Silver Spring and Rome
by Gerard Frenk, May 5, 2016: One of the most impressive books written by the German priest and psychoanalist, Eugen Drewermann is Kleriker: Psychogramm eines ideals (original German edition published by Walter Verlag in 1989). The title needs no translation. In the book Drewermann traces the psychogenesis of “the Roman Catholic priest” and those in the church who have entered an order. It is at times a frightening mirror for one who has spent more than 30 years of his life as an Adventist minister.
In one of the chapters Drewermann looks at the function and role of the oath or vow in the relationship between the priest and the Roman Catholic Church. I found that the passage is highly illuminating when thinking about the constraints on academic freedom, the role of the extensive baptismal vow and recent changes in the fundamental beliefs within the Adventist Church.
Organizational continuity
Every organization which aims to affect its environment and seeks continuity of both membership and declared aims needs to address the question of how such continuity may best be attained. How does an organization remain focused in the face of the freedom of its members to choose otherwise? Drewermann argues that every group that has addressed this dilemma has chosen the way of internalized violence. It may be useful to define the term and its antonym.
External violence is the use of authority and power to achieve the aims of one group at the expense of another by imposing belief systems, values and mores. Internalized violence occurs when the second group comes to believe and act as if the imposed beliefs system, values, and life way is (the only possible) reality.
Within a denominational context the relationship between the two is complicated by the fact that the perceived will of God enters the equation. When one of the tasks of leadership is thought to be the defense of the will of God, authority runs the risk of becoming authoritarian. That danger is most present when leaders confuse the will of God with the revealed historical stance of the denomination. It is within such contexts that external violence tends to become the instrument of control.
Continuity, then, is achieved by limiting the freedom of the individual, be he member, pastor or academic. He needs to be “voluntarily” bound and is usually brought into this position by means of a promise or ritual vow. A term such as baptismal vow, therefore, is not neutral. It is a means of external control. The content of the vow is meant to encourage the perception of freedom as a regulated freedom. It is a freedom marked by loyalty and bound by a confession in doctrinal form. Most churches, and certainly the Adventist Church, do not only baptize individuals in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; they grant baptism and membership on the basis of a denominational confession.
Idolatry
Drewermann argues that control by way of a vow is highly unbiblical. It is, in fact, idolatrous because it is born out of fear for a “penultimate concern by means of an ultimate vow.” It undermines the God-given freedom of the person who is asked to swear, vow or confess to more than faith in God. Because human beings live in space and time, both of which are spheres of growth and change, the oath or promise is in fact an attempt to freeze time and thus deny the individual a natural development.
It seems to me that this is clearly the case in current Adventism. Leadership makes use of a narrowly defined and exclusive hermeneutic to push changes in the fundamental beliefs and in the Church Manual. The boundaries within which one can claim to be a “true Adventist” are increasingly drawn by means of majority vote. Full use is thereby made of the power to set the agenda and formulate proposed changes. The continuity and identity of the church are perceived to be in danger and all the weapons of church authority are needed to win the battle. Ted Wilson, current world president of the denomination, has described the battle as follows:
Throughout the course of human history and against relentless satanic attack, God has preserved His Holy Word. The Bible contains an accurate account of our origins, a reliable record of our salvation, and a glorious glimpse at our soon coming deliverance. As Seventh-day Adventists, we accept the Bible as the foundation for all our beliefs and see in its pages our unique prophetic identity and mission.
Seventh-day Adventist Church members, hold your leaders, pastors, local churches, educators, institutions, and administrative organizations accountable to the highest standards of belief based on a literal understanding of Scripture. Utilize wonderful resources such as the Biblical Research Institute’s new book on hermeneutics that helps us know the correct way to interpret the Scriptures.
As worded, this perception is driven by a narrowly defined and exclusive hermeneutic. It was formulated in the eighties of the last century and brought before the 1986 Annual Council of church leaders as a report by the Methods of Bible Study Committee. The report was later published as an official statement of the church. That does not make it into doctrine, yet Church leadership currently presents it as the only possible way to read and explain the Bible. It is apparently to be assented to by every member of the Adventist Church, especially its ministry and scholars.
The sad thing is that this approach to scripture leads to an objectification and externalization of faith. For instance, the most important thing that is said about creation in the document is the following:
Scripture is an authentic, reliable record of history and God’s acts in history. It provides the normative theological interpretation of those acts. The supernatural acts revealed in Scripture are historically true. For example, chapters 1-11 of Genesis are a factual account of historical events (Methods of Bible Study).
