San Antonio Media Question Use of Fire Truck to Fill Baptismal Pool for Adventist Evangelism Event
By AT News Team, June 4, 2015: Local news media in San Antonio, Texas, where the Adventist denomination will hold a massive meeting in four weeks, have questioned the use of a city fire engine at an Adventist church last Sabbath (May 30). More than 100 people were baptized at the Ephesus Seventh-day Adventist Church, marking the conclusion of an evangelism campaign by the Breath of Life television ministry. A temporary, above-ground pool was used for the baptisms and it was filled with water by a San Antonio Fire Department unit.
KENS television Channel 5 reported Monday that the fire truck came out and filled the pool at the request of Rebeca Baquero, special projects manager in the office of the mayor, who is an Adventist church member. A spokesman for Mayor Ivy Taylor said it did not happen at the mayor’s request nor was the mayor present at the event.
The mayor “is catching heat” because of the event, stated the Express News, placing the reaction in the context of “a tense runoff election” between Taylor and opponent Leticia Van de Putte. It did not report where the idea came from that initiated news coverage.
When Channel 5 news talked to Fire Chief Charles Hood, he stated that he was aware of the request and “said the department has fulfilled similar requests in the past.” Deputy Chief Carl Wedige told the television station that “it took about $5 worth of water to fill the 5,000-gallon pool.” In response to questions by Channel 5 news personnel about the use of on-duty fire personnel for an event that did not belong to the municipal government, Wedige explained that a certain amount of time is planned for public relations and, along with training activities, these events provide opportunities for firefighters to get practice with their equipment.
Ephesus Church has 304 members and is an historically African American congregation which is part of the denomination’s Southwest Region Conference. There are 21 Adventist congregations in San Antonio with a total membership of more than 3,500 prior to the current evangelism projects underway in the city around the time of the General Conference Session.
It is amazing what Satan uses to create controversy and public opposition to anything having to do with God!
If you’ve ever tried to fill an above-ground swimming pool using an ordinary garden hose you will understand why a fire truck was used. One garden hose flowing an avearge of 7 gallons per minute would need almost 12 hours to fill the pool where a fire truck, which can flow 250 gallons per minute through a single hose with an engine speed barely above idle, would require only 20 minutes. Some cities charge for such services and some do not. Some cities offer the service to fill both public and private swimming pools. So, what’s the issue? Did the city do something illegal or improper? Or, did someone just decide to complain about?
This must have been a slow news day.
The conference will bring $45 million to the local economy. I know the GC appreciates what the fire department did.
Whatever your views on the reality or non-reality of Satan/The Devil, one does not need that mythic figure to explain what most likely is going on here. The best hypothesis is politics, pure and simple.
You may be right, Dr. Taylor. It may well be a non-issue that someone wants to make a big deal out of. According to William, it is normal for what goes on in many places and thus a non-issue.
I don’t know if I care or not, because I don’t see any implications to care about. But my ignorance of any situation is not the determining factor as to whether it has any importance.
So, why did I post? I don’t know, bored I guess. Kind of like the person who posted the article,……well, maybe.
Erv, the Bible tells us that the devil is a real being. Do you believe the Bible?
No, Leo, Erv has made it quite clear in the past that he doesn’t believe the Bible. The question that is left is just how far he takes his skepticism. Now he calls into question the existence of a personal devil. I again am left to wonder if there is anything in the Bible and Adventism that he really does believe.
And yet he sits on the board of Adventist Today. Seems like a conflict of interest.
Ervin, what is it about Adventism that makes you still want to identify with it? Do you actually believe in the 2nd Coming of Christ as a literal, physical event, or is it something more metaphorical for you?
Well I read the article this morning and thought that if nobody bothered to comment then I wouldn’t bother.
But now – – –
In my youth I filled both baptistries (for my pastor father) and swimming pools (which I built along with my older brother and a bunch of other students).
William is correct as far as his statement goes. There is one other way to fill a pool which he did not mention. You can hire a water truck to deliver a load of water. This may actually be cheaper than paying your local utility for water. Basically they are doing the same thing that some fire departments do gratis. It just depends on the attitude in the town where you live.
I thought the fire chief gave a good explanation if you bother to think about what he said. No need to blame the devil when you can blame the politicians and the press looking for something to gripe about. If firemen are going to practice their skills with actual water in their lines, then that water might as well go to something useful. Especially during a drought you don’t want to waste the water.
