Progressive Neolegalism: Back to the Future of Adventism
by Nate Schilt
I entered
both adolescence and adulthood in the 60’s. I knew the difference between right and wrong, and I knew what that difference looked like in real life. Even shades of gray were clearly defined. We didn’t have T.V. growing up in Denver, but when we made the weekly drive to Boulder to visit grandparents, we were allowed to watch certain programs like ‘The Andy Griffith Show’ and ‘Make Room for Daddy’. ‘Lassie’ and ‘Seahunt,’ were strictly forbidden – too much suspense – and ‘Leave it to Beaver’…well, I’m not sure what was wrong with that. I just knew my mother disapproved. Perhaps she saw it as television’s version of an ‘entry’ drug. I know she suspected – correctly it turns out – that T.V. itself was an entry drug to secular culture. But her fleshly weakness found the benign wit of Danny Thomas and Uncle Tonoose irresistible. And so began the downhill slide of a boy raised on industrial strength Adventism. Of course the Beatles and Elvis Presley were way off limits. But then so were Andy Williams and Perry Como.
Along came the ‘70’s, and the enlightenment dawned on Adventism. During the next three decades, “I’m not okay, and you’re even more not okay” was replaced with the Gospel of love, tolerance, and even acceptance. Adventist progressivism began to gently and constructively challenge not only the traditional interpretation of the Church’s sources of authority, but the authoritativeness of the sources themselves, prying the Church loose from its militant, paranoid sectarianism.
Over time, not only were guitars and drums welcomed to church platforms, but listening to rock music and going to the movies ceased being occasions for adding names to prayer lists. Despite progressive whining that the Church hasn’t moved far enough fast enough, the subculture of Adventism has “progressed” dramatically over the past 40-50 years.
But I have noticed something strange in the SDA progressive liberation movement. The sins of listening to Elvis and attending Beatles’ concerts have simply been replaced by the sins of listening to Rush Limbaugh, watching Glenn Beck, or being in favor of Proposition 8 (For non-Californians, this was the proposition passed by California voters to define marriage as between one man and one woman.).
So what gives? How did those who have led a movement that prides itself on having pushed the Church towards greater tolerance and diversity of opinion become so non- diverse, judgmental, and condemning? How did the Gospel of freedom, preached by progressives to release Adventism from the chains of traditional legalism, become a guilt-inducing weapon of choice for Christians whose politics leaned left? Having experienced considerable success in freeing Adventists from the bonds of their voluntary baptismal vows, progressives now seek to bind them by compulsory legal obligations and political sentiments to a new kind of righteousness by works – all in the name of Christ. The war against legalism, it turns out, really wasn’t about legalism per se. It was simply a battle to clear the way for a new political canon of Church authority.
I’d love to gain some insight and understanding from those who don’t see a double-standard here. Why is it okay to use scripture as foundational authority to compel legislative and regulatory implementation of Left wing public morality (can anyone say theocracy?), but not okay to use scripture as authority for implementation of the Church’s moral and religious beliefs? Is it unreasonable to use the word “neolegalist” to describe those who urge the Church to adopt political agendas and beliefs on the authority of God’s Word?
Nathan,
I believe it is essential to separate the secular/political from the theological, as well as the terms applying to both, when discussing your premise.
The difference between "conservative and liberal/progressive" theological issues( not defined by SDA terms) is primarily related to one's view of scripture and inspiration.
In the secular realm, in the US, I would suggest "originally liberals and now conservatives" choose limited government as defined by the Constitution as did Jefferson and Madison…vs. the "progressives favoring more government presence and provisions now known as "liberal" contrary to the 18th century meaning with the associated view of the constitution as a "living document" to be interpreted at will apart from "original meanings."
In a way both in the secular and theological realm, "progressives" feel at liberty to change the foundational authorities as societies perceived "needs and understandings" change over time.
I suggest "moral issues" regarding secular application must also be seen in light of 18th and 19th century held morality acceptably enforced by the state regarding the "last 6 commandments."
If we don't keep our meanings and definitions to an understandable meaning you end up with yet another layer of confusion.
I can be a theological conservative and appear to be a "liberal SDA" regarding personal practices. A "conservative SDA" may practice all the oughts of SDA practices and in fact be a "theological liberal" who follows tradition and a less than orthodox view of scripture. This lack of clarity in what we are talking about and going from one realm to another simply adds another layer of smoke and confusion…in my view.
