The One Project Invites Everyone to Join an Internet Bible Study
By AT News Team, November 27, 2014: An open Bible study of Christ’s “Sermon the Mount” has been initiated by The One Project with an invitation to anyone, Adventist or not, to participate. Each day a couple of verses from the New Testament record is the focus and each person is invited to share the one, two or three most important questions or reflections that they have as they read the text.
“We hope that you will be blessed as we dialogue, read and brainstorm together, focusing on Jesus,” states the invitation distributed on the Internet by the convening group of Adventist pastors, youth workers and Bible scholars. The Bible study will continue over the 40 days leading up to the next One Project gathering in San Diego, California, on February 8 and 9 next year. This will be the 17th such event since the project began in July 2010.
The speakers for the event will include Dr. Ivan Williams, the ministerial director for the Seventh-day Adventist denomination in North America; Pastor Chris Oberg, the senior pastor at the La Sierra University Church in Riverside, California; Pastor Japhet de Oliveira, chaplain at Andrews University in Michigan; Dr. Alex Bryant, senior pastor at the Walla Walla University Church in Washington; and Tim Gillespie from the faculty of Loma Linda University in southern California; and a number of others. All of the speakers will address some portion of “The Sermon,” the most central scripture presenting the teachings of Jesus.
Bryant explains The One Project by telling the story of its beginnings; “In the autumn of 2009, I preached a series of sermons on the campus of Andrews University, where Pastor Japhet De Oliveira served as senior chaplain. There … I met Japhet for the first time, and we engaged in the first of what has turned out to be innumerable conversations. The theme of our dialogue [was] ecclesiology, the church. We discovered a shared passion and concern for our church. We acknowledged a mutual desire: that the church might enjoy a rich and meaningful future. And, in particular, we longed that emerging generations of young adults would fall in love with the church as we had.
“The following year, in the summer of 2010, we invited three pastoral colleagues to join us for a retreat in Denver, Colorado. We spent two days together, praying, talking, laughing, crying; but most of all, dreaming about the church. Ecclesiology had brought us together. But something happened in the Mile High City that we (or at least I) had not expected: We left not thinking about ecclesiology, but, rather, Christology. It seemed that over and over again as we mused upon the possibility of a bright future for the church, the conversation quickly turned to Jesus. (In fact, we celebrated communion before we dismissed our time together.) At the time, I’m not sure I could have articulated what had happened to us, and to our conversation. Later that year, reading the German theologian Jürgen Moltmann, the meaning and significance of the Denver dialogue’s direction came into focus for me. He wrote; ‘The crisis of the church in present-day society is not merely the critical choice between assimilation or retreat into the ghetto, but the crisis of its own existence as the church of the crucified Christ. The question of ecclesiology, however unpleasant as it may be for conservatives and progressives, is no more than a short prelude to its internal crisis, for only by Christ is it possible to tell what is a Christian church and what it not.’ (The Crucified God, 1993, pp 2-3)
“These words clarified the not-so-subtle shift in our conversation: we had come to the conclusion that if our church was to have life we would need, first and foremost, to shift the conversation to The Life … from church to Jesus. Ecclesiology would never go anywhere good until we talked Christology. How could we sit inside the sanctuary of the church of Laodicea all the while Jesus was standing outside the building, knocking and calling to be let in? Church talk before Christ talk, we realized, is putting the theological cart before the horse. Jesus must be first. (Revelation 3:20)”
Bryant invited Email comments and at The One Project web site on these two key questions: (1) What does your local congregation look like with Jesus. All.? (2) What does your life look like with Jesus. All.?
Checking whether this will be accepted.
From the time Sally’s brother, John, entered the ministry, Sally thought she would someday ask him to baptize her. When Sally and I invited family and friends to celebrate our marriage, John was the clergyman of record. But when Sally and I moved 50 miles away from where we had met, she still hadn’t asked John to baptize her.