I might add that 250 gpm is on the slow side. Either the fire truck or the water truck can pump a lot faster but you might not want the water coming too fast because it can move the pool all over the place (or rip a plastic lining) if it is not in the ground or braced by something else very solid.
Jim,
Sometimes you can hire a water truck and sometimes you can’t. Most people think of the fire department first.
Yes, 250 gpm is on the slow side and the numbers I gave were approximates. I used to be an engineer on a volunteer fire department so I have a lot of flow-rate numbers burned into my brain. Your standard 1.5-inch attack line generally has a nozzle attached that flows 95-110 gpm. One person can handle it, but it is far easier if you have a second person on the line to carry the backpressure and let the person on the nozzle aim where they need. A 2.5-inch supply line with a nozzle on it can easily flow 250 gpm but it takes two people to handle the nozzle and two or more people to pull the weight and offset the backpressure. An open line (no nozzle) can flow 250 gpm with one person just holding it still. I remember once when we did a flow test using an open 3-inch supply line and it moved more than 400 gpm, but we had to have three people sitting on it to keep it from becoming a flopping and twisting snake! Few people realized just how much force fire fighters are dealing with in their hoses.
Fire truck or water truck – you fill a pool with one or more open lines of larger diameter. The idea is to achieve a reasonable flow rate with the lowest possible pressure so you don’t destroy the pool. Been there – done that (filled the pool, not destroyed the pool 8-).
Occasionally I drove a tanker truck that carried 3,000 gallons and had an eight-inch butterfly dump valve on the back. One day I was returning from an alarm when one of the tandem dual tires in the rear went flat. When the heavy-duty tire service man got there his jack couldn’t lift the weight on the rear end. So I aimed the back end at a ditch and opened the valve. I can still remember the look on his face as he watched that volume of water come flowing out! If I remember correctly, it took somewhere around seven minutes for gravity to empty the tank. Then I got a call on the radio asking me to check in the area for a possible ruptured water main because someone downstream had called the city water department about the sudden volume of water running in the ditch.
Well Texas has more than enough water after it’s horrible rain fall. On the other hand, if that was done in Calif. the Governor here would be fining all concerned. We aren’t even suppose to top off our swimming pools.
Come on Erv, it’s about time you answered some of the questions about yourself and your true beliefs!
Let’s see. Would the questioners of my personal beliefs want my “true beliefs” or “false beliefs” explained? I suspect that in some cases they would be the same beliefs, but the problem is I am not sure which is which. Can someone help me here?
Ervin, why so much obfuscation and deflection? Typically, when I ask a question, truth is what I seek. You seem to be at odds with your own self, if you are not able to simply state what it is that you believe, regarding a topic which you have lent so much of your voice to. What are YOUR beliefs Ervin, regarding the specific topics I asked you about? If you have two opposing beliefs on the same topic, well then let’s hear them, so we can get you the help you need.
“….my “true beliefs” or “false beliefs” explained? I suspect that in some cases they would be the same beliefs,….”
24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’” (Matt.13:24-30)
And that is not what I think.
Ron, is there a disease for not thinking like you? Name it, please. Perhaps there is a pill so Ervin can “get the help you (he) needs.” If not, I do know of a potion that might help you. It’s main ingredient is love and it dissolves self-righteousness, the requirement for proper thinking in others one hundred percent of the time. Doctor Jesus prescribed It by the boat load.
PS Ervin doesn’t need my help. I’m just offering kind assistance to you.
Sorry Larry, my attempt at a bit of humor, in response to Ervin’s coyness, apparently has fallen flat. I never demanded that Ervin think like me, I simply wanted clarity on what it is that he believes, so as not to make too many assumptions.
My bad, Ron. The nuances of communication are transmitted by facial cues that obviously aren’t available on this kind of device. I have been known to dish versions of humor on the forum myself which haven’t been received as intended.
He who thinks he doesn’t need to think like someone else thinks also thinks he has all the answers to everything which he thinks and does not need to know what others think because he thinks he is God. He thinks others should not intrude into how he thinks but always thinks he needs to express what he thinks to others because he thinks he is God.
What do I think? I’m afraid to say it, least someone thinks I wish to change the way he thinks. In other words they could say: Keep your opinions to yourself; don’t speak to me, I am holier than you.
You are funny, Daniel! Humor does sometimes escape the limits of writing and the absence of visual cues and show up naked here!