If I am grasping you properly, I have always felt that when the fedral government provided in ways the church agreed with you would quickly see the "wall of separation" miraculously disappear…not realizing that is the ultimate modus operandi, I suggest, to a control that reduces choices ultimately religious one's.
regards,
pat
Wow.
My head is spinning — from the spin.
I thought political conservatives were against victimhood and such. Apparently, it makes a comfortable cloak for keeping your views safe and warm.
Nate, you answered you own question — re: the so-called "double standard."
It is perfectly reasonable to use all means (i.e., scripture or other moral sources) as the foundational authority to influence others to accept a public morality. The key words are "influence" and "public." It is both unacceptable and, in my opinion, unconstitutional to establish the scripture or Church as the authority to compel compliance to a church standard. The key words there are "establish," "authority" and "compel."
The difference is that in the former case, you are saying "Here are reasons why we should consider adopting this (fill-in-the-blank) public policy. Included in these reasons are these moral touch points, which you may or may not consider to be valid or compelling.
In the latter case you are saying, "Scripture and the Church (BTW, just which 'Church' were you referring to?) are authoritative in our society, we must enforce their agenda, through law." There is where theocracy lies.
No where, do I find anyone calling watching Beck or listening to Rush "sin." I'm sure you purposefully overstated your case to dramatize your point. Or, perhaps, you have simply deified them yourself, making political opposition to them sound like sin to you.
But I am happy to leave this to a public referendum: who is more likely to establish a theocracy in America — Governor Perry or President Obama?
Really.
obama
Preston
Theocracy isn't going to be the issue, I suggest, as before with you. How the state views freedom of religion if it violates the states or church-state overtone alliance view…example Hitlers "German progressive church" and "state rule."
Really.
pat
Pat,
I know we (mostly Stephen and you) have been around the barn several turns on this, so there's no sense in going there again. The issue may indeed be the "church – state alliance," which, plausibly, can come from the right or the left. However, I was responding to Nate's concern about the possible formation of an American theocracy.
On that matter, I'll stick with my "bet."
Cheers!
Cheers to you Preston,
Sorry confused you primarily with Stephen on this issue.
I'll stick with this bet…whatever religious backing "forms" won't represent orthodox Protestant Christianity nor a "conservative reading of the constitution"…but a left/right compromise for the "good of the nation and world."
Cheers,
pat
Perhaps it would help if you were to provide examples of what you mean by “Left wing public morality.” That is, what area(s) of “public morality” would be considered (by you) to be “Left wing”?
I would caution that labels can be hazardous to the cause of gaining “insight and understanding,” however; as you may discover.
Some of us view the efforts to undermine the historic doctrinal beliefs of Seventh-day Adventism, and the efforts to demonize those who would use Caesar’s tax receipts to help feed, clothe, and medically care for the poorest among us, and the efforts of religious people to gain control of the levers of civil power in America, to be part of the same religio-political movement; whether those involved with any one of these efforts realize it or not.
Finally, I would suggest that “industrial strength Adventism,” some of which I too have been exposed to in my youth (in varying degrees of potency), should never have been confused with Adventist doctrine or Christianity.
Much of this Adventism that labels "conservative" and "liberal" are limited to the U.S. as political descriptions. Liberal or conservative would be entirely different in most of the middle eastern nations, and is different in Europe.
Most Adventists have little knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and how it should function. How many Christians believe that the Consitution declares that this is a "Christian nation"? The marriage of Christianity with U.S. patriotism is too well known to elaborate. Politicians are interrogated about their religious beliefs and most are eager to comply, regardless of how they practice or their plans if elected to office that are at cross purposes with the First Amendment. Wrapping themselves in the U.S. flag and Christianity, is almost expected of electable politicians.
This is the compromised form I expect in any "church state" combine.
Grenz in "The millennial Maze", IVP., says it this way, “As the nineteenth century unfolded, church centered optimism was replaced by ay an optimism that focused on society. The dream for the truly reformed church was transformed into a blueprint for a new world order…when theological liberalism exchanged original sin for human perfectibility and replaced Christ as our substitute with Jesus as the model for the new human, the triumph of this-worldliness was complete and the way was open for the church to join the secularized millennial vision. The flowering of the utopian optimism of theological liberalism came with the social gospel movement. The salvation of souls gave way to the salvation of society.”
regards,
pat
Having only recently gotten into the whole history of Christianity in the US, the connections between theolgy and social policy were a revelation to me. When our church started, most people in the US were perfectionists of one sort or another. There may have been arguments over the tools to use – religion, health, etc – but it seems no one seriously disagreed with the idea that perfection was both desirable and achievable. Coming from a culture where such optimism has always been looked upon as somewhat odd and naive, it helped me to understand our history as a church. The liberal/fundamentalist split was not about whether perfection was achievable, but over the best way to do so. While we have now moved to a cultural position where perfection is seen as an illusion, I am not convinced that religion – of any kind – is so far removed from culture that a common cause for a perceived necessary 'improvement' in society could not be formed rather quickly between church and secular authorities from any side of politics.
