more plausible that God created the world in six consecutive days or that a (days old) corpse (Lazarus or anyone else for that matter, including Jesus) was resurrected. What may I ask is the difference?
Thinking people become and remain Christians because of the experiences they have and the relationship they develop with the living God. As I’ve said previously, there are a number of Christian denominations all of which have varying interpretative beliefs to some extent.
Personally, I don’t understand how a thinking person can live a long life and deny or ignore any experiences or benefits/blessings deriving from the existence of this God; but I do know that some do.
Belief is a mental assent to an idea. I am a Christian. I like the story of Christ, and his sperm less birth, his miracles and resurrection. But, I qualify up front that I don't "know" if it is true or not (you really don't either). "Belief" doesn't create facts where there aren't any. It is a way of looking at things. I like the story of Lazarus, too. (He did die later, apparently). I don't know if the recount of that story is factual. I don't care. There is no way to know. I like the nice creation story, too. But it is not "true," in a real, verifiable sense. Belief is not operative in the scientific analysis of the physical operation of the universe. It isn't completely understood, there are various opinions, theories come and go, but the basic understanding of operation and structure is secure enough to rule out a fiat of creation in a few days. So, yes, it is more plausible for Lazarus to hop out of the tomb than for God to create a universe that is deceptively, purposely aged as grandpa.
Your statement about a relationship with a "living God" is an interpretation of your experience of life. You have found what you sought. You "like" what you have found. A living God is not a verifiable fact, but a description of your experience of encounter. For me, that is Superguy, an imaginary God created in our image that meets our needs because he was created for that purpose.
Thinking people become and remain Christians because of the experiences they have and the relationship they develop with the living God. Your statement. A "living God" is a creation of the mind, comforting for some, terrifying for others. "Thinking" people have multiple reasons for being Christian, some may like the idea of a "living God." There is no "living God" outside of the mind.
Death is the actual basis for all religious thought. It is the catalyst for the development of Superguy. It has been identified as "evil" by humans, an unwelcome constituent of human life. Thinkers and unthinkers, everybody, grapples with the enigma, the contradiction, of it. Religions are born of it. But all are mental coping mechanisms for dealing with it. Your following statement fits here: Personally, I don’t understand how a thinking person can live a long life and deny or ignore any experiences or benefits/blessings deriving from the existence of this God; but I do know that some do. It is true that some, not everyone uses, or maybe needs, a coping mechanism.
I respect your commitment to your belief. Beliefs are personal. They don't have universal application.
Man, you sure took your time in finally addressing that Lazarus question; didn’t you? So, if I understand you correctly, the Lazarus story may or may not be factual, but is nonetheless (somehow) more plausible than Creation as described in Genesis is. (On what basis, or why, it is more plausible will apparently have to wait.)
I’m suggesting that those who believe the Lazarus story to be factual and believe the Creation narrative believe the same thing—that God is omnipotent (can do anything); and that the Lazarus event was one of many recorded to demonstrate that reality. I understand not believing any of it. I don’t understand believing some of it.
I suppose one reason why I’ve apparently chosen to participate on this site more as a commenter than by authoring columns is that I have said so much of what I have had to say on so many of the issues we frequently discuss in previous blogs or columns.
For instance, if one really and truly believes that “There is no ‘living God’ outside of the mind,” then that’s it. The Bible, for good reason, calls such people foolish—while actually using a noun. I wrote a blog on this once with a strange title (I admit) http://www.atodayarchive.org/article/1733/opinion/foster-stephen/2013/david-and-the-doobie-brothers.
Religion not entirely a “death” coping mechanism. Some religion is about living more abundantly. If anyone fails to perceive many benefits of living as God would have us, then they need to get out more—or perhaps more accurately, live longer. To wit, you seem to be suggesting that attributing the benefits of a long life, in which many terrible things that could well have, or almost did happen, didn’t happen—and many good things occurred that were not the result of one’s own smart decisions, talents, or skills—to a God who can do anything, is also a coping mechanism; as with death.
Then religion is a coping mechanism for both bad fortune and good fortune, huh? (That’s heads you win, tails I lose; unless I am misunderstanding or misappropriating this.)
Any Bugs, how does your impersonal love god propose that you deal with hatred; and is there evil in its universe?
Corrections/edits: Religion isn’t entirely a “death” coping mechanism. Some religion is largely about living more abundantly.
Stephen, yes, I think you have summarized somewhat fairly, for me at least.
Working for the church in lowly capacities like door-to-door sales and teaching
in schools that were about to go away for lack of funds were enlightening
experiences. Among other things, I had opportunities to see first hand how
human and flawed some of the church leaders, clerics, and employees were.
Now, of course, I realize that they were all merely mortal humans, even though
I had expected something more of them.
Despite my own immaturity and imperfect judgement, I did a remarkably good
job as a teacher. Most of the students and many of the parents realized this. It
was certainly a great and memorable experience for me–but one cannot keep
at something like that very long with extremely low compensation without
getting burned out or resentful.
Can you believe that the school board almost terminated me the first month because
I ordered the necessary textbooks? They had apparently expected me to teach (and
be the janitor) with no textbooks–for $1.30 an hour. My successor had a nervous
breakdown midway through the following year and the school closed down. But
is was an interesting and challenging job.
Hey Bugs, what did you do after you left? Employmentwise….
I presently have almost 30 of my students from the early seventies when I taught Bible classes at Sunnydale Academy as "friends on Facebook." I wasn't a rebel. They claim to remember me as one who related personally, positively, with them. And they are aware I'm not part of the church anymore. While I was a pastor, I never presented the church in a negative light to anyone (still don't).
Joe, as recounted elsewhere, as a four year chaplain at Porter Hospital after leaving Sunnydale, I encounter a young (45) dying patient who replied to my question about regrets in his life who replied that he felt he hadn't really fully lived because he always played it safe. In the light of my ongoing analysis, I determined that wouldn't be me.
While a chaplain, I entered real night real estate sales school, a business I entered upon my exit. Later sold funeral plans, burglar alarms, and spent many years in the construction business, conducted a ministry for Christians without a church connection called "ChurchAmerica," (conducted a lot of weddings) and had a mobile DJ business for a several years . Whew! One of my neighbors recently expressed doubt I had enough time to do all that (there was some overlapping, but didn't tell him that!). In my second marriage, now to a Catholic lady for about twenty five years. Now retired, but not at all inactive. I have had a wonderful life with places to go and things to do, yet! For many years I have operated as landscape photographer which is still a major exercise of my creativity and the source of wonder and joy. http://www.boshellphotographics.com.
Andy, good thinking. We could be kind of like a number of my friends who
are secular Jews. Secular adventists. Once and adventist, always an adventist.
So, how about if we lighten all this up a bit. We could have a biblical limerick
festival. Original works or quotations of other peoples' stuff. Whatever….
When invited by Potiphar's spouse
for a romp upstairs in the house
on her couch she reclined
but Joseph declined
"If I did it I'd feel like a louse!"
I love limericks!
A "standard" Adventist upbringing (somebody want to define?) will undoubtedly sensitize a child/adolescent to a peculiar and unique lifestyle. I have spoken with individuals two and even three generations removed from active membership, and they still regard themselves as "Adventists." I have relatives who attend Sunday churches, but still keep the Sabbath and when pressed, say they're "Adventists at heart." Often the background of their technical departure from the church stems back to some kind of brouhaha during high school and college years….
Joe,
I like your idea. Here's my initial contribution.
When Moses pounded that rock
It created a Heavenly shock
It made the Lord mad
That his buddy’d been bad
So He cancelled his Palestine walk.
So when ought one to resign their membership in the Seventh-day Adventist church?
Membership in the Seventh-day Adventist church is surely the result of a good many emotions.
I was recently with a retired MD who was a religion teacher prior to his medical education. I mentioned the general belief that many believe we make decisions rationally. He jumped right in and said that we do not, but that decisions are emotionally driven. Always.
I suspect that membership resignation is also a response to an emotional signal.
A few days before meeting up with the retired MD, I met a couple in church whom I did not recognize. Turns out they recently relocated and I learned they had lived in a community where I have relatives. I mentioned that, and he let me know that he was not a Seventh-day Adventist when living there. Indeed, he has been a member for only about a decade. He volunteered that he had later in life determined to understand scripture for himself, and began reading. He also sampled churches and testified that he found the Seventh-day Adventist church as most supportive of his search method, and based on what he already knew was invited to join. In fact the pastor noted that he believed he qualified for membership already, but the story was that he told the pastor that he wasn’t so sure about ‘a few’ of the 28 fundamental beliefs. The pastor immediately given him the book that addresses each belief. ‘I reviewed the items I was wasn’t clear on and came to understand accept them and was baptized.’
One might sense that this was an exception to the rule about decisions being emotional, rather than rational. Though it seems pretty clear that the initiation of the biblical engagement was the original and ongoing emotional driver. It fully predated the actual reading of the scripture.
My sense is that this member was a Seventh-day Adventist because of how the church lined up with him, rather than somehow having been talked into attempting to line up with the church. This is rare. And it is not a model for the Gospel. In fact, I am yet to understand how this fits into the Gospel.
We’ll continue to look for emotional reasons to resign by examining the reasons to join.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I am quite discomforted by the changes in practice by the church leadership when it comes to baptism. A few weeks ago I asked a family member who is a conference officer if the church permits a pastor to baptize a person who is not yet willing to confess belief in all of the fundamental beliefs of the church. He said that question comes up often. And the answer is always, No.
Now, while the individual congregation votes on whether to accept a person as a member, membership does require baptism, either by a Seventh-day Adventist rite, or by a full-emersion baptism by another church. And by forbidding Seventh-day Adventist pastors from baptizing anyone who has not confessed belief in Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, all of them, the leadership of the church appears to believe they are securing much higher-grade (read, more committed) member.
Rational processes are almost always in direct conflict with the emotional desire to join the church. The result is rarely a sense of welcome, but I would imagine a sense of compromise, a sense of weakness, indeed a sense of possible prevarication. Now I have not yet seen a baptism in the past few decades that does not declare baptism as recognition of the candidate’s commitment to be all they can be for God and by inference for God’s church to which they have just confessed their belief as uniquely being the Seventh-day Adventist church and to spend the rest of their lives so laboring. And sometimes in words very close to what I just wrote.
When a person starts out with inescapable doubts about whether they actually understand what they just said they believed, and therefore may have just failed to be truthful, they can only have doubts about the validity of their baptism, their membership, and their acceptance by God. Is it little wonder that so called ‘back sliders’ aren’t growing in number even faster than they are.
Perhaps this sense of failure in the face of what the church says about what it takes to qualify for membership will emotionally account for some, even a high percentage of those resigning or just drifting away.
In speaking with the conference official I mentioned earlier, he was blunt. ‘We are going to have to change what we are doing, because what we are doing isn’t working.’
When revival and reformation brings the church back to baptism as the rite was performed when I was baptized, it will replace all references to my commitment with references to my simple acceptance of Jesus’ commitment to me as my Savior. There is an asymmetrical difference of galactic proportions between Jesus needing me, and my needing Jesus. How the church come to bastardize (I use the word in its uniquely technical sense –Google the definition) the Gospel with the implication that my commitment is required for being accepted by Jesus is breathtaking. How the church introduced this image to baptism and made it a portal to the church based on the achievement of the candidate is equally stunning in its open blatancy.
It is also a testimony to the Gospel that former members hang around AToday and other church sites that invite engagement without condition. I am reminded that ‘God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.’
And while this may seem like a bridge too far, it is not. It is by no means necessary to recalculate each of the 28 fundamentals. We do not have to deny so much as one of them. Not even half of one.
The church will do exceptionally well swelling itself with amazingly devoted members, it seems, by uniquely focusing on the Gospel, baptizing believers in the name of Jesus, and adding to the community of the church daily as was the case in the days of the Apostles.
Of course the church must avoid any bait and switch advertising if you will. The church must be honest, of course. So membership must be offered only after the candidate has been well informed of the story of the church and its historical beliefs. That said, the membership is with the members, not with the church. Always has been. So very little has to change, other that ridding the ecclesiastical requirement of pastors to personally refuse to baptize people until they have committed to the beliefs the church specifies as its consensus at one time.
One may think that members would be anything but loyal if they were not forced into a high-drama commitment exercise. My experience includes hearing a sermon a few weeks ago by a member who openly cited the introduction to the 28 beliefs as confirming the list is always open to change as evidence of exactly what I’ve just described above. And the speaker confessed that he became a member of the church on the basis of the church’s openness. Try not to smile, I know. I realize one must not generalize from a sample of one or make a statistic from an anecdote. And the statistics are in. What the church is doing is not working in North America, despite the illusion elsewhere in the world, where there is growth compared to North America, but nowhere compared with population. Nowhere.
A step back to a bygone era may well see former members, story and all, rejoining. Maybe. Not necessary, of course. Any thoughts by the formers who may have gotten this far in my way too lengthy comment?
That retired MD was right. A person can collect all the rational information and reasons why they should make a decision but the trigger will always be emotional. I long ago lost count of the number of people I have seen presented with the Sabbath who continued going to church on Sunday. But when they fell in love with Jesus they wanted to keep the Sabbath. This is but one example of why we need to be loving people first and teaching them last instead of the other way around.
No doubt you've heard the old saying that you "can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." If the horse is thirsty, it will drink. People are thirsty to know God's love. Maybe they don't know it, so we have to touch them with God's love so they'll become aware of that thirst and seek the Living Water. So I ask is: Are we pitchers filled with the Living Water and spilling it everywhere we go? Or, are we assaulting people with an empty pitcher because they are not drinking the water we're not giving them?
Bill, I'm responding to your offer for response from formers. Your lengthy discourse may apply tto me as appropriate retribution for some of my endless sermons in the far past!
Bait and switch has a historical as well as current function in Adventist evangelism that may not be dispensable. It is a sort of reverse "To the Egress" by P.T. Barnum to sucker innocent people out the door. People have to be sneaked in the Adventist door because there is no obvious attractive reason to enter. Candidates for the deception tend to be, I think, either in some life crisis or in relationship of some sort with occupants already inside. Exposure to Adventist teachings, many of which, are on their face, bizarre, are speed bumps in on the way to satisfying social and emotional needs. Clever presentations, purposeful glossing over inconvenient "truths," ease the way past those pesky baptismal certificate points. I doubt if most joiners view the certificate statements as a contract, more a religious "I do." The Catholic Church traces its tradition back to Peter. The Baptist church traces baptism as portal back to the early church. Both require a favorable interpretation of fact and need for a religious imperative to arrive at the proper conclusion.
I agree with your MD buddy. Emotion rules. It means that most Americans are not now nor ever will be attracted to Adventism for any reason of doctrine.
I also believe people join churches as an outward announcement of their desire to be publically manifested as good persons. There are countless churches with favorable public awareness for this personal statement to continue. Claiming to be Methodist or Lutheran, or Catholic, doesn't carry the stigma of claiming to be an Adventist (SDA).
One further thing. I don't think most Adventists care much about what is printed in their baptismal certificate, or further, the issues we discuss on this forum. They are too busy dealing with daily, living issues and exercise their faith as a source of hope for something better someday.
It appears that about 3% of the American population is still receptive to the prospect of attending evangelistic meetings and joining the church thereafter. This percentage seems to be slowly diminishing as time goes on, and may be one reason public evangelism is not what we might call a "growth industry" in North America. Public evangelism today often is used primarily to "anchor" members and bring "revival." Much conference-sponsored evangelistic outreach today is sponsored financially by serious-minded wealthy Adventists who believe in the efficacy of such meetings in reaching the world with the gospel.
Your source for this estimate, please, Edwin. I would expect the figure it to actually about three tenths of a percent as a guess-ti-mate. That's in the light of the blizzard of entertainment available immediately to everyone. I'm aware there is always a percentage of suffering, grasping, souls looking for hope and relief who could candidates for outreach.
The figure of 3 percent seems about right (generally) for the late 1980s, when I was heavily involved in strategic advertising for evangelists in various parts of the Pacific Northwest (one of the areas of the US where turning out a receptive crowd was said to be difficult, as compared with sectors of the country where Church attendance was higher). I do believe the numbers have gradually decreased in the past 25 years or so, but a point in this exchange is that there is indeed a small, but significant, audience receptive to the style and content of Adventist evangelism. That said, and on a different but related topic, there undoubtedly is a large percentage of the population that under no circumstances whatever would be inclined to venture into Adventist-hosted meetings. That figure too, varies, and did vary (for example) after the extremely heavy media coverage of the tragedy with Vernon Howell (aka Koresh) and the Waco Sabbath-keepers, in the early 1990s.
"It seems to me that Adventism teachs how to be seperate(sic), that if we rub shoulders with others we will become contaminated."
It seems to me quite shameful that a blog which has the name "Adventist" in it would appear to endorse an article which questions Creation as taught by Scripture and reflected in the SDA church doctrine.
I've been around a while and the allegation that we should not even associate with others not of our faith has never been a denomonational teaching. So much dispragement of the SDA church is sad, sad, sad.
Maranatha
Not quite true. The Adventist educational system and medical system, I believe, were created to minimize "shoulder rubbing" to protect the pure from the influence of the impure. The half truth is that other "rubbing" comes with warnings, sometimes dire (don't be "unequally yoked (married)" to "non-believers" for example. Being "separate" is a good thing, certainly encouraged by Sabbath keeping since one cannot participate in most events with "non-Adventists" for at least 24 hours every week.
TS, you also partially correct that it would be ". . .quite shameful that a blog which has the name "Adventist" in it would appear to endorse an article which questions Creation as taught by Scripture and reflected in the SDA church doctrine." You are correct that there would be shame for true believers in undermining Adventism and Sabbath keeping by denying the concept of literal seven day creation. You may not be correct as to the motive of the writer even though he makes a great argument against creationism. Speculation that he could be exercising sarcasm, irony, or simply a joke, so hold your horses on that point, be willing to laugh a little. He might actullay be siding with you!
I learned in kids' Sabbath school that the 2nd Angel's message tells us indeed to separate ourselves completely from fallen Christians. I'm pleased to discover here at AT that ecumenism is no longer the feared render of the remnant it once was when we were taught to fear—to fear very much.associating with papists and their scarlet-draped daughters….
Truth,
It feels important to me to understand your concern. Let's me write what I think you are writing or suggesting.
You would like the forum here to first fully and humbly support the Seventh-day Adventist church as an institution. While the church is feeble in many ways, you believe the Seventh-day Adventist church is God's church, God's organization, and it's statement of beliefs is God's statement of beliefs for this time. Is it possible that questioning the church or any of its stated beliefe is in a very real way a type of blasphemy, or is it more a matter that you believe that God works through the leadership, rather than through the membership, and therefore we should do the respectful thing and wait for God to work through the church leadership.