That was the whole intention. One can stab someone in the heart and have a smile on their face, while at the same time say: I was just kidding!
That which is in the heart is expressed by what one says!
Daniel, my biggest smile comes at slashes aimed at my heart! What goes on here on this forum is certainly not deadly, not harmful not serious and always humorous! And theologicrats are the most hilarious because they don’t have a clue how funny they are.
You say “One can stab someone in the heart and have a smile on their face, while at the same time say: I was just kidding!” So? Touring the obvious is obvious and is a circle drive.
Larry,
We all have issues. One of mine is that I see at times when you have posed riddles and questions which cause others to respond in a way which they may think helpful in some way. But you respond in a defensive manner which indicates others are wrong or trying to change your views in some way. You have stated to me before how you are not me and I am not you, and therefore will not go down that track again; and now understand where we stand. So once again I apologize for my straight forward approach, and in so doing may have in some way offended you. I read people’s comments here and find them at times quite vague. So I think I should ask questions first and then reply. Is that fair enough?
As I and others have said several times, it is always amazing when someone asks “Do you believe the bible?” as if the bible is a unified homogeneous book by the same author. It is obviously not. As we all know, the bible is a collection of a wide variety of types and styles of composition, containing materials written down over a period of at least 1000 years in various languages by individuals from a number of cultures, who have held to a variety of world views, and stated many propositions and accepted various assumptions on a wide variety of topics. The relevance and validity of these statements of beliefs and convictions is the subject of much discussion and conjecture as the long history of theological and philosophical discourse and these blogs and comments illustrate. Most importantly, these elements of the bible narratives are all subject to various interpretations, so much so that there are, in most cases, only various interpretations of biblical world views, propositions, and assumptions. There are also interpretations of interpretations. Therefore, the only appropriate question should be: “Do you agree with the following point of view representing one interpretation of a given biblical text?” That question is meaningful. “Do you believe the bible?” is not—unless, of course, you are a fundamentalist. If this is so, then there is little to be gained in discussing any topic with you.
Ervin, I’m not entirely sure who your response is directed to, but as I recall, in this particular comment section, I did not ask you something as non-specific as “do you believe in the Bible”. You and I have already gone back and forth on that topic, and you have made your belief pretty clear regarding it. I specifically wanted to know whether or not you believe that the 2nd Coming of Christ will be a literal and physical event, witnessed by the whole world, or do you believe that it is a metaphorical/philosophical event that happens to people on an individual level. Would you be willing to clarify what it is that you believe regarding this specific topic?
Ervin,
Sorry for offending you by quoting the Words of Jesus. I wasn’t aware they were an offence to you.
As usual, I have a hard time following Daniel’s comments. Pray tell–What were the “Word of Jesus” which apparently offends me?
Ervin,
“Most importantly, these elements of the bible narratives are all subject to various interpretations, so much so that there are, in most cases, only various interpretations of biblical world views, propositions, and assumptions.”
As you made a blanket statement, as far as I can see, in response to everyone who had posted a comment to you, including myself, I was under the impression you took my Bible quote as criticism against you. My response was in regards to your statement “true beliefs” and “false beliefs”, (tares and wheat). We all have them, I was not criticizing you. It’s just how I see and understand this principle of how our thoughts influence our lives. So, if you still feel this is a personal criticism against you, I take it back. I’ll keep if for myself, gladly.
Have I explained myself clearer?
And another thing: that will teach me to keep my nose out of other people’s conversations.
It is one thing to ask a man if he believes in what has happened in the past or what is happening at present but it is quite different to ask a man if he believes in something slated for the future. Belief in future events cannot be substantiated objectively. Ron is asking Ervin, What do you believe? The real question for future events is, What FAITH do you have, e.g., in the second coming? In some respects it is an unfair question because both the questioner and the one being questioned cannot prove their answers. They must fall back on faith and that is a very personal thing that doesn’t have to be revealed to anyone no matter how much cajoling takes place.
Similarly, any questions relating to the nature of heaven or the contents of a heavenly sanctuary are faith-based. It is unfair to expect evidence-based answers.
Fundamentalists seem to blur the difference between faith-based arguments and fact-based arguments.