Pat,
I think that's a pretty good bet.
Preston
Where I attend church there is absolutely no legalism against listening to Rush or Glen. If anything, the legalism questions whether a "liberal" (anyone who is not an extreme conservative) can also be a Christian.
I am blissfully unaware of Glen Beck's approach, but there is a HUGE problem with Rush Limbaugh for anyone who appreciates Biblical values. Rush is a gossip. He enjoys malice and he speaks for those who enjoy malice. He spends at least half of his time making fun of names and making other personal attacks unrelated to the issue at hand. He even makes fun of personal appearance. This is from someone who is both obese and on his fourth wife. He lives in a glass house, like most gossips, and gets away with throwing stones because other gossip-minded people are delighted with his material.
There are sober-minded people who speak for conservative values. I just haven't seen them discussed here.
Jim
"There are sober-minded people who speak for conservative values."
Names, please.
I would love to see an example…
My point, folks, wasn't to get into a debate over which side is right in the political debates, but to inquire why those who have been accusing the Church of legalism and judgmentalism seem quite comfortable with arguing that the causes supported by the Left – GLBT rights, universal health care, illegal immigration, wealth redistribution, etc., are Christian obligations. As an example, John McClarty, former editor of AToday, and certainly an adversary of legalism, stated in an editorial around the Spring of 2003, that no follower of Christ would support the Iraq war. I see the Adventist Left as being highly legalistic when it comes to Christian obligations vis a vis social and political agendas, so I'm just looking for a principled justification for selective legalism.
From what I have read of Preston and Stephen's opinions, I think they are actually quite consistent in the way they see the roles of Government and the Church. They favor an authoritarian, activist model in both spheres – one that knows the Truth, speaks the Truth, and promotes practices and beliefs that will encourage/coerce citizens and members to do the Truth. I am really questioning those who use the Bible to fight against righteousness by works in the Church, but use the same scriptures to promote righteousness by works when it comes to political issues.
C’mon Nathan, authoritarians?! The fact that we do NOT want those with overtly religious agendas controlling secular civil government, or that we might prefer “Caesar’s” tax burden to fall more on the upper income earners than on the middle income earners, or that we may also prefer that his tax revenues go toward workplace and product safety, and commercial fair play regulation, and/or to assist the poorer segments of our population, may qualify us as “leftists” in your view—but authoritarians?
Likewise those who believe that the world was created by God in six literal earth days, and that He ceased creative activities on this planet, in this solar system, on the seventh day and immediately set it apart as holy, and later commanded those who would claim Him to rest on that day in commemoration of His creative acts, and believe that He is returning to take those who claim Him (as Savior and Lord) to paradise with Him, may in fact be fundamentalists—but is that authoritarianism?
Labels are problematic. Thus I take issue with your characterization of my opinion; unless of course you are saying that actually believing that the Bible is authoritative, and believing EGW to have been prophetically gifted, is the very definition of authoritarianism.
I guess Nathan missed, "Nailed to the Cross," an article dedicated to promoting freedom from the law and freedom in Christ — the polar opposite of authoritarianism. But, then, the facts would interfere with a skewed generalization that simplifies the point of view of those who think differently.
Nate has a very good point which is that some on the left are becoming just like that which they have been fighting against. The problem with humans is that we have an us vs. them mindset (ingroup vs. outgroup). Those who were considered "progressive" in the church united as an "ingroup" among themsleves in challenging the traditionalism of the church.
Now however, that the "progressives" have gained some victories they are going further in their focus moving beyond religious ideological unity to political ideological unity. This is pushing political conservatives out of the "progressive" camp. It's easy to hear their replies posted quite numerously above here. They basically resort to attacking the merits, beliefs, and ideas of political conservatives, and become extremely judgmental I might add. Essentially progressives who attack fans of Beck & Limbaugh (regardless of whether these men are extreme) are doing the same thing they themselves hated: creating a rigid ideological standard.
One can speak against the abuses of political conservatives without attacking those who are themselves politically conservative. Acceptance and tolerance must extend both ways. Otherwise progressives will become just like their counterparts with the only difference being which issues they cut off "the other" from.