Do help us all understand how you hold the church. Does my first drafter come anywhere close to your way of holding the church?
A great article, Andy, and a fascinating discussion, all.
Strong feelings all around, which is probably unsurprising.
I think there can be a temptation to smear others in ways that are unfair, in both directions, and perhaps unintentionally. Saying something like “My personal integrity required me to leave when I found that the discrepancies between my own beliefs and the official beliefs of the denomination became too great” is fine, but it is often read as an indictment of the personal integrity of those who have made a different decision.
For my own part, I have a deep respect for those both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’. Some believe there is more value in working from within to heal the denomination, others that they can no longer identify as SDA. (Of course, there are also some who believe the only thing the denomination needs to do is double down on and further tighten the beliefs.)
So perhaps we can *all* refrain from maligning the integrity of others, and say something more like “This is my story – now please tell me yours”. Maybe it’s Pollyannaish of me, but I do believe truth has a power of its own, and doesn’t fear open discussion.
In a time of confusion, forsooth
With each one of us seeking the truth
Can we speak to each other
Each sister and brother
With a soupcon of kindness and ruth?
i submit that not to associate "with the world", "in the world, but not of the world", is SDA church policy, written or just understood, negates TS last paragraph.
i was not borne and raised SDA, so i have no animosity of being "brain washed", into a sect, but chose of my own free will to associate with the SDA Church at 41 years of age, through association with SDA neighbors, an MD, and his family, and then Sabbath evenings associating with a whole house of SDA's in social contact. Mostly professionals and families, then a visit from Neil Wilson, personally. For 15 years i was SDA 24/7, Heart and soul. My lifestyle was total committment to the church and it's business, while maintaining my own business life. i fell in love with Jesus Christ, and i fell in love with my local church family, and i am still deeply in love with
SDA's. But my association with the hierarchy, from conference level up, on an intellectual and ethical professional business basis, was "out of the question". i encountered arrogance, ignorance, and methods of operation, that were totally unprofessional, and methods of operation that were not democratic, and fixed agendas before meetings, that the results were known in advance because of "sychophants and employees" ensuring the"desired decision". This definitely rebuffed the working of the Holy Spirit's influence. i believe this form of operation extends to the very top of the SDA church hierarchy, "WE KNOW WHAT THE HOLY SPIRIT WANTS FOR HIS CHURCH". O yes, we pray, but He leads His church.
Brothers and Sisters in Christ, the HOLY SPIRIT MUST MAKE THE DECISIONS, NOT BE USURPED, by the hierarchy, which has methodized the running of the church without utilizing the power of the Holy Spirit. i believe this is the reason for the hierarchy still living in the 19th century, ignoring all the preponderance of knowledge since!!!!
Twenty eight (28) fundamental beliefs, where Jesus Christ gave only ONE!!!! LOVE GOD, YOUR CREATOR, WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF. He that loveth not, knoweth not GOD, for GOD is love. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends The reason we are at atoday is because we love our brothers and sisters in the SDA church, many
who have already passed the bar, and the next thing they know, when their souls have been restored, and in their new spiritual bodies, is the face of the living GOD, JESUS CHRIST. Halleujah, Praise God, the ALMIGHTY.
Stephen, I think there is an answer to your "unanswered" question above.
People become deeply affectionally and emotionally attached to to their social
groups–especially those in which they grow up. These psychological attachments
are powerful–they hold families and social groups together. This emotional
attachment is not really based on what members of the group believe or say they
believe. Attachment and bonding is largely an exposure learning process, and it
is multi-faceted. Breaking the bonds is often very difficult for people to do–so
they often do not do it. But, just as young people leave their families, to some extent,
and establish lives of their own, the bonds of religious affiliation are most likely
to be broken as the fledglings fly from the nest. It is probably just part of a very
natural process.
I suspect that people who grow up in religious groups–SDA, or not–are attached much
more to their groups than to the doctrines held by the groups. Insisting that they not
only affiliate with the group, but also BELIEVE the dogma, only serves to drive away
those who would otherwise remain.
Things get even more complicated when people equate the dogmas with the doctrines and become unable to differentiate between the two.
Joe,
In my opinion you have perhaps provided a rational answer for irrational behavior. You realize it’s one thing to have become attached to the New York Yankees because my grandfather was a Yankees fan—or for my grandchildren to be Indianapolis Colts fans because I’m a Colts fan; and another to thusly remain Seventh-day Adventists. Or are you saying there’s no difference?
I have no business saying I’m a Yankees fan if I don’t like baseball; or if I l like baseball but actually prefer Boston, Baltimore, or the Mets. Why would anyone do such a thing? It seems an irrational waste of time. Why pretend to be a fan when you’re really not a fan at all?
Adventism is like/unlike Americanism in this sense: there are ideals to which we can individually adhere or relate as Americans; or those we interpret according to our experiences. But America is a nation or country in which some of us were born. For most, our citizenship is a birthright; and there is only one such nation.
Adventism is a religious denomination, even a sect; one of many who claim Christianity. These denominations vary to the extent (and for the reason) that their beliefs differ. Membership in them is a voluntary proposition. Adventism is a denomination that one joins. Everyone asks/volunteers to become members; and members vote to accept others into its fellowship. If you don’t believe, you don’t belong.
Anyone can be influenced, as children often are by parental example; but adults choose. It makes no sense to voluntarily choose to remain a member of any organization with which you—as an intelligent, rational, and emotionally mature and stable individual—are in fundamental disagreement with its foundational beliefs. Unless that is you purpose to undermine. Only enemies of something seek to undermine.
Stephen,
Yes, I think that was my intention; that is, to provide a rational explanation of irrational behavior.
I'm suggesting that the affectional bonding underlying social affiliation has a very large irrational and emotional component. There is a sense in which what you feel as a part of a group is different from what you believe in common with the group. Being born and raised in a group carries with it emotional ties. Multiple and irrational emotional ties.
I recall that my first wife–who I met in academy, but who never really expressed any serious concerns about religion–would become inexplicably anxious and agitated about to going to church. She did not care to go, but she was emotionally upset if she didn't. She seemed to me to be a "reflexive" adventist who cared little about the dogma or doctrines but had a profound emotional attachment to the church. My second wife, a nominal Anglican who claimed no real religious affiliation, has proven to be a much more honest and ethical person.
I am a Californian by birth and rearing, although I have lived many other places. I feel most at home in coastal northern California (or the southern coast of Oregon). Being an SF Giants and 49ers fan has its roots in the location where I was reared–although I became a NY Giants baseball fan in 1955, before they moved to SF, for what it is worth. Willie Mays was my hero. I live in Pennsylvania, but I am not a Pennsylvanian. I like the Nationals and the Orioles more than the Pirates or the Phillies, but I lived in Maryland and worked in the District for some years. I also like the Cubs and the Bears, having lived awhile in Chicagoland. And I also like the Seahawks and the Mariners, partly from my time at U of Washington. So I have multiple fondnesses. Largely from exposure.
But, as I have mentioned, I also agree with you, Stephen. I think "belonging" to a group that has a set of specific beliefs–a creed, of sorts–implies that you agree with and support those beliefs.
This does not mean that I, as an American, agree with all American foreign or domestic policy. I am an American whether I agree or not, and I have, as an American, a right to disagree. And, in fact, I also consider myself a citizen of the world–not just the U.S.
When forming a nonprofit membership organization (as I did with the American Society of Primatologists) one must specify who can or cannot become members. The organization has purposes (e.g., to foster communication among people who scientifically study primates) and people who support those purposes can be members. Attempting to work against those purposes is not something members should be doing, and people who oppose the scientific study of primates are not welcome as members. Even so, there is a lot of latitude as to what one chooses to do and even what each individual values or considers ethically acceptable. A few people who requested membership have been denied. As far as I know, no one was ever thrown out (in 38 years).
I have been a member of many groups and have sometimes stayed in them for awhile with thoughts of changing them from the inside. There are many reasons why people attached to SDA-ism remain affiliated, and many of those reasons are not especially rational. Having many special and unusual practices and institutions promotes the array of irrational attachments.
What holds some, drives others away.
Thanks Joe, I think we’re in agreement. I would only add that to seek to change the fundamental and foundational beliefs and stated purposes of a given entity from within is the definition of undermining.
You may find this interesting in that I have recently served notice to many friends that I am officially retiring as a baseball fan effective the end of this season, when Derek Jeter is finished. I’ll henceforth be a baseball history fan.
I consider Mays to have been the best all around player in baseball history. Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson had the greatest impact on the game and in that sense were greater, but Mays in his prime was likely the best player.
Anyway, I’m a native New Yorker, my grandfather was a Yankees fan, the Yankees were dominant when I first started following sports, and I happen to love the winning history and tradition of the franchise. But when they didn’t re-sign their best player, Robinson Cano, that was a signal that winning was no longer their purpose. Since I hadn’t been following the game closely anymore anyway, and my favorite player was retiring, I may as well too.
I enjoy watching basketball and football more; and can still enjoy baseball’s rich tradition/history. I said all this to say, that some might consider a similarly rational decision.
This is one of the best basebal years I can remember, for the teams I care about. Not so much for your Derek Jeter and the Yankees. But don't give up!
I pay some attention to football and basketball, both pro and collegiate. Ah those memories. I got to see Bill Russell play way back when he was in college at U San Francisco. He's my favorite roundball player ever. Saw Kareem also in college (before he was Kareem). Also I remember Ollie Matson when he and the ISF Dons played College of th Pacific in 1951.
And yadda, yadda, yadda. It's good to know you my friend.
Among friends and relatives I have known as Adventists through the years, the aspect of my Church that seems to bother them most (and can play into their departure from regular fellowship) appears to be the not-so-humble assertion that the Adventist denomination is the only true church (anong-tens-of-thousands of denominations) on earth—to remain in any other is to commit spiritual suicide (their words, not mine). The assertion may seem tenable, until an individual has some kind of hurtful experience as a member, and the question arises "if this is the best form of Christianity, the only true form, why be a Christian at all?" Yes, I'm generalizing and simplifying complex issues, here, but at least in my experience one of the most alienating aspects of our faith seems to be our publicly professed persuasion that somehow we have it all right and the rest of the Christian world comes up unsavably short. Perhaps in the early days of the denomination, it was a great confidence-builder to so proclaim, but in my experience preaching and studying with non-Adventists, proclaiming my Church the one and only true Church is a non-winner. My job (when functioning as a proclaimer) is to present Adventist Christianity in such a way that people will ask me if there's room in the Church for them and "what must I do to be part of your congregation?" That's not hard for me to answer, for though I don't always agree in all things with the administration of the Church, I honestly find deep spiritual joy in being a member of the Adventist Church. I would say the same about my close family, they don't always do exactly what I recommend (or would recommend if they sought my opinion) but I honestly am very glad to be part of their lineage.
But for me to parade about proclaiming my ancestry to be the best in the world would be totally inappropriate; for one thing, we know (as members of this family) that some of our ancestors were loony-toons and worse; many preferred to fight rather than love one another. I think the same is true in the Adventist Church and probably will remain so until the end of time. It's a good Church with a tremendous number of pluses, but to proclaim it the only true Church in the world is like saying only Schwisow and his relatives should be permitted to procreate, to advance the genetic viability and elevate the stock of the human genome. I think they have special hospitals for these kinds of people.
It's possible I do; it's also possible that I was seriously misinformed about the general perception of Ellen White's perfection. It's been said that we tend to see in the denomination those things we see in our local congregations. I did spend many formative years in the mission field, but my overall acculturation to Adventism has been on the West Coast. I have been told that views over here tend to be less restrictive on matters of perfection and inspiration than may be the norm elsewhere in the US and the world….
From my childhood through college experience as an Adventist the primacy of creationism, Adam and Eve, Ellen and Jesus never wavered as the pinnacles of The Truth. Not a smidgen. Out west in Colorado we saw perfection and didn't dare question it.
Even then, fifty years ago, we heard rumors that the entire SDA community in California was about to apostacize to maintain their love for wine and high living! Not to mention their disregard for aspects of THE TRUTH! Lucky you for "acculturating" in moderation!
Goodness, that sounds familiar! I remember vividly when my wife and I left working with a ministry in New York City to go to the Adventist Media Center. Our boss took us aside to express her great concern for our spiritual survival in California. Curiously, I learned some big spiritual lessons working so close to the Pacific Ocean.
“I have been told that views over here tend to be less restrictive on matters of perfection and inspiration than may be the norm elsewhere in the US and the world…”
“Never made the connection…” as a radio comedy character I’ve heard about (named of ‘Mr. Obvious’) would say.
I too used to think that those rumors about California Adventists were apocryphal caricatures; until about five years ago, or so. (Now, quiet as it’s kept, I believe Cali to be the real mission field.)
Anyway, Bugs have you seen above that I’ve attempted to answer your “unanswered question”?
Some decades ago I read a story in one of our church journals where the author used an excerpt from a letter Ellen White had written to someone in which she was discussing why various people were no longer members of a particular church. As I remember it, she wrote that some had left to joined a new congregation, others had left the faith and others had moved to California.
It is easy to think of anywhere else as a place we should send missionaries when we are conveniently overlooking how much work God has for us to do all around us. I was raised in the "over there" mission culture of the SDA Church, but it was not until I spent a year as a student missionary in another country that I realized how much God needed us to be working wherever we were. As for California, that's where I had some of my most transformative encounters with the Holy Spirit in ministry that improves the lives of others as Jesus did.
As a "California SDA product" I might typify what some think of as "apostate" or something, but let me assure you that even that "brand" of adventism did not really work for me. What I found in Europe, in Germany and Austria, but even moreso in Denmark, seemed much more authentic and much less rigid. I had some especially good experiences with adventists in Denmark.
There even seemed to be regional differences within California–with somewhat of a cultural clash between northern California and southern. Some of the PUC faculty seemed especially genuine and devoted to a "love and faith," rather than "perfection and works," based version of adventism and Christianity. This sort of seemed to me to be the "Uncle Arthur" branch (along with Arthur's son, Graham Maxwell, and his siblings). And as separate as Angwin often seemed, there did not seem to be quite as complete a devotion to being insular as in some other places.
It was a little comical to me that many of the people in Arizona, where I taught school, were only able to see me as a southern Californian. Their stereotype of California and Californians was LA.
I continue to think that the "Good News" of salvation is that we were never lost in the sense of fallen and estranged–that there is no vindictive God who continues blaming us into perpetuity for a decision made by a naive woman in an ancient garden. This is the Good News: "The concept that there is an all-powerful Creator God who hates His own creation is just not true. You don't have to believe that. In fact, you can and should be free of that destructive idea. You are not condemned. You are free. Believe me." I can still see Graham Maxwell's enormous smile. Although I do remember him being a perfectionist with regard to Greek….
Joe,
I agree the Good News that is we are not condemned by God. But for some reason, you keep juxtaposing your version of the gospel with some previous (erroneous version of) revelation in which God hates and/or is angry at mankind.
From where do you get that concept?
The gospel is that love, faith, hope and grace have restored a sin-caused breach; and that this was accomplished in sacrifice by a God who loves that much. Sin never caused God to hate mankind. What God hates is sin, and/or evil.
God loved mankind before the Good News, and He hates sin/evil after the gospel. The Good News has never changed that.
The concept is based on two biblical myths.
That Eve eating fruit from the wrong tree condemned all humans to death,
and that all but Noah's family were killed by the Great Flood instigated by God.
Eve could have had no advance understanding of the consequences of eating
the "forbidden fruit." She was not in a situation of plausible "informed consent."
Of course, the point is likely to be emphasized that DISOBEDIENCE was the
fatal "original sin." So, there we have that old problem of freedom of choice.
"You are free as long as you never disobey Me."
It is a bunch of hooey. The Good News is that it was never true to begin with.
There is a lot of difference between disobedience on a rather trivial matter and
EVIL or WICKEDNESS worthy of a death sentence for the perpetrator and
all her descendants. That is not consistent with the concept of a loving God.
Joe, you are in danger of being a naive man in a modern fairy land if you trivialize the concept of what the first human chose in a place called Eden. Every decision has consequences and it is not naive to understand that something done by one human one place when the numbers were small would have genetic consequences of immensity. How can you be so sure that spiritual choices would not have equal consequences?
You do have to admit that evil is a fact of life. So how can you be sure that it is not the consequence of accepting a big lie. You shall not surely die is obviously a lie but most of the race lives as though they will not. You shall be as gods remains attractive to all of humanity. Although you have to get out of the flannel board and sand box stage of Christianity to see the depth the Eve story is not trivial and not shallow and not superficial. Sorry it is much more than biting a piece of fruit.
The Eden story was developed when there was no clue about the nature of the universe. The flood story, too. To impose factual status on them is an infinite reduction of a leap of faith to a high dive down to a hilarious joke. If it is "true" how you do you distinguish between them and the tens of thousands (probably) of other mythical stories from that ignorant (not stupid) era?
I'm purposefully being provocative, no personal disrespect intended, just an intellectual challenge. As I've said before, obviously in jest, Why didn't God use a condom when he conceived those first two idiots and dropped them into paradise? If the Adam and Eve story is" true," God is responsible as an all-knowing coconspirator in this alleged debacle. At most he is powerless and has a wimps culpability for death, incredible human pain and suffering for the last 6,000 years (I'm navigating inside the narrative). Bastard. Couldn't he have made the snake ugly enough to scare Eve away? Or made the fruit painful to the touch, maybe boiling hot? Or made Eve so ugly Adam wouldn't have been beguiled? Darn Superguy dropped the ball!
Enough silliness! We define certain human behavior as "evil." There isn't one shred of evidence humans have ever been without this part of experience. Adam and Eve is a religious explanation, not a factual one. The actual conclusion is that "evil" is an innate part of humanity, not a cancerous seed planted in a perfect race by a couple of naïve first persons. It is unexplainable.
Some Chimpanzees are shown to be occasional murderers. Perhaps evil as part of "evolution" was inherited from them? Maybe not. But it is more credible than a snake seducing a pretty girl (unless Adam owned the snake!). It would be easier to assume from the story that God never intended for the two procreate since that would lead to a world of unsupportable undying population. Death would then be His solution for overpopulation.
The original "sin" is guilt. Sin is the wrong word. Neurosis might be better, since there is an apparent human proclivity to seek and find blame. Adam and Eve are a projection of that reality. Their guilt is ours, neurotically speaking.
The creation story and the flood story are great stories. Myth.
Self-imposed Guilt is the "Big Lie."
Naive, Jack? Of course I am. But "Good" and "Evil" are not just mutually exclusive "facts."
They are situationally dependent extremes on a continuum. They are simplistic constructs
of human imagination.