Sally attended sabbath services with me when she wasn’t working but she worked about two weekends a month as an RN. The weekends she worked, she always wanted me to bring home the bulletin.
One sabbath when I attended by myself, there was something in the bulletin about a series of meetings to be conducted by the conference stewardship secretary. I had observed arm-twisting by conference stewardship secretaries so all the way home, I prayed that the Lord would put his hand over that announcement.
When Sally read the bulletin, the first thing she said was, “That looks interesting. I’d like to go to that.”
So I started praying that she (we) would be prevented from attending.
Instead, we attended all but one of the meetings. But there was NO arm-twisting! Instead, Elder Elbers employed an outline based on Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing. Nothing about money. Nothing about a religious organization. Just the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.
After the last meeting, Sally asked Elder Elbers to baptize her.
It was a while before his schedule permitted him to come to Cedar Falls but, when he was able to do, he came to our apartment and asked Sally a number of questions. One of them was, “Do you believe the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the remnant church of Bible prophecy, etc, etc.”
Sally said, “No.”
“OK. Please tell me what you do believe about that.”
When Elder Elbers understood that Sally believed the remnant church consists of all true believers regardless of our denominational affiliation, he said he “entirely” agreed with her. On the morning of her baptism, he changed the wording of that question.
Sally and I don’t oppose organization but the gospel isn’t about an organization. It is about Jesus. It is about what he taught. It is about what he has done, what he is doing now and what he will do when he rescues his waiting saints.
Nothing is better suited to the promulgation of the gospel of the kingdom–the glad tidings about the nature of the kingdom and the nature of the king–than the Sermon on the Mount. Which is why the book (other than the Bible) Sally and I use most in our missionary work is Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing.
Roger Metzger
Benzonia, Michigan
When Martin Luther was in the fight for the survival of the “Reformation” his most effective enemies were those from within who wanted to do away with any structure in the movement that had been started. They to, much like the “Promise Keeper Movement” had an agenda of non-denominational membership and as a result were seeking to destroy the organized movement against the Papal power. The Book of Revelation calls us out of these churches who are not keeping Gods commandments especially the 4th commandment. If we are to believe the Bible, God in heaven is very organized in all that he does. As workers for him, should not we also do the same?
My wife and I are history nuts. We are aware of the “non-conformist” movement in England and the Christian Connexion in the United States but can you direct us to historical sources of evidence of people you describe as wanting “to do away with any structure in the movement they had started” and who were, therefore, “enemies” of Martin Luther?
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with being organized. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with creating or maintaining a formal organization.
At the same time, it should be noted that the Millerite movement attracted thousands of believers in a PRE-millennial return of Jesus without any formal organization. The post-dissapointment advent movement with its focus on fiat creationism and the investigative phase of the final judgment likewise prospered for more than a decade and a half without any formal organization.
There is a difference between a religious movement and a religious organization intended to promote the movement. We can disagree with someone who chooses to not affiliate with an organization without impugning his motives.
Suppose someone thinks of a Lutheran organization as THE organization of the protestant movement. Now suppose someone else decides to promote the basic principles of the movement but decides to do so in another way(s) than joining that organization. Are you in a position to to judge his motives? Is it appropriate for you (or anyone else) to impugn his motives?
Did you read somewhere that there were protestants in Luther’s day who were trying to destroy the Lutheran organization? Who made that determination? Or is it something you decided based on specific evidence?
What evidence?
Roger Metzger
your a nut alright.
Since there is no denomination as relevant to baptism, why would anyone need some ordained “minister” to do the baptizing? Why not simply have any and all professed Christians go about baptizing anyone and everyone with no particular confession of faith except this, “I believe in Jesus”?
No movement can or would exist without some self identity, and for any Christian community, it must have stated beliefs that bind the members in unity and fellowship. This generic gospel being advocated has no affinity to bible Christanity. And Christian groups or churches are defined by what they believe that is in contrast to other professed groups. So the SDA denomination confesses we are the one and only remnant church but believe God has true believers in other churches who have not yet heard or rejected “present truth”.