To be honest, I don't follow the argument. The term "legalism" doesn't appear to be properly applied to people who reject simplistic, reductionist interpretations of moral or political issues—arguing rather that these issues need to be addressed based on fundamental principles of fairness and reciprocity. In fact, this is virtually the opposite of legalism.
Further, the use of "righteousness" to describe a desired political outcome relies on a parallel between the religious and political spheres which simply isn't there. I know what Christian righteousness, salvation, and grace are; what political righteousness, salvation, and grace are, I haven't a clue.
Elaine – you want some sober-minded conservatives to discuss? How about Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Sowell, William F. Buckley, William Bennett, and many hundreds of others. Rush is an entertainer with humor that has a bit more Don Rickles to it than Uncle Milty. Glenn Beck is sort of beyond description (I personally think he's around the bend, but that's just me).
Nathan, I tend to agree with you that people who decried legalism back in the day seem to have the more restrictive approach today, wishing to regulate every aspect of people's lives (salt in restaurants, toys in Happy Meals, dust particles on farms) while rigidly enforcing political correctness in thought and speech.
I prefer Thomas Friedman, David Brooks, Fareed Zakira, Kathleen Parker, to name a few. William Buckley has been dead a few years so has no comment on current events. I never listen to Faux News
and only on John Stewart or Stephen Colbert do I see the Faux News as only their irony can show. I read 5 daily newspapers, 4 weekly news magazines (Time, Newsweek, The Week, the Economist), all very sober in news reporting. PBS nightly TV gives in-depth news rather than news bites. Only by reading and listening to a variety of news is one able to get a more complete analysis.
Elaine, Did any journalist ask you what do you read?
It seems that you learned from Sarah Palin, and were very well prepared for the occasion…. kkkkkkkkkkkkk
I might add Paul Krugman (did I get that right?) as a sober conservative.
I might add on gossip that we all live in glass houses, that is one reason why we should not gossip. Gossip is corrosive to the person gossiping and to those who listen / read that gossip. It is not legalism to warn against gossip.
Jim
Yes, I always read Krugman. His is the most sincere and cogent economic position, along with Warren Buffett. Too bad that no one seems to be listening to him.
That is funny Elaine, as Krugman recently said we should manufacture a threat of alien invasion to help the economy. I guess the wars in Iraq, Afganastane and now Libia are enough. When I hear people praise the Political Progressive Krugman I sudder, and Jim Miller thinks Krugman is a sober conservative!
Hooray! Ron Corson and I finally agree on something…Paul Krugman is not a conservative.
Afghanistan Libya. The stupid new Firefox does not work with the google toolbar and I lost my spell checker in these boxes. I am lost!
If you get "Add-on Campatibility Reporter" from the list of add-ons for Mozilla, it will allow you to use your google toolbar. I am thinking much kinder thoughts of Mozilla and google since I did so.
thankx but it is not working at all either google toolbar spell check or the firefox spell check http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Using%20the%20spell%20checker
I guess I will have to use ie till they get their act together. This is the first firefox update that really does not work well for me
George Will and Peggy Noonan are pretty "sober conservatives" as well.
Show me what a person reads and I can tell you his beliefs.
Oh, this progressive legalism extends further. Look at the recycling fundamentalists, and the Global warming fundamentalists, who look at the car you drive, the clothes you wear, the garbage you throw out, etc., and judge you accordingly. Look at how they demand agreement on all sorts of issues–health care, homelessness, international policy, saying, "If you followed the real teachings of Jesus, you would adopt X or Y position." And on this webpage, and certain others, if you accept belief in Jesus, if you quote Scripture as authoritative, if you have any fondness for Ellen White, how do the denunciations fly! Someone mentions enjoying Steps to Christ and they start throwing Walter Rea at them. And they do tend to be of a certain generation. Is it any wonder why young people flock to GYC …?
"Family Ties" has finally reached Adventism.
Elaine, I can't match you on number of extracurricular reading material, though my variety is perhaps a little broader. For the left I usually read most of Time Magazine (we subscribe) and Liberty. For the right I prefer National Review and the Spectator and read most of them. Discover and a couple of trade journals. I catch assorted articles and news from our local paper plus NY Times, and despite what you claim about them "Faux" News – it's more balanced than Stuart or Colbert. At any rate, I'm not here to brag about my reading material, and the liberals who imply conservatives aren't particularly intelligent do so at their own risk.