I claim nothing special in terms of brilliance or sophistication, and I don't think that is required
to see through this enormous misunderstanding.
I'm just asking you to not trivialize the Eve myth/story/history. It is not a silly story about a piece of fruit. C.S. Lewis's science fiction Perelandera or Voyage to Venus is the best exploration of the issues involved in the "temptation and fall" of our Eve story I have every read. It is not silly and it is not a superficial story. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "It's all true, every word of it. And if it is not, it should be." And Joe, you and I don't have to worry about being held guilty for Eve's fall. We've quite enough falls of our own to take care of that problem…:)"
Yes, Bugs, guilt for things we did not do is the big misunderstanding.
"Salvation" from guilt for things we did not do is no excuse to be a psychopath.
All we should expect of ourselves and others is to take responsibility for what we do
(and not even what we might think about doing).
Joe,
In one respect, a theological argument about the gospel is somewhat like the publishers’ sweepstakes: you must enter to win. In other words, if you don’t really think that evil (the absence or complete opposite of good) actually exists in humanity, with sin—conscious, deliberate, defiant disregard of God’s explicit and known will (my definition)—as its inevitable, invariable, and inexorable consequence; then any theological discussion of the gospel in terms of Jesus’ mission/message is pointless/futile.
Jesus died to save us/me/you from sin/guilt/shame. He became sin and accepted its wages. If you believe and trust in that reality as relates to you personally, you are not under any condemnation from God. He made provision because He loves you. That’s why it is called Good News. If you don’t believe that sin ever existed then how can you talk about what the Good News is (at all)? You must enter in order to win. (This contest void where prohibited by choice.)
"You must enter in order to win." Stephen, Heaven is going to be too lonely for me so I don't want to go there, don't have a chance anyway, using your sweepstakes analogy. Maybe the 144000, which implies only the BEST Adventists have a chance of winning a trip, (one of the strangest rules in the Adventist sweepstakes), will be turn out to be precisely correct. There may be a new Great Disappointment in this Act 1 for a whole bunch of Adventist rejects.
To enter a raffle a person has to know there is one. It helps to know the odds of winning. Hmm. 144000 out of many billions.
Timing is everything. The world has always been, and is now, populated billions of unlucky souls, doomed to hell, because of bad timing. They didn't know there was an SDA/Jesus sweepstake or were just unaware of their souls danger by not participating. Perhaps they played a different religious game, or unluckiest of all, they lived in time or place without exposure to the Christian game. Sounds to me like a trick cooked up by Superguy, who weakly sired a couple of out of control idiots for whom we must suffer, and who clearly gets a kick of pitching eternal dice where billions of people are condemned, so sad, too bad, losers.
So I don't buy it, I don't want to go to the lottery version of heaven anyway. Since few of my family and friends have filled out the application form, they and I, according to lottery rules have nada chance of winning a spot.
Stephen, you are parroting the common scenario promoted by Christianity and a strange SDA version built on an unpleasant, faulty view of man and God (Superguy). The theatrical plot, the morality play you enjoy makes good theatre:
But it ignores the fact that mankind has never been different than now. Your cure is a band aide without a disease.
Condemnation is the guilt we lay on ourselves and the judgment we project on others. I like Jesus revelation of God, God is love. No condemnation there. No judgmental Daddy Figure, frowning on me. No imaginary great controversy among the gods (might be a movie there). I'll happily take my chances with Love, for now and the future.
If my perfectly reasoned discourse is wrong, then there is no reason at all to be SDA.
Larry (Bugs),
You are free to have made up your private version of theology. What I said has nothing whatsoever to do with a sweepstakes of any kind.
If you would just read the analogy, the sweepstakes reference had to do with Joe’s interpretation of the gospel of Jesus Christ being a totally vacuous exercise if he doesn’t believe Jesus’ stated reason for His mission and message has any meaning. To discuss and interpret Jesus’ gospel while discounting His stated purpose (as completely null) is like expecting to win without playing.
It was either a poor analogy or perhaps it frankly went over your head; because you completely misappropriated and misapplied it. I wasn’t talking about salvation per se, I was talking—and Joe was talking—about what the gospel of Jesus was; and I was seeking to explain why it can’t be discussed in a vacuum. If you don’t believe that sin exists, then Jesus died for no good reason—since sin is what caused/necessitated His death; and His death caused the Good News.
Clarification: I wasn’t talking about salvation per se, I was talking—and Joe was talking—about what Jesus' Good News specifically was…
…or what it was about the Good News that in fact made it good.
Ignoring and misquoting a critic, deflection, is the cheapest form of brush-off. It is usually obfuscation in the absence of a good defense. One more shot on my part to rescue you from your passive avoidance.
If you don’t believe that sin exists, then Jesus died for no good reason—since sin is what caused/necessitated His death; and His death caused the Good News.
My answer. Quoting myself:
The theatrical plot, the morality play you enjoy makes good theatre:
But it ignores the fact that mankind has never been different than now. Your cure is a band aide without a disease.
Yes, Christ died in vain. In religious terms it was salvaged by subsequent followers as a rescue from the Greatest Of All Disappointments, a Messiah who didn't deliver the Jewish population their goods, that is, deliverance from Rome and freedom from the corrupt temple system. "Good News" was a face saving device created by his followers. The human condition is not fixable because it isn't broken. "Sin" is a religious interpretation of a vexing aspect of humanity. We are not deviants from a perfect form.
Religious constructs are mental fabrications, useful pipedreams, metaphors for the unexplainable. A little allegorical sugar helps treat the dilemma of life and death.
Larry, theres room for you and me in God's great heavenly Kingdom.
In Rev.7:9 (after speaking of the 144,000), it states "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands: And cried with a loud voice, saving, Salvation to our God which sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb; Verse 13, 14 & 15, And one of the elders asked "who are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? "And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, these are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in His temple: and He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. These statements are straight forward and true. Christ, sitting on the throne in the heavenly place, receives His ransomed souls (all eternal souls) into His presence (billions), perhaps millions at a time, according to their heavenly assigned planets and multiverses), every single soul ever to have lived will transition into Jesus'es presence, as HE said, he who hath seen me has seen the Father. Even Lucifer (the prodigal son) and the Evil Angels, will be assigned to a far distant planet, never to leave their Elba. Far from God's heavenly throne room, because at the end time "every knee shall bow to the King of Kings.
It appears that the God Of Love operates in your view. Thanks. I like that.
Well, the case could easily be made that Jesus died for no good reason–just as many other
humans and nonhumans have died for no good reason. While it is sort of romantically
appealing that one person's death should substitute for the deaths of all others, that is not
a particularly reasonable proposition. Since we, and all our ancestors, have died or will die,
literally, we must invent figurative meanings of death and its meaning. Like many fantastic
things we have read or been told, somehow, it makes us feel warm and cozy to think that
a God-ish person died and rose to claim victory over death. "He did that for me? How sweet!"
But for what? Because someone ate the wrong fruit? Er, disobeyed the order NOT to eat that fruit.
Are errors or mistakes evil? Do they make us wicked? Is leaving a word out of a sentence
just as wicked as slaughtering children? Was Jesus ever tempted to cheat on his wife or
his husband?
Isn't it wonderful how we can read all sorts of marvelous things into scripture, and how
we can completely ignore, as symbolic, or something, anything that does not please us.
In Revelation 14:4, the 144,000 are identified as "These are they which were not defiled
with women, for they are virgins."
Well, that does leave me out. It sounds as if it also means that all women are left out–
at least, all nonvirgins.
Of course, Brother Earl makes the case that salvation extends to everyone anyway–
not merely the 144,000. I agree with Earl that there is room for him and Larry in the heavenly kingdom, and I would add, "whatever you believe it to be."
I suspect that it is imaginary–but if you can believe otherwise, and that comforts you,
I have no problem with you doing so.
It is whatever it is–I just have no way of knowing for sure. Que sera, sera.
Why are we unable to see "The Rocks Don't Lie…?" Is there something in Andy's
review that we cannot cope with comfortably?
Joe, dear friend. The apostle John is most famous for his metaphoric allegories of the endtime. For example "with palms in their hands". The whole universe would require reforestation. And the 144,000 "virgins". These would be those who never sinned, in the annals of history. There are planetary divisions in the makeup of assigned domiciles, according to God's parameters. The 144,000 possibly those of the inner court of God's eternal presence, and assigned liaison, one to each of the 144 individual universes.
In giving Bible studies or leading a Sabbath school class, I have always feared that some fine day some whippersnapper would stand up and challenge me as to why the last two chapters of Revelation are literal (the Holy City coming down, the evil destroyed after bowing the knee, etc.) but the earlier chapters are pretty much exclusively symbolic. Fortunately or unfortunately, this eventuality has not occurred and I haven't had the heart to bring it up. It appears that holding to the literalness of the Holy City is so ingrained in our culture, the possibility that it too is symbolic just cannot be faced, though from a purely logical standpoint, it's hard to make a strong case that "these chapters are literal in Revelation; these others are all symbolic." The defining difference seems to be that Ellen White says which are symbolic, and which are literal (not specifically, but by implication and explication in her written materials). To me the Holy City is very real, culturally, and I prefer to believe it is literal, but what if somebody were to challenge me in an open forum where I was viewed as a wise and guiding light in the discussion? I think I would simply say, "Our Adventist pioneers believed this way, and so did Ellen White, who in vision saw it as a very literal place. In fact, Adventists have always believed this very strongly, and consequently we still hold strongly to these convictions."
As for the 144,000, the good Revelator to my young ears clearly was saying that moving away from a state of virginity (as a man) was evidence of pollution (and certainly there are ways of forsaking celibacy that are not to be condoned). I no longer see things quite the way I did as a nine-year-old, and my marriage 38 years ago may have something very slightly to do with that. But I have long held that deep within the Adventist psyche, even today, there is a kind of afterglow of angst that not marrying and having children is a preferable and holier state in the eyes of the Almighty than the alternative. Have others perceived this tendency, which may be slightly more prevalent among Adventist women than Adventist men?
Edwin, God's charge to the first Human creatures was to procreate and multiply. Inhabit and dominate the Earth. This is why there are male and female of most every species of life forms. The desire for each to cleave together. Paul, obviously a misogynist, gave his personal opinion here, not God. God created humanity with the desire for sex, and the tools for consumation. When man and wife shared these most intimate moments in estasy, the essence of love was the tie that bound their souls as one. A gift of God. God could have chosen other methods for procreation.
The 21st and 22nd chapters of Revelation, i believe, are a figment of John'simagination. A city 12,000 furlongs wide, deep, and high?? 1500 miles high?? To keep Aircraft from dropping nuclear weapons into. As if the space station wouldn't be able to bomb with missiles. The last battle for souls will be spiritual, not personal witness.
The point is made I think that Joe’s way of approaching what the Good News is all about is meaningless in terms of…anything—when it is also held that Jesus died for no good reason; or possibly died for no good reason.
What this has/had to do with “the 144,000” or Brother Earl’s out of nowhere opinion about Lucifer’s fate is beyond me.
It is/should be an all but impossible case to make that the Genesis depiction of events is symbolic, but the Revelation depiction of the Holy City is not. (I can understand not believing any of it to be factual or literal but I cannot understand believing some of it.) Oh that’s right; it’s all about interpretation.
Dear Brother Stephen, thank you for continuing the conversation. I am fond of you, even though we disagree so often. I feel that I am learning from you. Also, Brother Earl, you have a very free way of thinking, and I appreciate that you have both faith and flexibility. Brother Edwin, it is also good to have you in the conversation, and I value your candid comments. I am especially interested in what you have to say about the relationship between the symbolic and the literal.
It seems to me that regarding everything scriptural as symbolic would be pretty chaotic. And yet, it is very difficult to support the concept that it is all literal. So, which is which? And how do we know? How can we know? Do we need to know? If we believe one thing is literal, does that mean that something else certainly is? I think many teach (with some scriptural support) that the Holy Spirit will bring us understanding. Perhaps that is true. To some this is an audible voice, whether loud or still and small. To others it is just sort of a vague impression of "being right." So when is this dogmatic and stubborn? And when is the audible voice merely a symptom of schizophrenia?
Oh yes, Brother Stephen, there is much interpretation–much very selective interpretation.
I’ll be (among) the first to admit that an “audible voice” makes me suspicious. (Not that I have heard one, but perhaps because I have not heard one.)
I think you raise a good point Joe about distinguishing symbolic depictions from literal descriptions; and that interpretation is inevitable and indispensible. My thing about “interpretation” is that it has a meaning; and that everything that is interpreted by definition has a meaning. Just saying that something is symbolic without specifically interpreting/identifying/explaining whatever is being symbolized is not an ‘interpretation’ in my view. Just doing that is more like classification.
I previously wrote about this too (http://www.atodayarchive.org/article/1235/opinion/foster-stephen/2012/interpretation).
Joe,
Go to CONTACT US on the new home page. It will explain how to get to the OLD HOMEPAGE. You can then access ROCKS DON’T LIE.
I'd like to read the "Rock Don't Lie" Review, but have only just managed to log in after weeks of failure, but the new site does not allow me to even read anything.
I think I don't exist anywhere because even on this "old" site I've been taken off as a blogger. I've tried to contact folks about this, but also failed on that effort.
If anyone reading this has any suggestions I'd love to hear them…
🙁
The book "The Rocks Don't lie" is available at Amazon & ebay. You can pay any price you want, but i got a copy "like new" from ebay for $11.00 including shipping.
Just purchased the Kindle edition!
So, now I'm wondering if Andy's "fan" ever responded in any way–on this thread or elsewise. Whether or not the "fan" is real or fictional, I'm wondering how such an individual might be expected to respond to Andy's note and the other comments. And, BTW, has anyone who has read The Rocks Don't Lie changed his/her opinion as a result? If so, in what way?
The tangible evidence has been very clear for a very long time. What enables (or impels) Elder Wilson and others to explain the evidence away is a mystery to me. Perhaps he really believes that his religion and its reason for existence would fall like a house of cards if YEC and the global flood were not literally factual. Is SDA-ism Christianity that fragile?
Yes, Joe, Adventism is that fragile.
This really is a make or break moment for Adventism since its entire doctrinal structure is built on a literal assessment of the Scriptures, advertised in its legal name, Seventh-day Adventist, to a degree unlike any other denomination. It is unique among all Christian churches because the heart of its doctrines, from its very formation, are singular to itself and are immutably reliant on the concept of Scripture as the Word of God. Look at these teachings: heavenly sanctuary, Spirit of Prophecy, Three Angels Messages, the Second Advent, 2400 Days, Close of Probation, Time of Trouble, Investigative Judgment, the Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, to name a few, are scuttled by any retreat from the safe haven of divine decree.
And then there is the Sabbath. Without a literal seventh day of rest at the end of a necessary six day creation there are no longer fifty two Sabbaths in a calendar year. The certain, required, reinterpretation of Sabbath would open the door to unlimited options, none of which would be underwritten by the Word of God Himself, and none of which preserve Sabbath keeping in its present form, if at all.
Then there would be ____________ Adventist Church.
And then there is the Second Coming. It was a promise of Christ. If the creation story isn't real, a shadow is cast over his promise. Maybe it isn't real, hasn't happened yet without any prospect that it will. Perhaps there is no end to the Great Disappointment.
You could end up with the __________ ________ Church, formerly known as the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
I don't have a clue what Wilson really believes. It appears to me the preservation of Adventism, as perverse as it is in the light of current science, requires him to lead by retreating "back to the past."
Joe, Ted knows the vote majority is non-US, and will stack the constituancy.It's as though he has blinkers on, see nothing, hear nothing. This will certainly cause fracturing in NAD, unless he wakes to the reality of the % of tithe provided by N.A. FOR HIS BUDGET.
This is how fragile SDA Christianity is: if the Bible is bogus, or is even unreliable, then Adventism is a sham. If Jesus wasn’t God’s Son, born of a virgin, and resurrected from the dead, then Adventism has no reason to exist. The same goes for the Creation week. If God did not intentionally create the world as He is reported in the Bible to have SAID that He did; then this has been one big hoax.
If this is just another literary tale, so then is everything else in the Bible. Of course, SDAs believe the Bible to have been inspired by God Himself; and that it represents the authentic revelation of His interaction with the human race.
I would think that Elder Wilson might agree with at least that last sentence; which may explain some of his statements.
To some extent, I agree with Bugs. I am now more convinced than ever that unless and until, something/Someone changes your/their minds, the ‘intellectual’ path that you, Erv, Bugs, and others have taken is inevitable for all who don’t believe the Bible—including those who believe some of it.
So upon reflection, I don’t know if it is Adventism that is as fragile as it is some who claim Adventism.
Stephen,
Is it not the community of faith that is the core of every religion, every denomination, every congregation? For me the answer is a simple, Yes.
This is why it appears that God rewards faith wherever he finds it.
How else to explain William Miller’s profound influence on New England, despite misunderstanding and even misreading scripture. Even Ellen White noted that God must have ‘held His hand over’ passages that would have stopped Miller cold.
Thinking of Ellen White, she was a profound confirmation of God’s presence in the community of faith in which she lived. That community’s faith in God’s presence in their experience is what sustained them the morning of October 23, 1844, and for the decades that followed.
Only recently, the last few weeks actually, have I sensed that Ellen White was the prophet of Seventh-day Adventistism by acclamation of the community that became Seventh-day Adventists. The interesting thing to me is that her prophetic role did not appear to include God revealing through her the foundational doctrines of the church right down to the jots and tittles. Not at all. Indeed, in 1892, Ellen White wrote in the Review and Herald that the church had much to learn and much more to unlearn when it came to the future of the beliefs of the church.
The presence of the Holy Spirit in the community of faith does not require everyone to hold the same view of scripture. In fact, Ellen White again notes that differences are expected and welcomed. In short Ellen White endorses no ‘believe the bible’ marker common to the community of faith. None.
It is a sign that the community of faith is, well, losing its faith in God’s presence among it when it attempts to re-secure that sense of common assurance by expanding efforts to rid themselves of disagreement over biblical interpretations. Once again, Ellen White notes that when this happens, that is, when differences of understanding loom large, the community is to seek oneness in Jesus and His Gospel, rather than using the bible to falsely accurse members of lack of faith in an effort to disfellowship them. People may leave the church over differences of belief, though the church has a long history of not disfellowshipping members who question the beliefs of the church.
Now is not a good time to start that.
The Seventh-day Adventist church is a community of faith because we see that God is present among us today and because our story is an uninterrupted history of God’s presence. Only if we sense our faith individualizing will it be a growing temptation to confuse our beliefs, rather than the presence of God among us, as what sustains our community. We fall to that temptation at great peril to our community.
God’s presence actually trumps scriptural explanations when it comes to validating God’s endorsement of our faith. Acts 15 is a perfect example.