Steven was a deacon when he baptized the Ethiopian eunuch. If he had been a member of the Seventh-day Adventist organization, would he have been “allowed to do that? What sanctions would have been appropriate for him having done so?
Our denomination has a tradition of deferring to clergy with regard to baptism. I have honored that tradition, even when I was asked to baptize someone. I made it very clear, however, that it wasn’t because I don’t have the authority to do do. Every true believer has that authority.
Our denomination also has a tradition of clergy not baptizing someone without simultaneously making him a “regular” member of the Seventh-day Adventist organization. Seventh-day Adventist pastors sometimes baptize people who are not ready for–don’t even know how to–participate in the organization. In some such cases, the newly baptized Christians are not made members of the denomination. In other cases, they are made members in spite of not being ready. Any suggestions as to how to solve these problems? Or do you maybe think neither situation is problematic?
What was the creed (statement of beliefs, if you prefer) of the Millerite movement?
What was the creed of the Christian Connexion? (See SdA Commentary article by Joshua V. Himes.)
What was the creed of the post-dissapointment advent movement before there was a Seventh-day Adventist organization?
In 1860, many of the delegates to the conference in Battle Creek were afraid that any formal organization would inevitably lead to creedalism.
Has it?
Roger Metzger
Who were the ordained clergy who baptized thousands after peter’s Pentecost sermon?
This appears to be an interesting initiative, encouraging people to focus in depth on one of Christ’s most central teachings. Hopefully this will not trigger criticism from those who do not sympathize with the One project. Such opposition would be nonsensical.
“Such opposition would be nonsensical.”
Is this like “the pot calling the kettle black”, George?
I guess I would wonder why you would consider your opposition to Adventism as rational but any opposition to the One Project as nonsensical? I would think there are both positive and negative issues concerning any ministry. So I suspect there is considerable “opposition” to the One Project on several levels, even if there may be some positive concepts advocated.
Bill, why don’t you summarize my “opposition to Adventism?” That would be helpful.
If you have kids, you will understand this: We love our kids, but we don’t support their mistakes. We bring them up for discussion hoping the kids will listen and correct the course. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. Hopefully they will not tell others that we are in “opposition to them.”
Here is what you said, George, “Hopefully this will not trigger criticism from those who do not sympathize with the One project. Such opposition would be nonsensical.”
Why is this an OK statement by you, but when applied to you, you say, “We love our kids, but we don’t support their mistakes. We bring them up for discussion hoping the kids will listen and correct the course.”
Why doesn’t this apply to those who may express “opposition” to the One Project? From your comments on Spectrum, it would seem to me that you are more than a little antagonistic to anyone who supports male headship, and imply they are women haters and a few more derogatory statements.
Frankly, I don’t see any consistency in your statement.
Oh yes Bill, I stand by my statements: People who preach the heresy of headship and discriminate against women are actually…discriminators!
This is not even a spiritual or intellectual matter, it’s a civility matter. Discriminating against women in a stone age behavior. And in church, in a Christian Church? It actually makes it an oxymoron!
And other people stand by theirs, George. They believe God has ordained a system of order and authority not only in the world and in the home, but in the church. You call this “discrimination”. That may well be your perception, but it is not how others see it. You expect other people to respect your view, but you label and call people names who you think are outside your own ideas. I call it duplicity.
The concept of Male Headship first appears in the Bible in Genesis 3 – AFTER the fall. This is where Adam first becomes the spokesperson for the human family, and where Eve is told that one of the consequences of her refusal to submit to the authority of God, is that she will have to submit to the authority of her husband.
From this turning-point in human history, and the subsequent innovation of Polygamy by Lamech, evolved the Patriarchal System. Those who claim the Patriarchal System was ordained by God because He saw fit to regulate it, can and have by the very same reasoning from the very same “proof texts” claim that Slavery was ordained by God. If you want a religion where these teachings are paramount then may I recommend that you consider Islam?