Back to the topic of Adventism and liberalism, the biggest problem I see is that liberalism is being generous with other people's money. It allows one to ignore the human problems around them, nigh even prohibits it if you present any religious aspect with your help. If "the government" takes care of those people, you don't have to. If the health department decrees you can't take food to the park for the homeless; hey, you're off the hook. But wait. You're a "good" person and you really want those homeless people taken care of. So you vote Democrat, and propose more and more "helpful" programs which cost twice as much as the church versions and don't feed the people with any of that unhelpful Christianity stuff.
I'll admit to exaggerating for effect in the above paragraph, but if it makes you just a little uncomfortable, could there be truth in it?
Sorry, if I were made uncomfortable by such trite statements rather than laughing, it might be a problem.
Stewart and Colbert are comedians, but they do satirize the news, which points up the idiocy of both sides, as they often do: they are equal "skewers" or pompous politicians and they have unlimited supply for scripts.
As far a "liberalism being geneous with othe people's money" which party got the U.S. involved in two of the longest wars in U.S. history, and the costliest? Who's money has paid for that?
I lived through the Great Depression, and am not anxious to experience another, but I know how to survive being extremely poor, so am in a much better position than those who only always had plenty.
Living longer gives one a historical perspective that contemporary news can never match. History recycles every 20 years or so.
And who was "generous" with the surplus left by Clinton, and delivered a government in deep "red" to the present administration?
Let's not even start trying to find out who protects the middle class and who protects only the richest and care less about the middle class. (Well, it's all evident anyway, isn't it?…)
It was not a surplus it was a projected surplus and it was very much related to the Republican takover of the house and Senate. But today it should point out the danger of the 10 year projection. They are illusions and they are enforceable by no one. The one exception is baseline budgeting which includes a constant increase in the costs of the governement so that every year it grows by 5-7 percent. Thus the recent budget cuts that supposedly cut 2 trillion dollars will end up in 10 years that we will be another 7 trillion indebt instead of the 9 trillion increase in debt just from the baseline budget increases. Of course if during the Clinton Administration we really had a surplus we could have spent it on paying off the debt. but as I said the surplus did not exist. Unless they have a balanced budget they is no hope to pay off any debt.
Which president was in office when Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded in the longest war in U.S. history? When is there a projected "ending" for Afghanistan, and how much have both those wars indebted us? While the U.S. has policed the world, the other nations have cared for their own first, still remembering the awful costs in lives and money from two world wars which never involved fighting on U.S. soil.
The talk of our military "protecting our freedom" is a big lie. When and where was our freedom at stake since WW II? If the U.S. does not develop a less military stance to all the world's problems, we will soon be defense heavy and citizen poor. The U.S. is building infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq while there are similar needs here in the U.S. that cannot now be built because of lack of funding. The DOD is the most wasteful government organization with apparent unlimited funds. With all the private contractors who have been paid "no-bid contracts" no one has a good account of where and how those funds have been spent.
Isn't it amazingly apparent why "socio-economic politics" has no place in the actual SS and worship services?
I simply refuse to go there "at church" and attempt to stop it if within my ability past generalities.
No political or economic system performs holistically like the OT theocracy did. It was land based with sabbatical years. It had "private property" and "limited the kings/governments rights." We are working in the area of incomplete applications trying to make certain "justice" from the uncertain conditions.
Many try to make the "planet in rebellion" the continuing hope for utopia.
What is extremely apparent today is that governments, Zombie Banks of all nations and many individuals are overleaveraged. They all have been operating on false assumptions. Promises made that are unrealistic with no one with the integrity to demand financial accountability without either central banks inflating the currency to cover governments and financial institutions or demanding more taxes to attempt to accomplish the same.
regards,
pat
Let me see if I can reframe the question without using conservative/liberal labels: Some Adventists use the Bible, and even Ellen White, to establish moral obligations when it comes to extending the benefits of citizenship to non-citizens; economic policies that favor government confiscation and redistribution of private wealth and earnings; weakening of U.S. military power; and promoting social policies that undermine traditional family values.
These same Adventists have no compunctions about using their interpretation of the Bible, and even Ellen White, to judge and condemn Adventists such as me, who read the Bible differently. No one has ever made me feel more judged and condemned by God for my beliefs or behavior than I feel from those who urge that the Bible is an authoritative source of political values. Mind you, I understand how they get there. If your political positions are the result of divine revelation (Muslim theology), how can you negotiate with or ignore God's will? But if that is your position, how can you possibly condemn as judgmental the standards of a small Church which idiosyncratically uses Scripture to establish an authoritative fence around its subculture? You can certainly argue that the Church is wrong, but how can you condemn it for being judgmental?