Now, mind you, Stephen, without the bible, without Jesus, and without God the Creator, there is no Seventh-day Adventist church. You could not be more right. And with absolutely all three of these, as denominations a plenty prove, it is possible that there is no Seventh-day Adventist church without the day to day presence of God through His Spirit manifest through us individually and thus collectively as Seventh-day Adventists.
Of course as you know Bill, the biggest book ever known is “Ellen White Says;” at least amongst our faith community.
The quote you reference is as follows, "There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make an error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. Review and Herald, December 20, 1892
She also said "The Bible and the Bible alone, is our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this holy Word will be in harmony . . . Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible.
"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.
"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." Selected Messages, Book One, pp. 416 and 37
She had also previously written in the Review, “A spirit of pharisaism has been coming in upon the people who claim to believe the truth for these last days. They are self-satisfied. They have said, “We have the truth. There is no more light for the people of God. But we are not safe when we take the position that we will not accept anything else than that upon which we have settled as truth. We should take the Bible, and investigate it closely for ourselves. We should dig in the mine of God’s word for truth.” Review and Herald, June 18, 1888
This is why I am stuck, so to speak, on this meaning of ‘interpretation.’ When and if we are wrong or mistaken about Biblical doctrine (from previous misinterpretation), wouldn’t it be superseded/replaced/supplanted by another understanding?
I don’t think she meant that if we do not have another understanding of what the Bible is actually saying, but just don’t/can’t/won’t accept what the previous understanding is/was, that this qualifies as “digging in the mine of God’s word for truth.”
Pardon my bluntness, but I see a pattern here with Joe, Bugs, cb25, Elaine, and Erv (among others) not having anything at all to do with a community of faith such as you envision, Bill. Rather it has to do with not believing the Bible to be authoritative, period.
Such is their prerogative needless to say. But not believing the Bible to be authoritative is not what White was talking about at any point or juncture, period.
Stephen,
I agree with everything you quoted from Ellen, and also with your conclusion.
Ellen did not claim to be infallible, nor did she claim the Bible is in every literary detail without error. Infallible does not mean inerrant. It is also very important to distinguish between what God means and what both the writers and the readers understand (or misunderstand).
For these reasons I do not believe in "purges" directed at those who do not interpret the Bible according to the SDA "consensus" which has and will continue to change with time.
I also agree that when we (Christians and even Adventists) conclude that the Bible does not mean what we thought it meant, it behooves us to search-out what it does mean, rather than to simply discard those portions we do not understand (a slippery slope that typically ends-up discarding most of the Book as we can see on these web pages). This process will necessarily be fraught with risk and disagreement. It need not be fraught with stife and division unless we insist that we alone are "right".
For these reasons when I concluded that neither Ford nor his detractors had a good explanation of what they were arguing re Daniel, Revelation and the Sanctuary, I undertook to study for my self what was the meaning of these things that occupay a fair amount of the Bible from cover to cover. Not all will agree with my conclusions and I still have much to learn, nevertheless I think I have learnt a lot. And I have gained a lot more respect for William Miller's insights (as distinct from some of his followers) than I had when I began.
For these same reasons when I read the thoughts of those like Jack Hoehn who are examining alternative interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis, while I may not agree that they are right I must seriously consider the possibility that they might have some insights beyond my own.
While you and I agree on many things, I would warn you that being a defender of the Bible and even of Ellen in her better lights, is not necessarily the same as being a defender of the status quo.
“Infallible does not mean inerrant.”
To me you’re making a distinction without a difference. (There are detail discrepancies in the Bible of little/no consequence in terms of meaning.) While infallibility does not necessarily mean/connote literalism, I think that it does mean/connote inerrancy. We’re not talking about our teaching, or our understanding, of scripture being infallible or inerrant; but the word of God itself.
“For these reasons I do not believe in "purges" directed at those who do not interpret the Bible according to the SDA "consensus" which has and will continue to change with time.”
As I’ve said before, I’m not big on inviting people to leave, as we should be about inviting/welcoming people into our community of faith. Those who believe that the foundational doctrines, upon which we were founded, don’t withstand scrutiny should leave on their own. That’s not a purge; that is common sense. That is not about “consensus” interpretation as much as it is foundational and fundamental. If we can’t agree that 2+2=4, then discussing whether or not 2×2=4 is meaningless.
“For these same reasons when I read the thoughts of those like Jack Hoehn who are examining alternative interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis, while I may not agree that they are right I must seriously consider the possibility that they might have some insights beyond my own.”
I can certainly understand you giving people who believe the Bible to be authoritative—yet feel that they have been given new light—some benefit of the doubt; and a fair hearing so to speak. I think that there is a fine (or maybe not so fine) line between finding new light in scripture and finding new explanations to accommodate and/or enable disbelief.
I’m not big on inviting people to leave, as we should be about inviting/welcoming people into our community of faith. Those who believe that the foundational doctrines, upon which we were founded, don’t withstand scrutiny should leave on their own.
Seems to me you are inviting a lot of people to leave but trying hard not to admit that you are inviting them to leave.
"Foundational doctrines" seems to me like an appeal to tradition, rather than an invitation to diligently search the Scriptures for ourselves. At what point should we "grandfather" the "foundational doctrines, upon which we were founded"? Certainly not 1844. Hopefully not 1854. How about 1888 when most Adventists thought they could be saved by keeping the Law? Or when Desire of Ages was first published and shocked most Adventists who believed Christ had derived His life from the Father? When Ellen died or when Willie died? Before or after the 1919 Bible Conferences? Before or after M L Andreasen published Christ In His Sanctuary? Before or after F D Nichol and his colleagues published Questions on Doctrine? After the publication of the SDA Bible Commentary series or after its revisions? Before or after the Maxwell brothers? Before or after Heppenstall and Brinsmead? Before or after Morris Venden and Desmond Ford? Before or after the Andrews University Study Bible?
What is your own definition of "foundational doctrines"? Everything you or I assented to in our baptismal vows? Everything that has been voted by the GC as a Fundamental Belief? Everything that is published in a SS Lesson Quarterly? The union of the above? The intersection of the above (I would lean in this direction)? Or something else?
Most people have difficulty remembering lists of more than 7 items; some struggle with more than 5. I doubt very many SDAs (even pastors and teachers) could recite all 28 (at last count) Fundamental Beliefs from memory. Can you? I confess that I myself have never bothered to memorize this list. I did buy and read the book that accompanied the original 27. I guess that book is now obsolete – like so many school textbooks, you need to buy the latest edition. At the rate of one each month it takes the Adventist Review more than two years to cycle through the entire list.
As a child I memorized the Ten Commandments but Jesus was able to reduce that down to the Big Two that embraced the Big Ten – to the utter amazement of the other rabbis. I can still recite the 10 "BE's" of the JMV Law, and the 8 "I WILLs" of the MV Law. All of the above are very good lists and well worth remembering.
But I do wonder if something is really Fundamental if most people who supposedly subscribe to it cannot even remember most of it?
Except you become as little chldren, you cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven (or the forest for the trees 8-). Now THAT is simple and worth remembering.
I’m talking about 2+2 Jim; or if you prefer, just the first 7 of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs as currently composed—or how about just the first one?
We kid ourselves my brother if we don’t recognize or acknowledge that those who, for whatever reason, refuse to believe in the God who gave them life—and intentionally sustains it—are not (or are nor longer) in a faith community; which was a decision that only they could make, no matter the invitation from whomever. It is and will always be theirs.
With the help of my wife I found the book since I haven't memorized this list 8-).
I would agree that #1 is certainly fundamental. Almost all Christians would agree with #1-#5. Christians certainly differ regarding #6. I have no problem with the current wording of #6 but I would take serious issue with a change that would assert that everything we can observe in the physical cosmos was created in 6 literal 24-hour earth days. With that proviso I think the first 7 are rather fundamental as you suggest.
I would hesitate to baptize people who do not agree with these 7 into the SDA church. But would I encourage or suggest that someone leave simply because they do not agree with these 7? I don't think so. But I might not pay them with church funds to promulgate their views. These are not simple questions and I would encourage flexibility in dealing with individual cases.
Regarding this web site, I have no problem with anyone who comments subject to the guidelines for comments. But I do think it is helpful for people to declare what they actually do and don't believe, and to respect those of us who still believe in these 7. I do not think that ridiculing people's beliefs is helpful. Not that we should hesistate to subject all claims to careful scrutiny.
Jim,
After having my faith destroyed by believing the modified views of the Bible that have been widely adopted in the church over the past century before being restored by God, I can understand your respect for William Miller. So I think your closing statement about "…being a defender of the Bible…is not necessarily the same as being a defender of the status quo" is a dramatically polite understatement of reality.
Bill,
Some of what you say is certainly true.
I would point-out to those inclined to bash on William Miller because of some mistakes, that even Daniel mis-applied the 70 years prophecy of Jeremiah. From Daniel 9 to 12 we see God using Daniel's misunderstanding to reveal greater light to him, and through him to us. I believe that God used William Miller in much the same way. That is NOT to say I endorse all of the teachings of his theological heirs. It is to say that Miller triggered a movement that is engaged in the process of understanding and fulfilling the very prophecies he (at least partially) misunderstood.
This is a process, not an event. It did not begin in October of 1844 nor has it yet concluded.
Steven, you in NYC, and i in Ca both love our Lord Jesus Christ. we have been on this Earth you in your 60's and i in my latter 80's. i know from written history, and so called myths, that mankind has been protected for thousands of years, continuously, on this Earth, whereas we look outward in our solar system and we have been unable to find another planet with any life forms as on Earth. We know their are infinite star systems in
outer space that also appear not to have the elements required for Earthlings to exist, as flesh & blood, with all the ingredients to maintain life for upwards of 100 years for human creatures. We are a special creation. There maybe other intelligent creations out there that are not humans, but have the basic needs of their habitation to exist in unknown forms. When we speak of eternity, and that we are the creation of whom we call God, the Almighty, and we know not much of whats beyond the sun in our Milky Way, we begin to gain a better understanding of just how powerful our God is. But with our understanding it is impossible to comprehend the totality of His Majesty, His thinking abilities obviously could be expressed as a super giant computer that has every possible bit of intelligence available to Him, instantaneously, on trillions of subjects at the same moment. it is then impossible for man to even attempt to measure His greatness. He has the whole universe (verses) in His Hand, and never sleeps.
Now to Earth, with God being eternal, why would He create the Earth and everything in it, in what has become known as "day, days", because the day supposedly doesn't exist anywhere else, to our knowledge?? And especiallya solar day, that wasn't possible because the sun was not in evidence until the fourth day, according to Gen. 1. The Earth being round and revolving around the sun, has day and night simultaneously?? But should you want days because Moses (??) said days, evenings and mornings, how can we be certain they were 24 hour Earth days?? The reason i ask the question is GOD has said "i would not have you ignorant, brethren". God has put at our fingertips, intelligence to study the Earth, and what does it tell us?? It tells us in biology and geology that the Earth has been in existence for millions and perhaps billions of years. At what point did God first install the first human creatures on Earth?? Brother Stephen, man has been on Earth for many times 6000 years. The fossil records indicate that massive animal creatures were on Earth many years before man. Surely man did not co-exist with Tyranosaures Rex, and other behemoths. There was death on Earth before man was planted here. The rocks don't lie. The Earth has had floods, glaciers, volcanic actions, and unknown outer space incidents, for time unknown. i submit the Ark could not have held together in a global flood, built with hands and wood. It would have been tossed to smitereens in a few days. Water to the height of Mt. Everest?? It could never have drained "to where", in less than a year??
So this brings us to the reality that those writing the Bible Story, wrote of their own imagination, without inspiration, most of the time. i submit that God never killed or ordered killed a single one of His eternal souls which He has caused to be borne on Earth. God Is Love. It couldn't have happened. Those writing that He did, used the stories to boost confidence of warriors that God gave the orders to kill, to instill strength and confidence as they went annihilating their enemies. Men were barbarians in those days.
Assuming the above to be logically true, we need no one but the Godhead to inspire each of us of His reality and L-O-V-E. The world became a place for mankind to build their life with LOVE. Although Mankind has its devils that kill billions, most of mankind are no longer barbarians.
Think about it.
Just because I am unable to believe that biblical scripture is the inerrant dictated Word of God, does not mean that it has no value or that stories contained in it can be useful or instructive; nor does my inability to reconcile scripture, history, and tangible reality as revealed by the best methods humans have of evaluating information mean that there is no such thing as an Almighty God (whether a person or a process). My inability to believe that scripture is Absolute Truth, or that I can, somehow, read and know the Mind of God, is what estranges me from the SDA faith community in general, and scriptural literalists of all stripes–although, I can find much commonality of experience with others, like so many here, who are emotionally attached to the church and its people.
The concept that God is Love, regardless of what else may be true, can be sustaining of our best selves. It can be seen as consistent with the essence of the message of Jesus–if it is not the whole message of Jesus. It seems to me that the "Good News" that God is Love does not in any way require us to understand much of anything. All it really indicates, I think, is belief. Our dear Brother, Earl, exhibits such faith, within an inspiring context of flexibility and accommodation of tangible reality and expansive imagination. By this will we be known–that we love one another–not by what we think we know.
Joe,
I submit that a genuinely loving attitude is a CHOICE we make that has intentional (and sometimes unintentional) consequences.
I think you and I could agree that the extent to which our choices are constrained by heredity, past experiences or present circumstances is not entirely clear. Nevertheless I hope you would agree that choice as opposed to chance is an attribute of a sentient being. The alternative is to dissociate ourselves from any meaingful degree of responsibility for our choices, which has very destructive personal and social consequences.
So it is difficult for me to understand how you could admit the concept that God is Love (aka Bugs-Larry's Love Guy ?), and yet dissociate that from the notion that God is an intentional, responsible sentient being.
Jim, I think we can agree that a genuinely loving attitude is a choice with consequences. I do think it is a choice that may be easier to make for some than for others, and that some find it easier to love and be loved than do others.
I am pleased to see people draw from scripture the concept that God is Love. I imagine that might make it easier for them to adopt a loving attitude than might otherwise be the case. Choosing the side of what one sees as the most powerful force in the universe seems like a prudent choice.
Whether one can honestly believe that force to be a personal, intentional, responsible, sentient Being is a stretch for some of us, whether or not it is for others. I think we all find one another most tolerable who have loving attitudes, regardless of why we do.
It is certainly true that those who have experienced being loved find it much easier to choose to love.
Stephen …
“Pardon my bluntness, but I see a pattern here with Joe, Bugs, cb25, Elaine, and Erv (among others) not having anything at all to do with a community of faith such as you envision, Bill. Rather it has to do with not believing the Bible to be authoritative, period.”
The community of faith that includes these fine contributors to AToday that you name puts primacy on God entering the community through faith in His having gathered us together, rather than through any common belief with regard to scripture. This has always been, it seems, the pattern throughout history, as recorded in scripture itself. How ironic that it was scripture-distraction-blindness that prevented the church leaders from recognizing Jesus when he himself walked and talked and did miracles among them.
Jim …
You are so right about the community of faith bridging October 22, 1844 and continuing until this very moment.
It is no small thing that William Miller profoundly missed the multiple unmistakable statements by Jesus that His return was at a time not only that He did not know, but that would never be known.
What is more profound is that God undeniably accepted the faith of those on the William Miller Express heading pell-mell toward the Truth-trestle-outage that was October 22, 1844. It was their faith in God’s presence, not the mistaken belief in their having rightly divided the scripture, on which their survival rested safely that day.
The Seventh-day Adventist church lived that faith, bolstered by the presence of Ellen White for more than 60 years. Her death was as though God had somehow withdrawn His presence, I have to wonder. Forgive me a few lines from that Barry Manilow classic, The Old Songs.
Andy maybe the old songs
Will bring back the old times
Maybe the old lines
Will sound new
…
Sweet old song I’m counting on you
To bring her back to me
I’m tired of listening alone
If we can just get to the realization that it was never Ellen White, or scripture, but always the presence of the Holy Spirit that constrained the community. And when we can get to the realization that the Holy Spirit is here, now, everywhere, peace like a river will flow again.
I'm thinking the old songs will never bring back the Holy Spirit. He never left.
And when we seek the Holy Spirit in the words of everyone who comments here, we will not only sense His presence, I’m thinking we will hear the old songs in a new sound.
Bill,
Apparently you and I have rather different views of the role of Scripture in the history of the Christian church.
While not denying the power of the Holy Spirit in any way, I firmly believe that Scripture is one of the primary means by which the Spirit speaks to the Body of Christ, collectively and individually.
When energized by the Spirit working on the hearts of the readers/hearers/interpreters, Scripture is a powerful unifying force in the church. When energized by pride of opinions or traditions above the work of the Spirit, then the same Scripture divides us.
If we deny the authority of Scripture then we end-up with what happened to the church in the Dark Ages (spiritually dark because the Bible was not widely available). This was a very charismatic and spiritual time but a time when everyone believed what was right in their own eyes, and the clerical authorities tried to use force rather than persuasion to impose some sort of coherence to Christian faith and practice.
Far better to let the Sprit speak to us through Scripture in a more coherent manner. If we are following the same Spirit and studying the same Scripture the result is that we will be drawing closer together rather than flying further apart.
I do not seek to establish spiritual hegemony nor to impose orthodoxy by asking or suggesting those who disagree to leave. I am arguing for the primacy of Scipture as opposed to traditions (Jewish, Christian or even Adventist) in guiding our faith and practice.
According to the NT the Bible does not bring peace like a river to the world. The Word of God (incarnate in Jesus and recorded in the Bible and promulgated by the Spirit) is lively and powerful and able to rend asunder those who are unwilling to receive its light.
Neither does ignoring the Bible bring peace like a river to the world. Some here wish to blame all conflict on religion but I totally disagree. The various atheistic revolutions (eg France, Russia, China, Cambodia) that have tried to do away with religion have not resulted in peace but in bloodshed on a massive scale.
There was a boy
a very strange enchanted boy
They say he wandered very far,
very far, over land and sea
A little shy, and sad of eye,
but very wise was he
And then one day, a magic day,
he passed my way, and while we spoke
of many things, fools and kings,
this he said to me
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn
is just to love and be loved in return"
("Nature Boy" sung by Nat "King" Cole)
Yes, love for all is the hallmark and identifier for Christians for all times. Faith and hope also remain, says Paul; but the greatest of these is love.
I think that we are disagreeing about faith (and perhaps even about hope too). We also—perhaps fundamentally—disagree about the Source and nature of love as well.
We also disagree as to the origin and essence of evil in our world. This is entirely because we disagree about the role and authority of the Bible.
It seems that you’re main beef is with literal belief in the Creation narrative. Why should that have caused total agnosticism?