My training as an historian has taught me to build my beliefs on past events. Sometimes the evidence is doubtful, sometimes strong. My strongest beliefs are based on the strongest evidence I can muster. However, I have learned to regard future events or heavenly things only as plausible or possible or likely. I defer and leave it in God’s hands, happy to accept whatever the future may reveal. I expect Ervin, as a scientist, would have a similar attitude. I think it’s quite an affront to ask anyone to spell out in detail their ideas about something for which there is no objective evidence yet, at the same time poised to pounce on them if they differ with a specific interpretation (perhaps literal or metaphorical).
When Jesus ascended into the sky can anyone prove that he went further than just out of sight?
Where exactly in the universe did Jesus sit down at the right hand of God? Does an omnipresent spirit have a right hand?
Can someone demonstrate that the descriptions of the second coming in the Book of Revelation are literal descriptions?
Milton,
Was the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ an historical event?
If the answer is yes, then would that not establish a precedent for belief in a future literal resurrection of dead believers?
“For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.”
“Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.”
Milton,
You raise very good questions in regards to the body of Jesus at His resurrection; how far did He go beyond the clouds; His ascension to His Father at the right hand—where in the universe; is His second coming a literal, visual event?
I think Paul went into great detail explaining the resurrected body in 1 Cor. 15:35-58 and also 1 Thess. 4:13-18. Jesus describes His second coming using another parable, or allegory, in Matt. 24:25-28 at which place the eagles (angels) will be gathered together, where the body is. I understand this can mean two things: The body He is referring to here is the Believers corporately; or individually. Whether corporately or individual the state of the physical body here has to be understood in light of what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15; that is, the physical body, not having part in the Kingdom of God, will literally drop lifeless on the ground, from which it came, and the souls and spirits of all believes will “meet the Lord in the air”. Another reference to this is in 2 Pet. 3:10-13 and Revelation 20:11-15 in which there will be no earth and heavens (physical world) at the time of the end. This also explains that God’s Eternal Heavenly domain is not a physical place. It also explains what state the Body of Jesus was in when He ascended to God the Father—it was changed in an instance, at the blink of an eye. As Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:45, Jesus became “a life-giving Spirit”.
Therefore the second coming, or appearing of Jesus, will be a real physical event and also a Spiritual event. Real physical event in that “the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.” But Spiritual “To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation”. Those who have been born-again and are children of God “know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.”
This is how I understand it. There may be others who see it another way.
Dr. Hook’s comments are very helpful and to the point. Mr. Hamstra quotes Paul of Tarsus’ point of view/opinions/interpretations. Paul’s views, of course, are something to take seriously as he was the church’s first theologian. However, 2000 years have passed and there are other ways of looking at the subject matter that Paul addressed and those other ways need to be considered as well.
I also quoted the Apostle John who claimed to have spent quality time with the resurrected Christ. Either the Apostle John was clinically delusional or he was a practitioner of the Big Lie, or a major miracle actually occurred.
I have far more tolerance for divergent opinions than do some who comment here. Nevertheless I find it difficult to comprehend why someone who is unwilling to affirm that Jesus Christ was God Incarnate in human flesh, that He was crucified and rose from the dead, and that He will come again as promised, would wish to call themselves a Seventh-Day Adventist.
Indeed there are as Dr Taylor says, other opinions regarding these matters. But I do not see how Adventists could be expected to embrace or accommodate all of them. Unless we do not stand for anything at all. Perhaps there should be a Seventh-Day Agnostic church?
Furthermore I find it curious that Dr Taylor would seem to show more respect for the opinions of Dr Hook than for those of the Apostle Paul, on a subject where the Apostle Paul had direct access to many primary sources regarding the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Does Dr Hook have access to better sources than did the Apostle Paul?
Mr. Hamstra may have forgotten that Paul never knew the historical Jesus–except by way of an out-of-body experience, i.e.,”vision.” Paul then makes an 180 degree turn around from persecuting the members of the Jesus movement to becoming one of them. However, he really did not become fully accepted and never really got along with the individuals who had known Jesus personally, the individuals who did indeed were the primary sources for the life and teachings of the historical Jesus. Paul then essentially created the framework for “Jesus as the Messiah” and the theology that went with it. Paul represented the strand of early Christianity which eventually became dominant. Let’s recall that these Pauline Christians who wanted to distance themselves from Jewish Christians and one way they did that was to begin to meet on the first day of the week rather on Sabbath. Hmm.
I never wrote that Paul knew the historical Jesus. I wrote that Paul had access to many primary sources who DID know the historical Jesus.