Preston, if you haven't heard Adventists use the word sinful to describe the views of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, it's only because that adjective is too mild for those who vilify these pundits. You argue for a distinction between "church standards" and "public policy". It seems to me that this distinction begs the question. What makes a belief a "church standard", and why is it okay to use Scriptural authority to judge and condemn as evil the political beliefs of others, but not okay to be judgmental when it comes to church standards and beliefs? If the Church politically engages to oppose laws restricting commercial activity on Sunday, or to support laws penalizing/restricting smoking and alcohol use, would it be impermissibly using standards to shape public policy or permissibly using Biblical principles to oppose or support a public policy argument? No wonder your head is spinning!
Nathan,
I think your "complaints" are most valid. Those of "political progressive views" do judge those that oppose ever bit as much as do the "religious right who aso are teapartiers."
Cindy Tutsch's recent article of WWJD is an obvious example. If I disagree with Cindy's "Jesus' view" where does that leave me? An obvious unbeliever?
While we banter about on this site, I feel the church organization should have a very limited role in politics and then only if a very "explicit" biblical argument exist for it's presence. This discussion exhibits the reason why it creates unnecessary conflict on non-specific public involvement in the political process.
regards,
pat
The article says: "I knew the difference between right and wrong, and I knew what that difference looked like in real life. Even shades of gray were clearly defined."
—–
If spiritual discernment was so sharp in those bygone days, then something was done right back then, more than what we see today. So what has changed? The Bible is still the same. The Church today is still in the clear majority fundamentally the same. The SOP inspired writings are the same. It seems that the world around us has drastically changed us rather than we changing the world (typical Israelite golden calf syndrome). Secular political and cultural agendas have consumed our 'old time religion' faith. To add to our woes, distructive theologians and academics have offered a spin-doctored fly by night opiate religion to the masses which has been engineered by political and cultural mandates seeking to gain turf in the church/state divide.
—–
Some say "we need a new coat for every man". Others say "we need a new man in every coat". What's wrong with the church saying "we need a new coat for every man AND a new man in every coat". I don't mind if my taxes are used for the poor, the sick and the needy – it's not just 'other peoples money' – it's mine too! …Although I'm apolitical myself and don't even vote, I realise that we (the church) are part of a Political System which just cannot be avoided especially within a culture that heavily encroaches on our Christian Beliefs and Practices. A Total Onslaught if you please…
—-
Acts 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’"
T
Thoughtful questions and comments, Mark. Of course I do not believe that political punditry of any sort is "redeemable". My question is why some Christians fight religious wars with righteous zeal on the political battlefield, but demand tolerance and love from the church on all nonpolitical religious issues. Why is it okay to make people feel morally judged and condemned by God for their political views, but not okay to make people feel judged and condemned by God for their personal moral behavior and religious views?
In answer to your question about John McClarty, I think he was deeply wrong in his assertion that no follower Christ could support the Iraq war. He had similar views regarding the invasion of Afghanistan. In hindsight, I believe both wars were a bad idea, particularly in their execution, even though I was strongly supportive at the time. This is way off-topic, so I will resist the temptation to go into my reasons. Suffice it to say that toppling a loathsome dictator or regime in order to pave the way for political "self-determination" by religious fanatics, doesn't seem like a good reason to go to war or support revolution, a lesson I fear we will shortly have to relearn from the harvest that was seeded by the Arab Spring.
I think what has changed is that many SDAs have realised that what we saw as black and white in some cases was not. Many have come to realise that there is a section in the middle that is grey, and that finding where to draw the line is not easy. I believe that process was good for the church, but I also believe we lost confidence in some things that we shouldn't have lost confidence in. When I was a kid there were a number of people who said of the Bible and Ellen White (and often the church) "If it/she/we are wrong about even one thing, then it/she/we may as well be wrong about everything". An illogical thing to say in many ways, but I suspect many among us, having realised that we did indeed make an error or two, now are afraid that we may indeed not be entirely correct about anything.
RE: "When I was a kid there were a number of people who said of the Bible and Ellen White (and often the church) "If it/she/we are wrong about even one thing, then it/she/we may as well be wrong about everything".
——
Surely if this statement were true at least in terms of objectivity and suppose it did represent a large scale view among Adventists then a statement regarding this position would surely have been made in an official publication: unless of course it is of a purely subjective nature.