Correction: It seems that your main beef…
Hi Stephen, I'd rather focus on what we agree on. I imagine we agree that Jeter's
walkoff winning hit last night was a special moment.
When one is taught something as ultimate and inflexible Truth that turns out not
to be true, one wonders what else from that source is not so.
I would not describe my position as "total agnosticism." I am agnostic about the
existence of God–at least, of the concept of God that I learned as a child and held
onto for as long as I could into adulthood.
I find tangible reality to be quite believable. I believe we exist in tangible reality.
How well we understand real things is another matter. We can understand some
real things better than others.
I am quite skeptical about unreal things, like ghosts and spirits, even though I
acknowledge that there are real things/forces/thoughts/processes that are intangible.
But, for me, intangible things are more difficult to define, grasp, or understand
than things that are more tangible.
I happen to think that some things are much more "knowable" than others. Knowing
"the mind of God" is one of the least knowable things I can imagine. I no longer claim
to know some of the things I formerly thought I knew.
I found them to be unknowable and incredible. You are, of course, welcome to believe
anything you are able to believe. If I am unable to believe something that you do,
why should I? Is it because you know about some essential aspects of existence
that you are obligated to make me acknowledge or believe?
Yeah, The Captain is a special individual. All things considered, he is the greatest shortstop in the history of the game. His life/career is where fantasy meets reality.
Speaking of which, both of us are free to believe or to disbelieve anything. But faith, or at least the Biblical definition thereof, “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,” is a non-starter for you—well, almost.
You do place faith in the consensus findings and estimations about tangible things that have been observed and tested to your personal satisfaction; including things you haven’t seen/witnessed/experienced. For instance you certainly would have no idea how old the earth is other than the faith (or confidence) that you have in such findings and such estimations. And if I understand you correctly, as far as you are concerned, that which cannot be observed or cannot be tangibly identified is not real (for practical purposes).
Paradoxically you do acknowledge that some (real) things are not tangible—the fact that such “things are more difficult to define, grasp, or understand” perhaps contribute to skepticism.
To some extent you have explained the thought process behind your arrival at agnosticism. (By “total agnosticism” I meant about God.) But, in my opinion, not “knowing the mind of God” is not the same as not knowing what God is like. And if you know what God is like, in terms of essence, nature, or character, in some small intimate sense you do know, or can know, His “mind.” Again, this is where a different perspective of the Bible might be of service—and is why we aren’t in agreement.
I say this because you seem to appreciate the utility and value of love; but since you do not accept that the Bible is authoritative and (supernaturally) inspired you can to some extent only accept its precepts on an ad hoc basis; which is how you’ve conceptualized Jesus’ message.
I don’t know, I’m just observing and asking, but is it the implications of moral accountability that have you on the horns of a dilemma? If man is morally accountable to anyone to do anything, including loving other people, doesn’t that imply that man is different than other creatures?
You don’t have to believe anything in particular Joe; but everybody must believe something. Perhaps you’ve spent your career proving to yourself that man is not different than other creatures (especially primates) in this way. I hope you’re being objective about this.
The message of Jesus is of course entirely predicated on mankind being absolutely different.
Hmmmm. I do not understand your last sentence. Or the paragraph before that. And maybe not
the one before that, too. Perhaps I just understand too little, all told.
If Jesus created all human and nonhuman animals, He certainly did not make mankind "absolutely
different" from all the others. We humans share most of our structure and function with nonhumans.
We are different enough from other animals to be distinguishable, but in most ways we are not
qualitatively different any moreso than the other animals are different from each other.
We do have remarkable brains that enable us devise extragenetic ways of adapting to a wide
range of environments and changing environmental conditions. One emergent consequence of
our remarkable brains has been the invention of a level of symbolic communication,
through spoken and written llanguage, that is unparalleled in other animals. And, in the case
of written symbolic communication, that is a recent development. Written language has been
around, as far as we can tell, only for a few thousand years–only for about the amount of time
accounted for in scripture.
In that sense, mankind or humanity as we know it as a communicator through written and spoken language, originated recently. There might be some deep wisdom embedded in the biblical statement that "In the beginning was the Word." Perhaps the scriptural stories really only address a sort of regionally focused glimpse of humans since the dawn of literacy (far from universal literacy, of course, hence the need for the story tellers and writers to have special social status and authority).
I do think we as humans are morally accountable to each other and ourselves for the things we do that affect us and those around us. In that sense, we have some responsibilities for the nonhuman animate and inanimate world. On the basis of "due consideration" as an ethical guide, we have obligations to be as considerate as we are able to be–as considerate as we know how to be. The social systems of other animals include affection, protection, retribution, even, apparently, some degree of empathy, etc., not identical what occurs with people, but similar to some degree.
I place confidence, to varying degrees, in many different kinds of substantial evidence. By faith Joseph walks out of the house in the morning and gets into his little Subaru and activates the starter expecting to be able to drive to the Dott Store for a morning cup of coffee. By faith Joseph reads reports from scientists who write in detail about fossils they have discovered, including descriptions of the locations and matrix of the findings and estimates of the ages of the specimens–and he holds this information as tentatively valid and subject to revision in the context of other information. Joseph does not place much confidence in a small number of reported estimates or even in the speculative interpretations of experts–knowing that more will be learned in the future. The more substantial the evidence, the greater my confidence in conclusions based on that information.
The less substance and evidence that exists, the more faith is required to believe something. But don't ask me to believe something that abundant and substantial evidence clearly indicates is not so. I am very confident that a loving Creator God would not have provided us with abilities to aquire and evaluate evidence if S/He/It did not intend for us to use those abilities.
I have no interest in defying Almighty God or claiming to know He does not exist. I honestly do not know, and do not see how I could know or understand His existence. The concept of God I was taught while growing up just does not seem to be supported by abundant tangible evidence. I think I was misled. Even so, an appreciation for honesty, affection, kindness, and empathy–love, if you will– seems to have rubbed off on me, and these concepts seem to me to be consistent with living life fully. And "living life fully" seems awfully close to the message of Jesus.
Let me explain that last paragraph Joe. Man was created with decision-making capacities; and with the intelligence to be morally accountable. Jesus’ message was that God loves/values humanity so much that He sent His Son to save it from immorality’s ultimate consequences. He displayed the example of self-sacrificing love and assumed moral responsibility for all mankind. In this sense man is absolutely different than other creatures and plant life Joe. Jesus was not sent to save them. They are not morally accountable to anyone.
Hopefully this may explain the penultimate paragraph. If you can determine that man is essentially no different than other animal life; you can circumvent this concept of accountability. Based on your response, it seems that you have convinced yourself of this lack of difference between man and other creatures. If so, we are in stark disagreement.
You say that “[you] honestly do not know, and do not see how [you] could know or understand His existence” Joe. This is again where I humbly suggest that a differing perspective of Scripture might be of tremendous service to you brother. In my view, Scripture purposes to help us know or understand enough about His existence to communicate with Him through prayer; while He communicates through Scripture and in other ways perhaps too intangible to explain.
I have to ask at this point (and probably should have asked much earlier) just what exactly was this ‘misleading’ ”concept of God [that you were] taught while growing up that just does not seem to be supported by abundant tangible evidence”? Is it all about the Creation narrative?
“Joseph does not place much confidence in a small number of reported estimates or even in the speculative interpretations of experts–knowing that more will be learned in the future.”
“But don't ask me to believe something that abundant and substantial evidence clearly indicates is not so.”
I take it that in that first statement above of yours, the operative word is “small.” Otherwise, from my perspective, these are somewhat contradictory statements since “abundant and substantial evidence”— and the conclusions made about such evidence—can change; as such evidence is often based on a consensus of speculative interpretation.
“I am very confident that a loving Creator God would not have provided us with abilities to acquire and evaluate evidence if S/He/It did not intend for us to use those abilities.”
No one is advocating that we not use your abilities. The Bible is telling us that God has capacities and abilities to do, create, and control “nature” as He sees fit. We can accept that or reject it. When we reject it, it is my observation and opinion that we will have then effectively rejected the concept or notion of a sentient, intentional, beneficent Creator God.
Now, you may believe that accepting this notion in fact requires or evidences a disregard or disuse of our intellectual faculties. The Bible, on the other hand, declares that rejecting this notion requires or evidences the disregard or disuse of our intellect.
We’re back to square one; it comes down to how we regard the Bible.
Dear brother Stephen,
I suppose it does come down to how we regard the Bible. If we regard it as an accurate
and literally inerrant account of everything that matters, authored and/or edited by God,
and consisting of unambiguous information that some people (those with whom we agree)
can and do understand correctly, well, that is different from what I am able to find believable.
That is pretty close to the belief I was raised with.
When I began to communicate with people outside SDA schools and churches, I found
that view was not so widespread–especially among people who were well educated in
the sciences and had knowledge of geology, paleontology, zoology, etc., and I found out
why that was: the notion of recent creation that I had been taught was clearly not true,
as shown by mountains of tangible evidence, enormous and overwhelming amounts of
geological and paleontological evidence that is completely contrary to a young earth,
6,000 year concept.
So, I also found that some people, some of them smart and/or well-educated, still
believed in God the Creator, even though they recognized the massive amount of
evidence contrary to a YEC scenario. Many scholars of scripture, I found, recognized
that scripture consisted of ancient inscriptions of oral traditions, copied and passed
down across generations, and apparently understood differently by different people
at different times. An d so we have in the present age, diverse denominations and
differing interpretations and understandings that people continue to argue about.
Some of the people I met who were the most adamant defenders of scriptural
literacy, prophetic timelines, and Spirit-based personal revelation, were uneducated
barely literate, "Okie" Pentacostals–whose followers were mostly people who were
lost in hopeless poverty and were uncritical and uneducated. I, of course, tapped
into all this by selling these lost souls ten-volume sets of Uncle Arthur's The Bible
Story–in some cases, taking a book of Green Stamps as a down payment, while
signing up people who were incapable of paying their $40 per month home rent,
to pay off the books over time. And I attended Pentacostal revival meetings where
the evangelists extracted everything from wedding rings to canned beans from
the grateful ignorant people they served, and drove away in new Cadillacs.
This is not to say that Biblical literalism is always exploitive–but I have
certainly seen it so more often than not.
So, anyway, I think some of us (some much more than others) have abilities to
examine information carefully, and I think those of us who can, have some
obligation to do so. An obligation to whom? Maybe only to ourselves and each
other. While mankind has decision-making capabilities, so do other animals.
They are not merely mindless automatons.
Some people are far more capable of making wise decisions than others. Some
people are smart. Some people are stupid. Some people are sometimes crazy.
Some are sane most of the time. People are not equally endowed with decision-making
abilities, including abilities to make decisions with enduring or everlasting consequences.
So, yes, it probably does come down to what we think The Bible is–absolute and
inerrant Holy Truth, or something other than that.
Brother Joe, it’s not exactly news in this space that you have long ago concluded that regard for the Bible as the infallible word of God is not warranted by the (“abundant”) evidence about which you are convinced; but you still have not really answered my question about just what exactly was misleading about the “concept of God [that you were] taught while growing up that just does not seem to be supported by abundant tangible evidence.” What is it about the concept of God that you grew up with that has, to your way of thinking, been effectively disproven “by the abundant tangible evidence”?
You have found the “abundant tangible evidence” to demonstrate that God is not what?
It does indeed appear that you are of the opinion that there is no moral difference between humans and other animals (and that I may have been accurate in surmising the goal/objective/purpose of your career).
In line with your post, Joe (I once sold Uncle Arthurs books) I have noticed the Dummies you describe are convinced the Smarties have been deceived, duped, or otherwise seduced by some external influence, often identified as the devil. In other words the Smarties are written off as being dumber than they are for falling for such crap-trap. A position of ignorance is valued as immutable Truth for obvious psychological reasons, not in need of analysis here.
More intriguing to me is why Smarties exist who are determined to hold the Dummies position while demonstrating evidence of being a smart, educated Smartie! On this level, the difference between the two is apparently not necessarily IQ or education.
The Adventist Church has a small backbone of these individuals, doctors, engineers, teachers, medical personnel, as an example. I call them Smarties with Reservations, or Klingons, for short (I don't like labels applied to myself, but have a perverse satisfaction in plastering them on others!). Some show up on this forum. On their part, a position of purposeful fact-avoidance-modification-interpretation is valued as higher ground, the Truth defended.
Why doesn't the force of facts propel them out the door to a more intellectually honest, less contorted, intellectually free abode? You and I have a somewhat parallel experience, I am in harmony with what you have written on this forum. We both parachuted from the Mother Ship years ago trusting our ability to land without injury and with the confidence we would function successfully in a different world.
As much as anything, my musing here is an expression of awe at the wimpy palisades the Klingons raise for their defense. They seem to have enlisted the Dummies as allies and happily hide behind the same barricades. Why?
I wait to see if satire and irony register with Dummies, Smarties and Klingons on an equal basis
The important thing to remember is that formulas of doctrines are very poor bonding agents unless you're dealing with personalities very high on the autistic scale. And even then, let one of the beliefs slip or fall into question, and a significant number of people head for the door.
By contrast, unless a person is a sociopath or worse, the connections made in youth, the love for family and friends during adolescence and beyond, the love for helping others, seem to be much more potent bonding agents—unless and until those beloved friends and relatives reject us as unworthy of their company any longer, which appears to be echoing through some of these comments. The radically highly doctrinaire/weakly sociable elements of the church will tell you candidly wherein you have failed, and add the words, "You are unworthy to call yourself an Adventist."
What True Believers may not always know, or recall, is that the beliefs of the Church of today on many, many matters are far different than they were back in the 1850s, or even the 1880s, when preaching Jesus (for example) was seen as turning aside from the primary mission statement of the Remnant, which was to deliver a bad-news message, frightful and dark with a frowning Savior, intended (one presumes) to save by scaring those not yet in the household of the saved (Sabbath-keeping believers in an extremely imminent advent). Fortunately that has changed significantly, and the elevation of Jesus Christ has become the centerpiece of all effective evangelism. But if a member from the 1850s could rise and observe the changes, they would undoubtedly declare that the Adventist Church had sold out to Babylon. Some tell me that even today.
Until we recognize as a Church the power and efficacy of social bonding (such as found in Jesus' final command to love one another) as well as the weakness of stand-alone bonding through beliefs alone, I think we may find ourselves losing tremendous percentages, even of our older, stalwart members and chalking them up to "The Shaking.." Let's not go there, here in our comments or in the Church at large….
I’m not sure if you are aware that neither Joe nor Bugs are Adventists. However, on the other hand, if either did consider themselves an Adventist, what would it mean if they maintained their non-beliefs? It would mean that Adventism is a social club that believes nothing in particular.
Nobody wants that, not even you Edwin. (Most prefer others believe as/what they do.) That’s why various religious organizational entities exist. We can love each other without all being members of the same faith community.
I have commended Joe, Bugs, and Elaine for the intellectual integrity to leave Adventism. As I understand it, no one invited them to go anywhere; and I haven’t. But again I challenge anyone to explain how it makes any sense to remain voluntarily associated with any entity with which one is in fundamental disagreement about everything. I would have preferred that they remained Adventists and believed that Jesus died for all and is returning soon for us; but they’ve chosen not to believe this (or claim not to know it’s true).
Love can and must be extended toward everyone no matter their system of belief. But love does not mean church membership and church membership does not mean love. People are being shaken (‘out’) primarily because of what they prefer to believe and/or prefer not to believe. Some will be shaken (out) by fear or by embarrassment; others by anger, trauma, some other reason. I have faith that God’s love will find all who want to be found. Yes, they should find it in us; but they must believe/trust/hope that He exists.
Actually, I’m no religious historian, but I think that what you describe among Adventists of different eras, centuries, millennia, is very similar for American Protestantism across the board. Have you ever read Jonathan Edwards’ sermons? People in the 18th century would have considered those in the 19th century Babylonian.
If someone IS an adventist and chooses to remain an adventist, even though they can see that some of the traditional beliefs of adventists are simply untrue, why should they not be free to stay in the church and attempt to bring the church into alignment with reality?
Of all things about the church, one of the most important, I would think, would be a commitment to truth and honesty. This, of course, would be a commitment to the God of Truth, the one and only True God. What I see is a bunch of people, adventists and others who worship a God of their own making–various human concepts of God.
So, how do we know what is true? Do we just believe what someone tells us? Do we claim that the traditional writings and folk tales of scripture are lierally true in the face of enormous amounts of tangible evidence to the contrary? No.
If we are able to believe in God, we make sure the concept we have of God is big enough to accommodate any evidence that emerges–rather than deciding ahead of time how God is and rejecting any information that disagrees with our tightly held and inflexible view of Him. What is often done is the creation by humans of what are essentially, demigods–little gods.
The point of having a God concept is to have a bigger and more inclusive and more powerful God than others have. Omnipotent. Omnipresent. Omniscient.
“The point of having a God concept is to have a bigger and more inclusive and more powerful God than others have. Omnipotent. Omnipresent. Omniscient.”
Oh really Joe? So exactly what is not omnipotent about instantly creating ex nihilo by His word? A God big enough to defy evidence is "bigger" than one who accommodates evidence. (Then is when I probably should have placed the word evidence in quotation marks. I didn’t out of respect for you.:-)
Brother Stephen, although seem to delight in suggesting that the ENORMOUS and ABUNDANT evidence evidence that contradicts recent origins should be characterized as "so-called evidence," you are mistaken about that. Anyone who cannot see that HUGE and OVERWHELMING evidence just is not looking at the evidence. Period.
My choice of career was based on my interest in education and human development and processes of learning and individual differences in intelligence and other characteristics. This was a natural consequence of having a mother who was an elementary school teacher.
I grew up on a ranch, interacting with and caring for and training nonhuman animals. Dad was a horse trainer. We had sheep and herding dogs (who were much more intelligent than many people I know).
Along the way I encountered situations in which I needed to learn about developmental disabilities, including diagnostics, causes, and consequences.
I certainly was not motivated to a career based on any wish to find evidence that I could use to deny the existence of God or to ignore biblical advice. Far from it. If anything, just the opposite, as I was a religion and theology major for a time (between math-physics and biological psychology).
I simply opened my eyes and considered the full array of available evidence–something you are apparently not even slightly interested in doing. I'm interested in knowing about how things really are–not in some sort of unintelligible traditional hearsay or superstition.
Joe,
You still haven’t answered my question. My question is an eminently fair one because it’s based on your exact words.
What exactly was misleading about the “concept of God [that you were] taught while growing up that just does not seem to be supported by abundant tangible evidence.” What is it about the concept of God that you grew up with that has, to your way of thinking, been effectively disproven “by the abundant tangible evidence”?
You have found the “abundant tangible evidence” to demonstrate that God is not what?