Misrepresenting what I wrote is not a sound tactic for evading the questions and their implications.
Pauline Christians meeting on the first day of the week rather than on Sabbath?
Where in your Bible did you find this gem?
As for Paul not getting along with the other Apostles, certainly not all early believers saw eye-to-eye on ever question. Nevertheless Peter refers to the writings of Paul as “scripture”.
And if you are determined to diminish the authenticity of Paul as a source of information about Jesus Christ, then you still have to consider the other NT authors who were eyewitnesses and therefore primary sources – Matthew, Peter, James and John. Three were Disciples and the fourth a Brother. Three knew Jesus for over three years and the fourth for over thirty years. What about their testimony?
Ervin,
“However, 2000 years have passed and there are other ways of looking at the subject matter that Paul addressed and those other ways need to be considered as well.”
Could you please explain what are those other ways by which we could consider the subject matter at hand?
Modern scholarship has provided us with a better understanding of the cultural contexts in which Paul operated. (The book of Hebrews is one of the most puzzling one in the New Testament but, of course, Paul did not write Hebrews, so he is off the hook there.)
“Paul did not write Hebrews, so he is off the hook there”. “Remember my chains”.
I enjoy reading mystery and police procedural novels. Often the authors’ insights are so amazingly “spot on” that it makes you sit back in wonder. Here is a quote from one I read this morning. Doesn’t this make you think of the some of the posters here:
“……Perhaps there was something deeply satisfying about taking such offense at the shortcomings of others. It made him a victim, and a comfortably superior victim at that.”
At the risk of returning to the tangent that was the original topic, I am rather surprised that there is not more concern about what strikes me as an unambiguous, unconstitutional use of government resources to advance a purely religious agenda. Had the Church paid for the time of the firemen, and rental of the fire truck, then I would have no problem. But as reported, this is an egregious violation of church-state separation principles. The magnitude of the government subsidy to the church is irrelevant to the question of whether this was a constitutional use of government resources.
Will someone please explain to me how this was constitutional and/or why the sponsoring Adventist organization did not immediately concede the impropriety, apologize, and tender a check to the City of San Antonio for the all-inclusive estimated cost of the service rendered by the fire department?
I agree that the church should have paid for this service from the city or contracted with a private vendor. Not doing so out the mayor in a tough political situation, given the heated runoff campaign. Moreover, we’re looking at a possible church/state separation principle compromise here. The mayor’s Adventist staff member should have caught that and advised the Ephesus pastor accordingly.
Why should the church not draw a benefit from the state, that any other private social organization has? If the Fire Department will fill a swimming pool for a country club, then why not for a church?
The Fire Chief said they provide this service to others as a community courtesy and as a training exercise for their personnel. Why not simply take him at his word? Why the need to blow this up into something bigger than it was?
When I was in Jr High at a Jr Academy, the fire department would dome out in the winter and flood our playing field to make a hockey rink. No big deal. You might claim that baptism was a religious purpose but not hockey. But that would merely show the ignorance of the rest of the country, to the culture of the places where you play hockey outdoors in the winter. In the land of Mahovlich, Delvecchio and Howe, hockey WAS our Winter Religion. For the rest of you it might be Football, but you didn’t have to endure the Lions 8-(.
Dr. Taylor says: “Pauline Christians who wanted to distance themselves from Jewish Christians and one way they did that was to begin to meet on the first day of the week rather on Sabbath. Hmm.”
——-
Surely Dr. Taylor is trying to pull a fast one here in his comment. But at least he’s admitted to one of his beliefs. As most here would have expected, it is isn’t a biblical one.
Typo fixed: As most here would have expected, it isn’t a biblical one.
May I suggest that “Pauline Christians who wanted to distance themselves from Jewish Christians and one way they did that was to begin to meet on the first day of the week rather on Sabbath” is historically correct. I wonder if Mr. Hammond would do us the favor of explaining why it is not?
Ervin,
Not sure if you would see my post back up under your comment.
“Paul did not write Hebrews, so he is off the hook there.”
Who wrote the book of Hebrews? Had Paul put his name to it the Hebrews would not have even read it, let alone spread it around. Paul was a Hebrew and was converted to Christ. That would not have gone down well with the Jews. He would have been considered a defector, to say the least. He did, however, indicate this by his common sign, as he wrote in other letters: “Remember my chains”. No other apostle used this signature, so to speak, but only Paul.