—–
T
I don't know that it was ever an official position, but it is certainly fairly well-known among long-term SDAs. I know it was never EGW's position, but the last person I heard say it also said "I don't care what Ellen White said, I believe she was infallible". Logic, or the lack thereof, does not stop something being widely held. There are many things held, often quite widely, among us that have never been the subject of official debate or any offical pronouncement. Remember, we are only just, as of the last GC, looking at what ordination is. We have never been a church for spending a great amount of time debating anything that was not so urgent it was likely to destroy the church. I'd suggest you do a bit of research in the online GC archives if you want to know if the sentiment ever appeared in print.
Waiting for the "official" pronouncement of the church to define church doctrines is an exercise in futility. Have you not read the 1919 Bible Conference transcripts? That would be a good place to begin.
Here's Randall Herbert Balmer's take on the disastrous negative influence that politics has had on religion in America, taken from an article entitled 'Jesus is not a Republican':
—–
My point is that Christianity in the West, including Protestantism, is somehow been 'controlled' by the political 'big wigs' who use money, power and systems to their advantage thereby eroding the very tenets of our faith. (Please note that I'm not even talking Freemasonary which plays a major part in this and of their very real active participatory role these in all of this politicking). The 'progressive' faction within Adventism shows that our church has also been a casualty in this rat race .
T
oops…edit – Freemasonry
—–
Also, while you're at it, discussing the war in Iraq and the costs ($ and lives) involved and who's to blame, please tell me if they found the 'weapons of mass destruction' that Saddam was accused of hiding, or has that disappeared like the body of former US ally OBL who allegedly was killed for masterminding the 9/11 attacks.
T
Trevor – wasn't the message of Christ that "bigwigs" can't erode the foundations of our faith – that Hell itself cannot prevail against a life surrendered to God? Are the poor and downtrodden any more righteous or less greedy than the bigwigs? No, they are just powerless and, according to Jesus, better positioned to see God. What is it about the message of Christ that has led some Christians to believe that political vindication of our human desire for economic equality and "social justice" somehow paves the way for the Kingdom? (AND NO, I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE SHOULD THEREFORE BE COMPLACENT ABOUT INJUSTICE, CORRUPTION, AND OPPRESSION IN EARTHLY KINGDOMS) Why do I feel that those who insist God is not a Republican (an assertion which I wholeheartedly endorse) believe that He leans strongly Left in His political preferences?
Why do the same folks who condemn Glenn Beck and James Dobson en passant (Don't all bien pensants agree on that issue?) as theocratic bogeymen never seem to mention the Reverend Jim Wallis, "faith adviser" to President Obama since Obama's falling out with his "spiritual mentor" of 20 years – the Reverend Jeremiah Wright? Wallis is unabashedly communist in his worldview (Of course this need not concern Adventists, because no Communist government has tried to implement Sunday laws or promote religious ecumenism), and was asked by Obama to help draft faith-based policy statements for Obama's presidential campaign. He proudly admits that he and Obama have been talking faith and politics for years. Doesn't anyone think that the foundational authority for his Circle of Protection and and Global Church sounds awfully theocratic? Apparently not. Irritated by the obvious Right wing hatemongering revealed in the question, the Inspector Renaults of Adventism assure us, "Nothing to see here; let's move on."
But seriously, why do personalities on the religious and political Left get a pass by those who condemn the religious right in the Church as judgmental, while virtually all figures on the SDA Right are Torquemadas, and most personalities on the political Right are vilified as harbingers of a theocratic Dark Ages?
Will someone please try to answer this question instead of illustrating the inconsistency I am exposing and challenging? Are you simply content to say God opposes the agenda of the Adventist Right, but He favors the agenda of the political Left? Legalistic, judgmental labels are wrong if God is not on your side; but they're fine if He is?
You mention Rev. Jeremiah Wright – here's a quote from one of his 'colorful' sermons which I found interesting:
Though simplistic (I'm not a political analyst) but this is how I see it. The difference between 1] conservative Christians who are political liberals and 2] liberal Christians who are political liberals is that in the first group obedience to God and abhorrence of sin is NEVER compromised, whilst in the second group God is superseded where necessary, to accommodate the reckless radical culture they represent when within the Church environment which manifests itself as extended obsessive liberalism outside of Church. Obedience to God should ALWAYS take precedence over obedience to man. It is on this point that they part ways. Unable to determine where and what the parameters of true Christianity are and how far is too far within the Church, they go the whole nine yards in the political sphere to the extent of advocating the right to sin and disobey God. There is a deep chasm between the two. So within the church we find that the second group is not too religious about religious stuff but in the secular aspect of society they zealously enforce their belief system. The first group are motivated by the principles of objective Christian benevolence and love for sinners and the oppressed whilst their counterparts are motivated by inane desire to fulfill these based on a subjective legalistic (neo) code irrespective of prescribed Biblical guidelines by even positing that the Ten Commandments are Ten Options.