I haven’t used the term “so-called evidence;” and I’m gratified that you acknowledge that intelligent and/or well-educated people believe in God. But the sweeping generalization that “Anyone who cannot see that HUGE and OVERWHELMING evidence just is not looking at the evidence. Period;” includes intelligent and well-educated who have.
Many of these people have merely interpreted the "abundant" evidence differently than you have.
I accept your word for your career. Haven’t you nevertheless concluded that there’s no moral difference/distinction between humans and other animals/creatures? Isn’t that part of your 'eye opening'? (But answer my other questions first, please.)
You, Stephen, sound like an ex-wife, "he just doesn't understand me!"
You have a dogmatic, a priori need to believe. Everything that follows in your thinking is rooted in that need. Why? I asked that a couple of posts above. You seem not to be able to answer that. Your complaint that I, and also Joe, never answer your question is your effort to avoid encountering real answers in a real world. Your convoluted reasoning can't be answered because facts don't matter as a reply to serpentine quasi-intellectual defenses.
If you were totally unaware of the creation story and the scriptures, you would happily acknowledge current scientific facts without a blink because of the unassailable information available. You would have no reason to snoop around for some massive contradiction to knowledge. If then introduced to the concept of a recent creation, you would laugh out loud, reply that is a good story with a metaphorical purpose, and motor on in step with knowledge.
But you are brainwashed, inescapably imprinted somehow, so that belief, at all costs, trumps facts. When presented with mountains of evidence contrary to your belief, you punt, proclaim to be misunderstood or abandoned in the face your "unanswered" questions.
Man up. Get over it. Accept your position as a belief one, a metaphor necessarily devoid of, and unencumbered, by facts. Facts don't apply, quit trying, they just make you into a Klingon!
Religious metaphors are defensible as a way of coping with life and death. They operate outside of science.
Bugs,
You’re now reminding me of the Glenn Close character’s (Alex) line in Fatal Attraction, “I’m not gonna be ignored, Dan!”
Joe and I had been exploring each other’s ways of thinking with regard to the matters we all have been discussing; and Joe made a statement about being misled about a “concept of God [that he was] taught while growing up that just does not seem to be supported by abundant tangible evidence,” that intrigued me.
You seem to be frustrated by this? It’s not clear why this should be. I’m not asking you to answer this.
Why is it that you can be curious about how Adventists think and believe, yet you appear frustrated, or perturbed, when an Adventist is inquisitive about what it is exactly—that an agnostic, who said that he was “misled” by a particular “concept of God” (that he was taught, growing up as an Adventist)—that has been conceptually disproven about God by evidence?
If we must tolerate and endure your satire, irony, labeling, and ridicule Brother Bugs, surely you can endure my persistent inquisitiveness.
As to what I would think or believe under different circumstances and exposures Bugs, the same goes for everyone; of course. If you’d been born in an Arab nation and exposed to different indoctrination, instead of a patriotic American you might be someone with a different set of allegiances. This wouldn’t make you ‘right;’ would it?
You seem to be experiencing some difficulty with tolerating perspectives that are somewhat different than yours. “Dummies,” “man up,” “get over it” are not the hallmarks of tolerance.
Joe and I normally engage quite civilly. I would actually classify it as friendly. He normally answers my questions fairly directly. They’re generally not too hard to answer. You have a different style, let’s say.
I would be remiss not to include “brainwashed” as not among the hallmarks of tolerance (or among the hallmarks of intolerance).
Stephen, I see substantial individual differences among humans with regard to moral and ethical capacities as well as commitments and acceptance of personal responsibility.
Members of other species differ individually with regard to most characteristics, including what seems to be affection, bonding, consideration, skill, sociality, affection, and affiliation–not to mention such things as aggressiveness, emotionality, anger, and tendencies to harm or kill members of their own or other species, etc.
I see humans as primates, mammals, vertebrates, and animals. Very special animals, of course, but really just animals–not that every animal isn't special also, in its own way. I think many of us find that some animals are much easier to love than some people.
Stephen, I'll try to address your questions, one-by-one. You seem to feel that I am avoiding answering something. Perhaps we are just not understanding each other.
The concept of God that I was reared with was all bundled up with belief that the Bible was the literal and inerrant word of God, and that the genesis story included in the Bible was literally true and indicated what we know call Young Earth Creation and the origin of all life within the past 6,000, or so, years.
Learning that a recent origin of life is not true (with about as much certainty as it is possible
for anything to have), requires some adjustment. That the genesis story is not literally true is an inescapable conclusion for anyone who is willing to consider the evidence. Or, of course, one can just choose NOT to consider the abundant and overwhelming evidence that life is much older than 6000 years. One can choose to believe that whatever they decide to believe is true–instead of considering the range of available evidence. One can choose to be willfully ignorant. That seems to be the position taken by the SDA church and its leaders. That is not a choice I am comfortable making. Consequently, I am no longer SDA.
God may be. Many believe He is. I am quite confident that God is not what I was led to believe. What He is, if He is at all, I do not know, and I am unaware of any way of finding out about the unknowable.
When you speak of "evidence" (in quotation marks) this is one way of sarcastically conveying the meaning of "so-called" evidence. Or so it seems to me. You seem to be saying that what I see as abundant and tangible facts is nothing more than bullshit.
And so I appreciate and accept that many people do not see things exactly as I do, but if I consider the entire range of evidence and interpretations of evidence, I can see quite clearly that the concept that I was taught and believed, with regard to the amount of time life on earth has existed, is not thought to be credible or evidence-based by very many people–especially people who have carefully examined and considered the evidence.
I do not think what I was taught about God was at all accurate. It was, I think, a false concept of God. If God exists, He is not who I was raised to think He was. Others, who see God as big enough to embrace the universe/multiverse in all its physical and tangible reality, do not have much trouble reconciling God and reality. Those whose concept of God requires them to deny reality may do much better at dwelling in a fantasy world than in a real world.
“Others, who see God as big enough to embrace the universe/multiverse in all its physical and tangible reality, do not have much trouble reconciling God and reality. Those whose concept of God requires them to deny reality may do much better at dwelling in a fantasy world than in a real world.”
Here’s the rub, reality is not what consensus combinations of science evaluation and conjecture say it is. If it was, then reality is subject to change; as what we perceive or understand about the real world is subject to change. I’m sorry Joe, but what did or did not happen 4 billion years ago, or for that matter 6,000 years ago, is not as certain as it is possible for anything to be.
Originally I asked if it was the Biblical Creation narrative that had/has caused you to now be totally agnostic about God’s existence. It seems that it has; because in answer to my subsequent question about the misleading concept of God you once had, you say that this concept “was all bundled up with belief that the Bible was the literal and inerrant word of God, and that the genesis story included in the Bible was literally true and indicated what we know call Young Earth Creation and the origin of all life within the past 6,000, or so, years.”
This agnosticism is of course at best what I have long suspected as the inevitable destination for all who do not believe the Biblical account of the creation. I could be mistaken about that though.
“I am quite confident that God is not what I was led to believe. What He is, if He is at all, I do not know, and I am unaware of any way of finding out about the unknowable…
I do not think what I was taught about God was at all accurate. It was, I think, a false concept of God. If God exists, He is not who I was raised to think He was.”
But what I’ve been trying to find out is who did you think He was? I agree that if you don’t believe Scripture is His God-breathed revelation about Himself, and therefore don’t believe in prayer, and don’t believe that Jesus was Him; it is difficult to access information about Him.
However, I say I may be mistaken about the inevitability of agnosticism for 'non-creationists' because you seem to know of “others, who see God as big enough to embrace the universe/multiverse in all its physical and tangible reality, [who yet] do not have much trouble reconciling God and reality;” whatever you perceive reality to be Joe. I suppose I was asking (regarding agnosticism) why couldn’t you have been among them.
Finally, I don’t see where I’ve isolated the word evidence in quotation marks here. I have done so quoting (isolating) “abundant;” and then only because that’s your description. Most agree that fossils do evidence something; but all do not agree on what.
Most agree that fossils are real and exist in real contexts that reveal at least rough estimates of their age. MOST people do agree that fossils are very old–not that what is popular is necessarily accurate. Relatively few people who are at all knowledgeable about fossils consider any of them to be less than 6000 years old. In fact, anyone who does believe that any fossil is less than 6000 years old has to do some incredible mental contortions. Incredible as in unbelievable.
I would agree with you that agnosticism was the natural course of recognizing that the genesis story of origins is not literally true except that I know and have known many people who are devout believers in God who realize that creation could not have occurred as described in the genesis folk tale or very recently. I'm not sure how they maintain their faith, but I think it may have something to do with not having been misled into the literalist extreme early on.
As you know, many people who believe in God the Creator or Master Designer do not believe that creation was sudden or recent. And some of those people are adventists–at least for now, until they are made to feel sufficiently unwelcome by those who insist that YEC is the one and only correct and acceptable view.
Joe,
Your continued sweeping generalizations—repeatedly using “anyone” as in “…an inescapable conclusion for anyone who is willing to consider the evidence,” or “…anyone who does believe that any fossil is less than 6000 years old has to do some incredible mental contortions”—are frankly over the top brother (although the emphases were added by me). Everyone who studies the evidence doesn’t necessarily have to agree with you or with the majority, regarding conclusions about the evidence.
“As you know, many people who believe in God the Creator or Master Designer do not believe that creation was sudden or recent. And some of those people are adventists–at least for now, until they are made to feel sufficiently unwelcome by those who insist that YEC is the one and only correct and acceptable view.”
No, Joe; I doubt very much that they will leave because they don’t feel sufficiently welcome in the Adventist church. Instead I believe they will leave, and have left, precisely because “agnosticism was the natural course of recognizing that the genesis story of origins is not literally true.” I would only replace “recognizing” with “concluding.”
The natural trajectory of your way of thinking—perhaps in your own view—will lead one to a place where one doubts anything of supernatural origin is factual. Without faith it’s impossible to please God; and impossible—eventually—to believe He exists.
What you are of course recommending is that people remain Adventists who believe scientific theory more than they do God’s word—for the expressed purpose of undermining it. Should they then undermine all the narratives of miraculous occurrences? As I continually ask, what’s the difference between the creation narrative and the resurrections, or the virgin conceiving—or the Second Coming of Jesus Christ?
There is strong evidence that as we go through life, our views and levels of belief in various theories and spiritual realities will grow and decline many times. To claim that our beliefs are in stasis is to misconstrue the waveform of most human experience. In my ministry, I have known very intelligent individuals who have experienced crises of faith in which they admit losing all but the most vestigial bonds with their religious tradition, then undergoing a revival and resurgence of faith, not only in their religious experience, but perhaps in their own family, marriage, or other forms of bonded association.
This is perhaps the major difficulty we face in dealing with "apostate" or "non-believing" individuals, and in reading the Old Testament we find a God who never gives up on his erring children. God at no point divorced his human family, calling them time and again to renewal, and finally sending his own son to bring them back into the family in a definitive way. Why should we as a church try to improve on the divine plan by accelerating departure of those who may be seriously wrestling with matters of conviction and interpretation? It kind-of reminds me of a teacher who told me as a kid in church school that every time I sinned, I needed to rejoin God's family and that essentially any form of divergence from Church teachings amounted to a de facto expulsion from Christianity, in the books of heaven. Let's not go there; let's recognize that people ebb and flow in their faith, and that this appears to be more the norm than the exception. What we appear to have currently in GC leadership is a man who is very gifted in "being consistent" or even "grounded in behavior," and perhaps in his mind he believes that we should all be as he is.
Edwin,
Forgive me, but the traumatizing messages you received from one of your misguided teachers represents an austere, works-oriented, Puritanical ethos. I am not seeing that “behavior” orientation being defended (or criticized) here by anyone. (But I may be missing the objection behind the objection; or the real objection.)
Clearly our faith does ebb and flow. Precisely because everyone’s faith ebbs and flows, I have no problem with atheists and agnostics remaining Adventists if they so desire. (A desire to stay should indicate that God’s Spirit is still working with them; as He is with all of us.)
But we’re talking about what we believe and promulgate as a community of faith. (And we’re talking basic stuff at that; not necessarily unique Adventist doctrine, but Christianity.) I am in disagreement with atheists/agnostics seeking to alter, or even influence, Adventist/Christian doctrine.
At one time our little congregation where we worshiped as a family was infiltrated by what was known as "The Shepherd's Rod" missionary contingent of Sabbath-keepers emanating at that time from Canada, north of our borders in the Northwest. Members of this group would come and sit in our general Sabbath school class (back then, a general adult class was the norm in smaller churches) and seek to monopolize the time by making drawn-out comments that emphasized the unique teachings of "The Shepherd's Rod." As I analyzed the situation as a young Christian, the offshoot missionaries were seeking out dissatisfied members in our congregation to befriend and draw socially (and ultimately theologically) away from the main body of believers. The local pastor had his hands full.
I have yet to hear of any former Adventists like Dr. Erwin infiltrating any Church in the Northwest, with intent to persuade traditional or conservative Adventists to opt evangelistically for non-traditional views of creation. I know many Adventist theists personally, and I have yet to find an "evangelistic" type in this group. Those who write here seem to be seeking, not conversions, but greater understanding and ultimately some level of increaed integration with their native denomination.
I have had the opportunity to become somewhat well-acquainted with Dr. Ervin Taylor, and he has never advocated atheism to me or in any of his writings. What he has advocated is a broadening of Adventism to include those who have been reared as Adventists, who share most if not all of our desires to bless humanity through faith-based endeavor, but have chosen to interpret history in a way that calls for "more years" than the traditional 6,000 and a creative process far more gradual than allowed in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. These are very real questions, especially for many young Adventists today. I know, I talk to them. If we make our fundamental belief statement on creation too rigid in requiring an absolutely uncompromising literalism, one of the sad effects will be to dissuade young, vacillating Christians from even entertaining the possibility of hooking up with our denomination. I know this to be true, I've talked to many a bright, young kid on this question. I myself delayed my baptism well into my teens because I was having trouble accepting a completely literal rendering of the Genesis 1,2 account (which I was told was absolutely required for SDA members), so this is personal, as well.
Yes, if evangelistic theists begin invading our churches and disrupting our services with jarring assertions and dogmatic statements against traditional Adventism, we might have a problem. But if someone is clearly "socially an Adventist at heart" and is wrestling with how to integrate science with religion, let us embrace them with open arms! Had my pastor not shown that spirit in my case at age 17, I would probably not be an active church member today, let alone associated in my career at various levels with the denomination and more recently with AT.
Parenthetically, I have studied with Jehovah's Witnesses and some of those very evangelistically stringent people have joined the Adventist Church as a result, not so much because of my willingness to talk with them, but because they had left Adventism at an early age, and now sought an avenue back… Let us not fear contamination too much as we minister—let us not be too rushed in thrusting dissenters out of our synagogues.
Edwin,
Perhaps we’re not really in much/any disagreement. I don’t know from “evangelistic theists” and someone “socially an Adventist at heart;” but what I’m saying is that atheists and agnostics should not be attempting to influence Adventist theology from within our church.
I’d suggest that any atheist or agnostic Adventist who would attempt to change Adventist theology is not really an Adventist. I’m not talking about a believer who is struggling—or whose faith is occasionally/often ebbing—as that would include practically every individual.
Dear brother Stephen, and all. First of all, I want to thank you for helping me develop a glimmer of understanding (or at least an illusion of understanding) regarding adventism and Christianity and religion and the role of religion in our lives. Stephen's assertion that the failure to conclude that the genesis story is literally a true revelation of the recent origin of life on earth leads naturally to agnosticism or atheism has helped me understand, I think.
Apparently Stephen is advising us that there is a frightening "slippery slope" to consideration of any reality beyond the YEC 6000 scenario. He seems to be saying that we should not go there. It is too scary.
And it seems to me that religion is mostly about fear. What is religion for? It is, I think, to address our many fears. Fear of the unknown. Fear of death. Fear of pain. Fear of being alone. Fear of being enslaved. Fear of disappointment or loss. So many fears. Maybe, also, fear of knowing too much.
The scripture that is regarded as the Holy Word of God, including the messages attributed to Jesus, instructs the following hundreds of times: "Fear not" and "Be not afraid." Perhaps, more than anything else, the message of Jesus was about emancipation–not just from slavery–but from fear. It seems to me that His was a message of freedom. Freedom from slavery, to be sure (Gal. 5:1); but also freedom from unwarranted guilt and fear. And, I might add, fear of freedom, including fear of freedom of inquiry. Freedom of fear of knowledge about reality.
Stephen, as I think you have suggested, it is difficult to really know about the present or recent past, let alone the distant past. If we choose to try to know about things that have occurred in the past, that carries with it some risk. We might find out things we do not want to know. So, we can, out of fear, avoid obtaining information about the past.
As I investigated my family history, I found that my sweet adventist grandmother had gotten pregnant as a teenager in rural Oregon, and gave birth to Mom (100 years ago) without
marrying my grandpa. In fact, my aunt was born a couple of years later, and the couple was
not yet married. I imagine grandma's parents opposed the marriage, as grandpa was not an
adventist. They finally did marry, and he went off to WW I. That brief marriage ended in
divorce. I don't really know the circumstances, but she soon remarried and had two more
children. That man also was not an adventist, and that marriage also ended in divorce. So,
when we seek knowledge of reality, we sometimes find out things we'd rather not know.
Pretending that we know the answers rather than seeking the real truth is not very satisfying
to me.
As I looked further into my family history I found other strange and interesting facts (as well
as, many unanswered questions). One of my great-grandfathers, a veteran of the Mexican War,
married a 14-year old girl in Oregon when he was 43 years old. They had 7 children together.
I found that some of my ancestors were Quakers who firmly opposed slavery. I found other ancestors who had owned slaves, and still others, of native American or African ancestry (or both), who probably had been slaves. Some ancestors were indentured servants of European ancestry. The brothers of my great-great grandfather (probably partly African and partly Cherokee) were bound to serve as apprentices for a time, after which they were freed. Learning about this got me to thinking about emancipation.
I suspect that for some people there is a fear of freedom. When emancipated from slavery (whether by Jesus or Abe Lincoln, or both), they may have been able to accept freedom–or not so much. For some, not having a master was too frightening. In some cases, they subjected themselves again to a yoke of slavery, through an employer, the military, or religion. The Fear of Freedom, by Erich Fromm, explores the origins of authoritarian and totalitarian and dogmatic communities. Those who are interested might wish to read some of Fromm's work.
As a psychologist I am interested in how people and other animals learn. Fear conditioning and avoidance learning are especially powerful processes. These result in phobias and a retreat into avoidance of an array of situations. One of the reasons these learning processes are so powerful is that they restrict access to reality. Reality therapy works great in overcoming these problems.