Moses gave you these commandments because of the hardness of your hearts. From the beginning (ie before the Fall) it was not so.
Now I will put to you, Bill, this essential fundamental question: Is the purpose of the Adventist church to promote the pre-Fall or the post-Fall condition of humans? And the even more fundamental question: Is the purpose of Jesus Christ to restore the pre-Fall or the post-Fall condition of humans?
And now I will put to you the even more fundamental questions: Do you believe that as woman proceeded from man, so Jesus Christ proceeded from the Father? And that by “order of creation” woman is inherently in submission to man as Jesus Christ is inherently in submission to the Father?
And if your answer to either of these questions is YES then may I recommend that you consider Latter Day Saints, who also claim to be the fulfillment of the same prophecies that we proclaim. Or if you cannot accept the Book of Mormon then may I recommend our friends the Jehovah’s Witnesses for your consideration?
Philippians 2:5-11 is a very important teaching about the nature of Jesus Christ, and also about the nature of humans. It begins “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus” (NIV). To me it seems clear from this passage that humans, including both men and women, are to have the same kind of relationships with each other that Christ has with the Father. Christ was of the same nature as the Father, yet on this earth He emptied Himself and voluntarily submitted. Likewise His followers are to empty themselves and voluntarily submit one to another. This means that women are to submit to men as well as other women, AND that men are to submit to women as well as to other men. Or was Paul here writing only to the men or only to the women?
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus” (NASB). Our relationships with others arise from our attitudes towards others. The NIV translators went with the effect whereas the NASB translators went with the cause. Regardless the message is the same.
(phronéō) essentially equates to personal opinion fleshing itself out in action. This idea is difficult to translate into English because it combines the visceral and cognitive aspects of thinking.
Peter and Bill,
When you allow the discussion to degenerate into personal attacks and name-calling (discriminators, duplicity), this is beneath your dignity.
It would be more helpful if you put forth your own ideas or rebut those of others, without impugning the motives of those who differ from your views.
Bill, it’s obvious we disagree on this issue.
It’s also obvious that there are Christians who discrimnate agains women. Which for me is an oxymoron.
That’s fine, George. The problem is this, you think it is God who discriminates against women because He has ordained male headship.
Bill,
Please read carefully my comments above regarding the origins and implications of the belief in Male Headship.
Jim asks, “Now I will put to you, Bill, this essential fundamental question: Is the purpose of the Adventist church to promote the pre-Fall or the post-Fall condition of humans? And the even more fundamental question: Is the purpose of Jesus Christ to restore the pre-Fall or the post-Fall condition of humans?”
Your question, Jim, is a false dilemma. We are born in sin and this fact is a reality in how God deals with us. So we can not appeal to some pre-fall condition as the norm or ideal in this fallen world. The final restoration comes at the second coming. None the less, God Himself ordained male headship long before the fall of man as Adam was King of this world before Eve was even created. Eve was subject to Adam’s authority before she sinned. And the affirmation and restatement of the reality in Gen. 3 where it was affirmed in a more definitive way than before the fall is no new principle.
Now it is true that Jesus is the “second Adam” and now the human head of humanity in place of the “first Adam” who sinned. This means we are subject to Christ in two ways, one, He is the human head of humanity, and two, He is still the divine head of all creation.
But the order of authority ordained by God for this world has not changed in principle. Man is head of secular society, man is head of the home, and man is head of the church. Civil society ignores this fact and we will reap the result in the near future more fully. Civil society also denies in this modern age that man is head of the home. And now we have more than a few people who are willing to deny that man is ordained by God to be head of the church in the world. Some argue that Christ is head of the church. And so He is. He is head of everything, including the home and society in general. This does not negate levels of authority that He has ordained in the church on earth and clearly affirmed by Paul and other new testament writers.
Are you willing to deny that God has ordained men to be the head of the home just because Christ is head of the home? So as I said, I think your reasoning and question is a “false dilemma” and creates a problem that does not exist.