The weird thing I find in all of this is that we are all a part of a legalistic society where civil laws, criminal laws, fiscal laws, by-laws etc., (even traffic laws and in-laws) govern and rule our everyday life and we better obey…or else! Yet in Christ we are free!
PS. I wouldn't side-track altogether by focusing on the liberal political left and overlook the even worse evils of the conservative political right 'religion' who gaze from the lofty heights of their sand-castles and shake their heads with folded arms saying 'thank god I'm not like them' and then go quickly go back to filing their tax returns in anticipation of using the money for a downpayment on their second yacht if Wall St. holds out. These would easily support the economic slavery policies that Capitalism subscribes to.
T
Nate,
IMHO your analysis or perspective is based on some real misnomers. Others replies have highlighted some of them.
Perhaps those misnormers are created by your desire to justify the society you prefer rather than one that aligns with a principled position. For example take your reference to the "redistribution of wealth". I find it amazing that people claiming the moral high-ground only recognize "wealth redistribution" in reference to higher tax rates on those with higher income.
I would argue that a society that evolves an enconomic system that permits a small percentage to gradually acquire most of the wealth has "wealth redistribution" built into the economic system. Those who do not yet feel hurt by that "wealth distribution" cry foul when there is any attempt to use the tax system to rectify problems. Certainly, Rush and Glenn have sufficient income (and probably most lawyers) that they have no reason to be concerned that our economic system is the real "redistibutor of wealth".
It seems obvious to me that those who protest oppression in the church would protest the self-serving rehetoric of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Like someone suggested earlier these strident self-righteous voices have much to do with the stalemate in our government and yet they are handsomely rewarded with power and money because people claiming the moral high-ground support their self serving analysis of our society, economic system, and political environment.
I'm glad you found this blog worth commenting on, Rudy. But my point was not to promote or discuss economic systems or political beliefs per se. I wanted to see whether nonjudgmentalism, tolerance, and acceptance was really the one-way street for SDA Liberals that it appears to be. I wanted to identify and challenge the neolegalism of progressive Adventists.
Your points are interesting, but outside the issue that I failed to get any liberals to justify or refute in this thread. I suspect the answer is very simple: "We shouldn't be judged by the same standards because we have the truth; we're right and they're wrong."
Nate,
I thought I was addressing your issue.
Perhaps your tongue was not in your cheek when you mentioned that listening to Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh was labeled a sin. In which case I would argue you are misrepresenting the large majority of liberals to suggest they think listening to Rush or Glenn is a sin. My point was just this… It is liberals (more or less) that challenged the intolerance within Adventism. So, you cannot expect them to embrace the obvious intolerance of Rush and Glenn.
Let me make it clear why I see the "wealth redistribution" as connected. One's conviction about the distribution of wealth as well as toleration in the church says a lot about the respect one has for other people and the fairness of the society and communities we create. While conservatives or liberals have flawed sinful tendancies. It is most often liberals who show true concern for toleration and fairness.
You compare apples to oranges and then accuse liberals of a double standard. There is a huge difference between promoting toleration of everyone's right to their own ideas and opinions and opposing those in positions of broad influence to be able to deceive and distort the truth. If there is a double standard it is those who decry the redistribution of wealth when it is done with the tax system. But, take full advantage when it occurs because enconomic policy, regulations, legislation and just plain greed.
As one who might be labeled liberal, I would defend your right to listen to who ever you like and for them to say most anything they like. But, don't expect me to be tolerant of oppressive, bigoted, self-serving, deceptive rhectoric from self-proclaimed thought leaders. I will openly deplore their ugly manipulative rehotric.
Where do you go next? Are you going to accuse liberals who promote toleration of having a double standard if they oppose the devil's attempt to tempt, deceive, and destroy God's creation and creatures.
I'm glad that Nate has discovered that liberals are right because they have the truth and conservatives are wrong because they do not. But Nate seems to think there is something wrong with that. Nate:Why is this self-evident truth this so hard to understand?
Thank you, Erv. Confession is good for the soul. Admitting you are a fundamentalist is the first step on the road to recovery.