So, it seems to me that confronting reality, instead of deliberately avoiding real information, can be an effective cure for dogmatic, fearful, and insular literalism. And I do think the kind of literalism that we see in some adventists reflects what could aptly be called "Avoidant Personality Disorder."
I believe that I write enough on this site so as be seldom misunderstood/misinterpreted. Seldom of course does not mean never.
“Stephen, as I think you have suggested, it is difficult to really know about the present or recent past, let alone the distant past. If we choose to try to know about things that have occurred in the past, that carries with it some risk. We might find out things we do not want to know. So, we can, out of fear, avoid obtaining information about the past.”
No, I haven’t suggested that "it is difficult to really know the present;" but I have said that it is simply not possible to know what happened 4 billion years ago, or (with specificity) 6,000 years ago. That is not a statement of fear; that is merely a statement of fact.
If you have faith you shouldn’t fear; if you have no faith, you should. If we don’t have faith in something why shouldn’t we fear disease or evil? On the other hand, if we have faith, why should we have any fear?
The Bible says a lot about fear. The (only) reason (ever) offered in the Bible not to have the fear of which you speak is faith. “Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.” Isaiah 41:10
The Bible also uses the word ‘fear’ in relation to (having) respect, reverence, and awe for the God of heaven. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” Proverbs 9:10
Actually, knowledge of our past removes fear of the past or the future. “We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history.” LS 196
Correction: I believe I write enough on this site so as to seldom be…
I should also clarify that I do not think it is a "scary" proposition to entertain theories of origins except to the extent that doing so influences or promotes a lack of faith in God. I theorize that disbelief starts with disbelief; or that once one starts to disbelieve the Bible there is a snowball effect. But I don’t believe that learning about theories of origins inevitably leads to infidelity.
Perhaps it is not you, Stephen, who is afraid of what might be learned by actually considering the massive and abundant tangible evidence that the YEC position is not literally true–but I suspect that it is true for many people. And apparently you mean that once one becomes vulnerable if one starts to believe that the Bible may not be what you KNOW it is (and others KNOW it is not).
I does sound to me as if you are deeply and passionately frightened of what you might learn–that you fear freedom.
“Perhaps it is not you, Stephen, who is afraid of what might be learned by actually considering the massive and abundant tangible evidence that the YEC position is not literally true…”
“I does sound to me as if you are deeply and passionately frightened of what you might learn–that you fear freedom.”
These statements start consecutive paragraphs Joe; make up your mind. Am I afraid, or am I not?
Man, we can probably play this back and forth psychoanalyzing game all day long. Frankly, I even understand why you would think that I am afraid to discover ‘the truth’…because you’ve been unalterably convinced that what you believe about evidence is true. You believe the scientific consensus regarding the age of fossils is overwhelming and huge and that “anyone” who looks at the evidence will be likewise convinced of same. In other words, you’re a true believer; so anyone who doesn’t regard the evidence as you do is afraid or ignorant. I get it Joe, I really do.
(I will tell you that most of my academic career was in public schools in New York, so I have been exposed to some of the same evidence/information.)
Instead of me telling you what I think you are afraid of, or whatever; I’ll just say that since we don’t all have the same experiences and backgrounds, some of us see things quite differently. I believe the Bible’s supernatural narratives because I have seen and experienced what I believe to be supernatural answers to prayer. I have seen and experienced other things that have nothing to do with ghosts or voices or other similarly "scary" things. The Bible contains indefinite layers of truth. I trust that before it’s over, you will be as convinced of this as you now are about that which you currently consider to be overwhelming tangible evidence.
Jesus said that knowing the truth make us free (John 8:32); and that He is the truth (John 14:6), and that therefore if He makes us free, we are free indeed (really free) (John 8:36). We can agree that knowledge is freedom. We don’t agree on what represents knowledge.
Restated for Stephen. Maybe you are NOT frightened of what you might learn, and maybe you are not afraid of truth and freedom–but it seems to me like you are.
Truth is not something to be afraid of. Knowledge is not something to be afraid of. Scripture, as you have pointed out, clearly indicates that truth and knowledge are GOOD things. Why be so afraid of them and try to teach young people that facts are not true?
You are establishing your own rules of knowledge and evidence and truth that are based on a rigid authoritarian literalist perspective that simply has no possibility of being accurate. You seem to be claiming that my willingness to consider and evaluate and sift through evidence on it merits (rather than deciding in advance on what can be true) constitutes some sort of blind acceptance of a vast scientific conspiracy–apparently intended to lure people away from God. While most scientists are in general agreement that fossils are real and are old (fossil is actually defined as preceding the modern era), there is vibrant discussion and analysis of what specific fossils are, and I do not hold rigidly to some sort of "consensus" at all. I adjust my level of confidence on the basis of the evidence that emerges.
You are not alone, Stephen, in wanting everything to fit into a neat little 6000 year box. One can find passionate explanations on the internet of how all fossils are actually less than 6000 years old. None of these have any real scientific credibility at all. This is unsupported nonsense! Many people who visit AToday and would like very much to believe the 6000 year story have examined some of the real evidence and have found it compelling. You would have us believe they are all on a "slippery slope" to perdition!
Nothing could be farther from the truth. No concept of God that forces people to retreat into willful ignorance is worthy of belief or defense. And you can't just redefine truth as whatever you want it to be. You do young people no favor by trying to teach them how to avoid knowledge by explaining away reality.
Let me ask you something about New York. Have you ever been to the museum of natural history? Have you seen the tons and tons of fossils there? What do you think those are? Have you been to other natural history museums? Is all this really some massive science conspiracy?
Joe,
We have differing worldviews; it’s that simple. This would clearly include differing perspectives of what is truth and what is knowledge. What you believe to be true is not what I believe to be true. What you believe constitutes knowledge (about the age of the earth certainly) is among those things that I believe are unknowable. The character/mind and will of God—what I believe constitutes knowledge—is among those things that you believe are unknowable.
I have tried not to caricature or mischaracterize your honestly held beliefs and perspectives. (This includes not putting evidence in quotes.)
It is fine with me if you think that I am “afraid of truth and freedom” or “willfully ignorant,” or whatever. As I’ve previously said here to someone else who disagrees with me on just about everything, this is not about me. I really would rather discuss ideas, worldviews, and perspectives than I would individual personalities (although I succumb to ‘temptation’ on occasion).
As I see it, this is about the Bible and how we regard it. My approach and perspective is that it is entirely inspired by the Creator God, and is the measure of all knowledge. It reveals Truth to have been embodied in a Person, the same Creator God.
You will have to forgive me, but just as you think that I am of afraid of truth and knowledge, I think that one of our communication challenges is that I’m convinced that your mind is as closed as you believe that my mind is—but you deny it. I could be wrong but I believe that you have accepted the scientific consensus that fossils do in fact precede “the modern era” in terms of their age; and are as adamant concerning your beliefs that none of the dissenting opinions “have any real scientific credibility at all… [and that such dissent is] unsupported nonsense,” as I am that the Bible is infallible.
Here’s the thing, you haven’t ‘heard’ me arguing for everything “[fitting] into a little neat 6000 year box” on these boards. I’m actually agnostic about the earth’s ‘age.’ I honestly believe it to be unknowable.
It bears repeating here that I do not believe the study of origin theory to be an inevitable road to infidelity. However, I believe that not believing the Bible is a slippery slope to infidelity. (If you don’t like the “slippery slope” metaphor, you may prefer “logical alternative progression.”) I have asked this “many times, many ways” (speaking of Nat “King” Cole), but we know that the narratives of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection are inclusive of things that are scientifically implausible and impossible. So why should Christians—who, like you, may see the Genesis creation narrative as mythological symbolism— nonetheless believe these Jesus stories? (Or why should others of the Jewish tradition believe the other Old Testament miracles?) What is the difference in them scientifically? Shouldn’t people be accepting of “the truth” with regard to these narratives as well?
I think you see my point Joe. As I think about it, I must admit that I am afraid of the “freedom” of ‘living’ without God (as I don’t think that is possible); and I’m afraid of the “knowledge” that Eve sought. There is a worldview gulf between us; but I think you’re right about this.
Thank you, Stephen, for this conversation. I agree with you that it should not all be about us. But I think the effort we have both put into this has resonated with others on this site. The different world views we have are shared, to some extent, by others here.
I agree with you that the earth's ultimate age is probably unknowable as something that is precise and indisputable. In fact, I think it is easier to pin down what is NOT true, than what IS certain. As I continue to state and restate, without trying to pick any sort of fight with the concept of God the Creator, it is rigid insistence on the 6000 year box that that is unconvincing (and, I think, erodes confidence in the rest of the story).
For some, this doubt becomes insistence that there can be no God. That is not my position at all. I do not think one can convincingly PROVE there is not (or is) a God. And yet, some people KNOW (feel certain) one way or the other. This is the "knowledge by faith" of which I recall Graham Maxwell speaking.
It seems to me that you and I may attribute to each other world views that are more rigid and inflexible (that is, less open-minded) than is actually the case. This happens in part, I imagine, because the extent of our flexibility varies across issues and values. What matters most to one of us, is not necessarily what the other one cares about. At least neither of us is apathetic.
Did you watch KC teach the A's how baseball is played? While I was rooting for Oakland, the Royals made a believer of me (a believer in their brand of hustle–apparently "Thou shall not steal" means nothing to them).
I live in PA, between DC and Pittsburgh. And yet, I am an SF Giants fan–since the 1954 World Series, while they were still the NY Giants. So, I was rooting for SF, even though I expected the Pirates to win. That was a sweet win for SF, and rather sad for the Pittsburgh fans.
But I am also somewhat of a fan of the Nats, so I can't lose with this upcoming series. I like them both. I would prefer to see the Dodgers defeat St Louis and play the winner of this series (and lose to the Nats or Giants). But I also like both the Orioles and the Angels. A Washington-Baltimore World Series would be great. The Angels and Dodgers in the Series would also be pretty cool. Out of loyalty, of course, I'd love to see the Giants in (and winning) the Big Dance–but I'm not expecting that. I don't expect them to get past the Nats or LAD.
Wishing you well.
i wish to respond to Stephen. Brother, i submit that there are thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands, who no longer worship in the SDA. And many or most have not lost their faith in Jesus Christ. They don't upon leaving, automatically become Atheists or Agnostics. i no longer have confidence in some of the FB's, and definitely don't have any confidence inthe leadership of the SDA. i seriously believe the modus operandi currently followed by the hierarchy of determining who is a "SDA", is one who follows the slated exact belief of the President of the NAD, and all others should not expect to find favor, and can just get lost. i believe the rigid position of the SDA hierarchy has closed their minds to the leading of the Holy Spirit, who says "COME YE BLESSED OF THE FATHER" not GO, BEGONE, NEVER DARKEN OUR DOOR AGAIN. Newer light has been shed on the knowledge and wisdom of intelligent men and women as it relates to God speaking to man through the Holy Spirit, and to the evidence revealed to man through his intellectual research in the sciences. To base your total belief on 19th century knowledge, by a disspirited and defeated group who picked at straws to save face, and they came up with concepts not verified by scripture, formulated a system of belief that is totally unshared by a billion Christians, and totally discount the empirical evidence the Earth offers us today. i can personally atest to this new knowledge that has increased a million percent during my lifetime of close to 90 years. Unless there is a dramatic change in the current stance of the SDA Church, heads will roll, and the Church will definitely lose a big part of the European and NAD membership and tithe, in the schism that is at our doorstep. LET THE CIRCLE BE UNBROKEN. !!!!!!!WAKE UP HIERARCHY !!!!!!! BEFORE YOU LOSE 50% of the NAD AS YOU HAVE LOST ALREADY 50% of the YOUTH. i personally have not lost my faith in Christ, as Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer, Lord. My faith is fastened hard on the ETERNAL ROCK OF AGES. Praise God.
I wrote something much to long, but somehow it went missing. Ah well….
Mainly it said that I think brother Earl has admirable wisdom, and that I wish him well. I hope I have a brain that functions as well as his does if I reach the formidable age he has attained.
I also apologized for what probably appears to be an abrasive tone toward my esteemed brother Stephen. Stephen, I have affection and genuine respect for you.
I accept this gracious, yet unnecessary, apology. I admire and respect you as well.
Well I have watched this particular dialog between Stephen and Joseph wander through lots of logical fallacies and speculation about motives on both sides. So far I have resisted the urge to comment 😎
Here’s the thing, you haven’t ‘heard’ me arguing for everything “[fitting] into a little neat 6000 year box” on these boards. I’m actually agnostic about the earth’s ‘age.’ I honestly believe it to be unknowable.
I agree with Stephen that the age of the earth (or life on earth?) is unknowable. But the reductionist fallacy that since we cannot know with certainty the ages of ancient things, we cannot know anything about these ages, I must confront.
Likewise for Stephen's repeated assertions about the inivitable slide down the slippery slope into agnosticism or even atheism for those who dare to challenge traditional Bible interpreatations. This assertion seems to be based upon anecdotal evidence from examples like the spiritual journey of Joseph. But there is no shortage of counter-examples to rebut this "inevitability" hypothesis.
A few weeks ago I atended a church retreat where there was a retired Physics professor from an
Adventist school of higher education, whom I have known since he was a young man. This gentleman brought along a couple of telescopes to give people a closer look at celestial bodies (and asked for my assistance). One of the observers began to ask us questions about the ages of celestial objects. I answered him by pointing-out that the Bible writers did not have a telescope or a microscope and that it is not fair to them to impose their descriptions of the cosmos onto things that we see with the telescope or microscope. The retired professor simply said "my God is a lot older than 6,000 years".
Now Stephen, before you consign him to your slippery slope let me also say that for decades this gentleman was an elder (including a long stint as head elder) of one of the more "traditional" Adventist churches in his community. Perhaps you can be "agnostic" about 6,000 years and give this fine Christian gentleman a pass?
But what about another Christian gentleman I have known as long who for many taught Physical Chemistry at an Adventist school of higher education? At a picnic he and I and others were discussing climate change and the role of atmospheric CO2. He described teaching about ancient CO2 trapped in layers of the Greenland ice cap. When his Adventist students would challenge him regarding the ages of this ice he would refer him to the sources of these core samples and tell them to draw their own conclusions about how 100s of 1000s of layers of ice accumulated, and how the content of the air trapped in this ice fluctuated between these layers.
Now I know that a few apologists for Ussher's chronology claim that these layers were deposited in rapid succession within a few years after Noah's flood. But does it really makes sense to claim there were many 100s to a few 1000s of ice layers deposited each DAY? And that the levels of CO2 trapped in them were cyclically fluctuating on a daily or weekly basis? So then one must also postulate volcanic eruptions or other sources of CO2 that were rapidly fluctuating in the far Northern latitudes. And then one must postulate similar mechanism opearating in synchrony in the far Southern latitudes where there are correlated core samples of ice.
Alternatively one could simply admit that, although not knowing with certaintly how old things are, the best available evidence indicates that Ussher's dating of Noah's flood was too recent by at least one or more orders of magnitude, or that Noah's flood was not global in scope.
Or perhaps as you have also suggested, a Deity who could miraculously create the cosmos, who could incarnate Himself in human flesh and raise Himself from the grave, could miraculously place whatever arbitrary objects under our feet and over our heads, that would make some aspects of tangible physical reality appear to be very different than how things appear to be described in the Bible. However as Tim Standish from GRI has pointed-out, such a God could also have created you and I a millisecond ago with a brain full of memories and a drawer full of photographs that made us appear to have lived for decades. But this concept is not very helpful because it destroys any rational basis for believing anything other than that God is the ultimate sham artist / scam artist.
Disclaimer – I personally believe in a Creator, an Incarnation, a Resurrection and a Second Advent (four fundamental beliefs). I admit that I am tottering on the brink of Stephen's "slippery slope" (possibly I have slid far down 😎 because I have spent far too much of my life studying the physical sciences. On the other hand I have spent far too much of my life studying the Bible and even its apocalyptic symbolism, for the tastes of Joseph and Bugs-Larry and Chris and others who appear to have slidden even further down the slope than have I.
Jim, i am in someways a shadow of you. However your life learning cycles are much broader than mine. Being involved in structural mechanics design and implementation for forty years, has me viewing the Bible in some areas with skepticism, that is the physical nature. Knowing that we know, with certainty, little about the Earth prior to year 300BC. we can only theorize or estimate earlier times and events. Therefore i view hypothesis of age of man, of creation, of a certainty, relative to interpretation of a literal belief of Bible scripture to be unreasonable. i believe the early stories, tales and myths were written alegorically, to be understandable by the masses of simple people. In as much as there were no earlier journals or written history, the common people were forced to rely on what they could see, touch, and current cultures of their times. As did the prophets, along with inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Whereas we today, have more authenicated written knowledge of history (even questionable, because of revisionists). However the pure knowledge of mathematics, and physical sciences, mechanics, the elements etc, has broadened our ability to learn more in the past 100 years, than all previously known data relative to the Earth. This is acquired intelligence. More recently, i have thought of "if we didn't have the Bible". As did the people prior to the availibility of the Books of Moses. What would be our knowledge of God, of visceral understanding, of the masses?? We know all through the history of mankind on Earth, they have sought knowledge of how, why, and where did they originate. They thought their origin, or at least their beginning was subject to Earthly gods. seasonal gods, cosmic god or gods. Man had an innate sense of belonging to a diety or dieties. Man looked to the heavens for answers (why astronomy was such a study of intellectuals). All known Ancient cultures, expressed in buildings and art forms, have this evidence. Interesting, the Bible relates to this, Psalms 19: i & 2 "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the heavenly bodies sheweth His handiwork".
(continued).
Well Earl,
Engineering does impose a certain amount of discipline on one's thinking because we engineers actually have to make things work, not just come up with clever ideas.
Before the earliest parts of the Bible were written humans relied upon oral traditions to pas down what they knew about God. Early portions of the Bible (eg the story of Job) were setting oral traditions into writing.
Whether and to what extent these oral traditions were factual and/or were accuratley captured is an interesting question that I will not take-up here 8-).
(Continued 2)
i submit that the Christian God, not the illusion gods, not the monkey and elephant gods, not the Budda, or Confusious god, or myriad gods of thousands, or shamans, or the Unknown god, but The Christian Godhead, FATHER, SON, HOLY SPIRIT. i further submit that without the OT, wewould still know the ALMIGHTY GOD of LOVE, because the barbarian has changed his stripes and culture, to one of brotherly love. and to the onus of knowledge, understanding, wisdom, TRUTH, with the NT alone, informing us of the God of Love, JESUS CHRIST. We would still be in darkness of the moments of Creation, of how and when, so we would still have the opportunity of debating the why, when, and wherefore. Its beyond my comprehension of how one can totally ignore the knowledge and rational, and logical and reasonable intelligence, that man has acquired in the past 100 years, since EGHW. Acts 2: 17 God said"In the last days, i will pour out of my Spirit upon ALL flesh, and your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams vrs 18: and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my SPIRIT; and they shall prophesy".
Brothers and Sisters, we are in the LAST DAYS of Earth's history. God'speople are prophesying, and you are ignoring it, stuck in a 19th century time warp. EGHW prophesyed of her time and place. God says "BUT I WOULD NOT THAT YOU BE IGNORANT, BRETHREN. I have added another 100 years of knowledge and wisdom for you to use, reasonably. i submit that the HOLY SPIRIT is today, guiding those who comprehend the times, and are sharing more knowledge and wisdom of this age and time. Grieve not GOD the HOLY SPIRIT. Pray in Spirit. Pray in TRUTH. Pray with the full armor and tools of GOD.
correction: but the Christian GODHEAD, FATHER, SON, HOLY SPIRIT is KING of KINGS, LORD of LORDS, the GREAT IAM, the ALMIGHTY.
So, it seems to me that recognizing the actual nature and function and history and origin of scripture has not been for brothers Earl and Jim, the "slippery slope" into atheism or agnosticism that is so feared by some.
What should frighten adventist Christians more than recognition of truth about the nature of scripture is the insistence on believing and defending something that quite simply cannot really be supported by evidence.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness." Do not teach unsupportable ideas as Truth. That drives honest thinking people away. Is that what you want? Is that really what Elder Wilson wants?
An honest and appropriate position could be: "I believe in God the Creator of all things. I do not pretend to know exactly how and when humans were created, but I have faith that all things originated with God–and for me, that is enough."
This is a faith statement that does not "paint one into a corner," or put one on "a slippery slope" to unbelief, or lead one to devise bizarre ways of explaining away or opposing scientific studies of nature and natural processes (which I regard as a very dangerous and fearsome "slippery slope" toward disengagement from reality).
I’m looking, and have been looking, for the logical explanation for believing in the incarnation of the Creator of the universe, His resurrection, and His second advent, while believing that scientific evidence disproves some Scripture.
Once again Joe, reality is not necessarily what you, or the consensus of scientists, declare that it is; it’s that uncomplicated. Are you suggesting that reality is what you say it is; or that “reality” can change if/when you discover new information?
I believe that disbelief begins with disbelief. Naturally I could be wrong about that; but perhaps someone can take a stab at explaining how it makes any sense at all to believe in a supernatural conception and incarnation of and by God, His resurrecting people and Him resurrecting Himself, His return to this world with angels, while believing scientific consensus/evidence disproves some Scripture. (I’ve also previously written a blog on this ‘fundamental’ question for fellow believers: http://www.atodayarchive.org/article/999/opinion/foster-stephen/2012/help-me.)
I can’t speak for Earl or Jim, but on what aspect of “reality” Joe is their belief in the supernatural founded; and why is their approach considered “honest”?
perhaps someone can take a stab at explaining how it makes any sense at all to believe in a supernatural conception and incarnation of and by God, His resurrecting people and Him resurrecting Himself, His return to this world with angels, while believing scientific consensus/evidence disproves some Scripture
Let me take a stab at this 8-). I think Stephen has also misconstrued what I have written. I do not claim to use physical sciences to disprove scripture. I do claim that God gave us our senses and our brains for a reason. Without emprirical confirmation of our ideas, our minds operate in the realm of sheer and unfettered fantasy.
The frailty of human senses and reasoning and imagination applies equally to conclusions drawn from studying the physical world and from studying the Bible. It is a fundamental fallacy to attempt to use the Bible to "disprove" physical observations, or vice versa. All we can say with certainty is that our understanding of one or the other or both is probably wrong.
Nowhere have I written that science has "disproven" the Bible. I do believe that the preponderance of the empirical evidence indicates that some long-held beliefs about the Bible are wrong. Arguing from consensus is no more valid when interpreting the Bible than when interpreting physical observations.
Claiming that the Bible teaches that the world is approximately 6,000 years old and that there was a universal deluge approximately 4,500 years ago, relies upon a deep chain of inferences about the Bible and also about secular history. Not many centuries ago most people believed the Bible taught that the earth was flat, and that the celestial bodies revolved around the earth. You cannot show me where in the Bible any of these are clearly stated. They are human inferences, commonly held but not sacred.
It is indeed mathematically possible to describe all of celestial mechanics using the earth (or even some point on the surface of the earth) as the inertial frame of reference. However the mathematics becomes much simpler if one uses the center of mass of some collection of celestial objects as the inertial frame of reference. This latter approach also becomes increasingly more challenging as one considers ever larger collections of celestial objects.
Likewise humans tend to use either the present or some major historical event (eg an unconfirmed dating of the birth of Christ) as the frame of reference when describing time. However as we investigate farther away from the present in time, this method becomes less and less useful.
Individually and collectively we bring our own preferred frames of reference to the intepretation of the world around us, including the Bible. As a child we begin with self as the absolute frame of reference for interpreting everything. It is interesting how little we tend to stray beyond that initial frame of reference. The farther we try to project ourselves in space or time from our origins, the less significant our initial frame of reference becomes.
“Nowhere have I written that science has "disproven" the Bible. I do believe that the preponderance of the empirical evidence indicates that some long-held beliefs about the Bible are wrong.”
I said “some Scripture” Jim, this is my point.” “The preponderance of the empirical evidence indicates that the long-held belief that” Lazarus was resurrected is fallacious; yet you believe it occurred despite evidence. On the other hand, you believe—or don’t believe (at this point I'm not clear)—“that the preponderance of the empirical evidence indicates that some long-held beliefs about the Bible are wrong;” whatever that means.
I agree “that some long-held beliefs about the Bible are wrong;” but are we talking about beliefs about the Bible or about that which is in the Bible?
I gave specific examples of things that are not in my opinion actually in the Bible but which many people have believed are in the Bible. I think my examples are clear and I see no reason to obfuscate them by dragging in other items that I did not write about and which I think have no bearing on the question of how old is the earth or life on the earth.
I have flown over Greenland and seen the glaciers. I have seen photographs of the core samples and graphs of the CO2 content. I could cite many other items of empirical evidence.
If you could show me where is the tomb of Lazarus then I could look for empirical evidence that a resurrection might or might not have occurred there. There is ample empirical evidence that life now exists on this planet but has not always existed here. So life must have had some beginning. I am happy to attribute that to a Creator but many others will not agree with me. And it seems reasonable to conclude that if life could be created in the past from non-life, it could be created again out of dust or decaying flesh or whaever else you might wish to choose. None of which says anything about the age of the earth or of life on the earth that I can discern.
You and I can probably agree that miracles have happened and will happen. We seem not to be able to agree that some of these miracles happened a lot farther in the past than Bishop Ussher calculated. And please note that his calculations relied at least as much upon secular history as upon stringing together Bible verses. Nevertheless people have claimed on this web site to be able to establish the time of creation or of the flood directly from the Bible and the Bible alone.
Similar comments apply to the relationship between earth and the various celestial bodies observed with the naked eye and with the telescope. Myself having looked through a few good telescopes, it is not difficult for me to conclude that many people did not interpret their Bibles correctly.
So maybe some readers can understand why I have concluded from a fairly young age by studying both the Bible and astronomy, that theologians are at least as susceptible to error as are scientists. And if you study the history of science as I have, you will find that philosophers and theologians have led scientists astray and that scientists have led philosophers and theologians astray. And I think that what has happened in the past in this regard, can and likely will happen again.
Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.
Joe,
I think you seriously misconstrued my comments regarding the "actual nature of scripture". Saying that the earliest portions of scripture were the writing of previous oral traditions, does not mean these oral traditions were untrue or uninspired.
Too many people (beleivers and unbelievers) assume that something can only be inspired by God if it has no human component and is 100% original and factual in every respect. I believe that every part of the Bible is inspired by God, in that God participated in the creation and collation process. That does not mean every word or even most of the words came from God. God alone is infallible. Human thought and human language are inherently faulty. So is our comprehension of God and of the Bible.
There is no sense in which I think that reality is real because I believe it or because other scientists believe it. We use the methods of science to obtain some information about what is actual/really true. We test and retest reality. We debate the data and interpretations thereof. We revise our best guesses as more evidence emerges. Then we hold conclusions gently, understanding that they are subject to revision. Confidence builds as evidence grows.
Teaching people to not use the most reliable and valid scientific methods when claiming to teach science (or practice medicine) does them no favors. Making up (or believing you already have all the answers) in advance does not allow for the kind of openness that is essential to science at its best, or reliable and valid engagement with reality.
Elder Wilson seems to be advocating that SDA science educators teach a perverted version of science–one that assumes answers that are simply not consistent with the evidence and require discarding reliable and consistent evidence. So, what is being advocated is the substitution of BS for honest science. The thing is, there is no need to do that–and plenty of need to NOT do that.
Within the SDA concept of God there is no room for untrue things to be taught as true. "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Does God lie about who He is through the revelation of nature? My guess is that scripture is not the literally inerrant dictation of God's word that some seem to think it is. It requires, I think, examination within its historical and anthropological context. It is writings that were written by fallible people within their ability to express themselves in ways that could be understood by their peers. Why try to make it into something it is not?
“There is no sense in which I think that reality is real because I believe it or because other scientists believe it.”
That’s not what I’ve said Joe. I’ve said nothing about “reality being real.” I’m saying that you seem to think that reality is what you and other scientists say it is—until further notice. It’s clear; why try to spin it? I’m not distorting your position; not even a little. You’ve said that “opposing or explaining away scientific studies of nature and natural processes…[represents] a very dangerous and fearsome "slippery slope" toward disengagement from reality,” Joe; and have positioned scientific consensus as “truth.”
“Within the SDA concept of God there is no room for untrue things to be taught as true.”Thou shalt not bear false witness." Does God lie about who He is through the revelation of nature?”
I mean, Joe, if that’s not positioning the consensus science (about “reality”)as true, and dissent from it as “untrue,” or false, what is it?! Bearing false witness? What if I had said that? Wow!
“My guess is that scripture is not the literally inerrant dictation of God's word that some seem to think it is. It requires, I think, examination within its historical and anthropological context. It is writings that were written by fallible people within their ability to express themselves in ways that could be understood by their peers. Why try to make it into something it is not?”
Man, we are now talking in circles; or perhaps have been. (Duh!) This is about how one regards Scripture. Yet it is no accident brother that no one can make sense of the contradiction to which I have repeatedly referred; and for sure it turns logic on its head to call it intellectually “honest.” (If nothing else, I do regard your approach, and especially Bugs’, as intellectually honest.)
I think there is a reality that is verifiable to some extent, and that it is the purpose of science, as a method of gaining and evaluating evidence, to advance objective verification. Since what is actually real is always changing, and every aspect is changing relative to all others, this is a very complex process. By the time one has obtained objective data, things have already changed somewhat. Even so, there is sufficient consistency that one can use information from the past and near present to understand some aspects of the present and accurately predict the future to some extent.
Of course we should always be careful that we are not holding the knowledge gained more rigidly than is warranted. Science is not magic. In fact, that is the point of science. It does not pretend to be either magic or static.
Science is a process that is conducted by people, fallible people seeking a fuller understanding of reality. While scientists have opinions, just like anyone else, what scientists, in general, agree on is not Ultimate Truth in any sense, and I would not make such a claim. Opinions informed by carefully obtained and described data are, however, more credible than opinions based on the illusion of understanding based on knowing how things are from traditional writings.
So that does bring us back to the nature of scripture and what one believes scripture is, and this, of course, reflects on, or has consequences for, what and who one thinks God is, and what one thinks God does and has done. That is, our concept of God relates to how we regard scripture. And we may think scripture is a window on the mind of God–although I do not see that as a necessary conclusion at all.
Maybe what you are referring to ("repeatedly") is the question of why one could believe in the virgin birth and the resurection of Jesus, and other miracles, and not believe in the creation story as told in genesis. Is it all true, or is none of it true? Is there no middle ground at all in which one can read what someone wrote and recognize that the degree varies to which it is accurate or metaphorical or "true to the best of their knowledge" or based on rumor or hearsay or legend?
Are there no "miracles" or is everything a miracle? Are "the laws of nature" really immutable Laws from which no exceptions occur?
Many of our answers to perplexing questions are related to our styles of thinking, as we demonstrate here almost every day.
Joe,
Speaking of baseball; my guy, the great Derek Jeter is one of two players in the history of the game who’ve amassed as many as 250 home runs, 1,300 RBI, 3,000 hits, and 300 stolen bases. Who is the other guy?
Well it took a bit of digging but I found him and not surprised 8-). Lots of others much closer to Jeter's numbers than Jeter is to this guy's numbers. A few very close to Jeter's numbers. For example Paul Molitor only hit 234 home runs but stole 504 bases. They had almost identical RBIs.
Stephen,
It is really impressive that your guy was second only to my guy in that set of stats. I think I mentioned to you before that my interest in pro baseball began about this time of year in 1954, my first year in academy. I was inspired by his performance in the World Series, and was converted to being as fan of his team–and I still am. I do not expect them to go much farther this year. These wins have been gratifying, but I also like the team they are playing today.
I live near Hagerstown, Maryland, where he played very early in his career. He transcended the hateful reception he got at first from the fans.
You can cherry-pick baseball stats all you want to make interesting comparisons.
Looking at all of Jeter's batting stats I maintain he is much more comparable to Molitor than to Mays.
Still not bad company. Molitor and Jeter were both class acts and not showmen like Mays.
Jim,
It is interesting seeing the different reasons why we esteem various heroes. As a child I remember holding Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Sandy Koufax in high esteem because he was an orthodox Jew and would not pitch on the Sabbath, even in the World Series. A couple decades after he retired I was in Dodger Stadium to interview pitcher Bob Welch for a magazine article. It was too noisy in the clubhouse so we went out to the Pitcher's Room under the outfield grandstands beside the bullpen where it was quieter before the game. When we walked in Bob saw one of the pitching coaches sitting there and said to him, "Oh, hi, Sandy. We're doing an interview." It wasn't until after we had finished and gone back to the clubhouse that I realized that man was my childhood hero, Sandy Koufax! You don't know how many times since then I've kicked myself for not realizing who he was and getting an autograph!
From an offensive production standpoint, Jeter was much more like Molitor than like Mays. Jeter and Molitor were largely leadoff hitters.
The things that particularly separate Jeter from Molitor are that for 20 seasons Jeter played shortstop for nine innings of nearly all his games; and in New York. Molitor played some 2nd and 3rd base, but was a DH for much of his career; especially in the latter stages. Jeter also has the MLB record for most postseason hits; and is known for iconic clutch performances—and for winning championships. In other words, Jeter put up Molitor-type numbers offensively while holding down the most physically demanding defensive position in the infield; and did so over two decades on the biggest stage—and with dramatic flair.
Speaking of which, only on Atoday.org might one sense some criticism of Willie Mays; merely the game’s best all around player.
William is almost finally right about something :-)! During the last five seasons of his career, Sandy Koufax was the best ever…and refused to pitch on Yom Kippur. Koufax would regularly pitch on Saturdays however.
Koufax refused to pitch the opening game of the ’65 World Series against Minnesota because of its occurrence on Yom Kippur. Ironically, he triumphantly ended that Series with a seventh game (2-0) shutout; doing so, I believe, on only two days rest.
Well your comment reminds me of some guy who played THE most physically demanding defensive position day-in and day-out for many years and who collected more championship rings than even Jeter, and was one of the more voluble and entertaining players of his era. Remember him? I think he retired to Jellystone Park 8-).
Those of us for whom the sun doesn't rise over Long Island and set over New Jersey also remember some guy named Rose who also played the infield for many years and collected a lot of hits during the second dead-ball era. And some guy named Aaron who was arguably as good or better hitter than Mays though he did not make as many trick plays in the outfield. And another shortstop named Ripken who played every day for years and was arguably as good a hitter as Jeter. But without the luxury of a payroll like the Yankees or the Dodgers you labor in obscurity and do not wear Series rings on every finger.
When I was a boy my brothers and I got a baseball records book from the library and argued about whether Cobb or Ruth or Gehrig was the greatest. Each was dominant in his own era. And they set the three "unbreakable" records that were later broken by Rose, Aaron and Ripken. Cobb actually set another "unbreakable" record now held by Henderson.
One pre-requisite for a Hall of Fame career is longevity. You have to be fortunate enough to avoid debilitating or career-ending injuries. One does wonder how much longer and better Gehrig would have played if they hadn't named a disease after him? Or how many more hits and RBIs Puckett (also a fairly good outfielder despite his seal-shaped physique) would have collected if he hadn't bin hit in the face by that errant pitch while he was still racking-up big numbers? Or how good would Barry have been had he not played during the steroids era? How many other hitters ever got an intentional walk with the bases loaded?
“Those of us for whom the sun doesn't rise over Long Island and set over New Jersey…” I like that one.
Yeah, I was in another discussion about catchers and Yogi was, if anything, underrated. He and Bill Russell were the greatest winners in the history of team sports.
All you’ve named were clearly great players. I agree that Aaron was at least as good a hitter as Mays. Mays missed two full seasons due to military service, and had the disadvantage of playing in Candlestick Park for most of his career as a right handed batter (where the wind blew in from left field); while Aaron played the latter part of his career in Atlanta’s old “Launching Pad”—otherwise Mays might well have been the guy to first break Ruth’s 714 record.
Ripken certainly doesn’t get a pass because he played in Baltimore his entire career. Remember, Baltimore had a winning tradition and great farm system before he got there. Ripken played on a World Series winner early in his career; and had the luxury of hitting ahead of a Hall of Fame switch hitter (Eddie Murray) everyday. Ripken hit for more power than Jeter; but if he was as good a hitter as Jeter he’d have averaged better than .276 for his career (Jeter: .310).
The tragedy of Barry Bonds is of course the reality that he was the best player of his era before he took performance enhancers and became an absolute baseball monster (and real life ‘incredible hulk’). The enhanced version was clearly the best and most feared hitter who ever lived.
Trvia Q for you.
Did you know that Cobb won a Triple Crown? How many homers did he whack? A total of NINE that year. Now that was the REAL dead-ball era!
Wow! A trivia gem! That was a dead ball era all right; and what’s more is that some of those homers may have been inside the park jobs. This is the reason why Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson were the two greatest figures, or most influential players, in history. The two of them revolutionized the sport by starting (and ending) two historical eras. Imagine if Robinson had been a bust?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead-ball_era
"SAY HEY", YES YES, the most exciting player who ever played the game.with spectacular flair. How can you ever forget the dexterity of "THE" play in the outfield, where he was able to turn around a full 360 degrees and still catch the flyball. "SAY HEY"