The recent expansion of Fundamental Belief Number 6 during the General Conference of 2015 is also the result of a narrow and rigorous application of the “approved” method.
God has revealed in Scripture the authentic and historical account of His creative activity. He created the universe, and in a recent six-day creation the Lord made “the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” and rested on the seventh day. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of the work He performed and completed during six literal days that together with the Sabbath constituted the same unit of time that we call a week…(Fundamentals of Faith 2015)
The expansion clearly has a twofold aim. First, the description of creation in scripture is described as an historical account. This formulation is meant to make sure that it occurred exactly as described. Second, the adjectives recent and literal are added to the words of Exodus 20:11 to buttress what is conceived of as the only possible literal reading of the Genesis text.
Adventist believers are now being asked to confess that Genesis 1 is scientifically and historically and objectively true. Nowhere in the statement can an existential component be found. It is useful to quote Drewermann at this point. Objectification and externalization of religious content lead inevitably to “a structural and constant compulsion to compensate failing argument by the use of administrative force” (page 130, Dutch edition). Therefore, statements, rules and regulations, and majority decisions are all brought into position to win the day. The degree of political and ecclesiastical maneuvering are directly related to the degree of abstract formalism of the official doctrine.
The use of such administrative weaponry is deemed necessary by leadership as a defense of pure and biblical faith. There is a war to be fought on the field of dogmatics and it is the “world” that is the cause of that conflict. “The cause of the existing discrepancy between dogma and reality is to be found in reality: people are to blame for the fact that ecclesiastical representations of what reality is are increasingly difficult to translate and communicate” (page 130). “The less a certain vision is able to penetrate reality, the more certain it is that the holder of reality will take an independant position with regard to the content of each doctrine and as a consequence it becomes necessary for leadership to compensate the lack of persuasive power by means of force”(page 131, Dutch Edition).
The appeal to history and tradition
In a further effort to bolster its position and as legitimation of its perceived role, church leadership frequently appeals to the history and tradition of the church. Sermons and other forms of communication are replete with references to the past. The past is glorified and presented as the source to which all need be true. Church leaders are by implication mediators of the past, protectors of the tradition, guardians of the fundamentals and defenders of the pillars of faith. It is therefore deeply ironic that current General Conference leadership exhibits great aversion to real historical thinking. The thought that change and mutability are part of all phenomena that occur in time and space is clearly threatening.
A sobering comparison
It is highly enlightening to compare the current direction of General Conference Adventism with the road travelled by the Roman Catholic Church in the relatively recent past.
During his pontificate Pope Pius X (pontificate 1903-1914) issued two documents which were meant to keep the church tied to its past. The first, the encyclical Pascendi gregis (1907), condemned all attempts at dogmatic renewal, doctrinal development and the rise of critical methods of inquiry. It contained a long list of errors, Lamentabili sane exitu, condemning 65 modernist mistakes about Scripture and Catholic doctrine. The effect of Pius’s action was the strangulation of critical Catholic scriptural and historical studies. In 1910 this pope insisted on an oath for those seeking ordination – the so called antimodernist oath, the Motu proprio sacrarum antistitum. The oath became part of Canon Law from 1910 until the Canon was revised in 1967. In that last year the antimodernist stipulations were removed. However, teachers in the Roman Catholic Church were still required to profess not only the Nicean Creed but also the following:
I firmly embrace and retain each and every thing which has been proposed by the church regarding the teaching of faith and morals, whether defined by solemn judgment or asserted and declared by the ordinary magisterium, especially those things which concern the mystery of the holy church of Christ and its sacraments and the sacrifice of the Mass and the primacy of the Roman pontiff.
Roughly twenty years later, in 1989 that sentence was replaced by three sentences clearly meant to strengthen the whip hand of central authority.
The first sentence reads:
With firm faith I believe as well everything contained in God’s word, written or handed down in tradition and proposed by the church — whether in solemn judgment or in the ordinary and universal magisterium as divinely revealed and calling for faith
The second sentence requires further assent to:
I also firmly accept and hold each and every thing (omnia et singula) that is proposed by that same church definitively (definitive) with regard to teaching concerning faith and morals.
The third and most disturbing sentence reads:
What is more, I adhere (adhaereo) with religious submission of will and intellect (religioso voluntatis et intellectus obsequio) to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive.
Even this proved inadequate to still the fears of the Vatican, and in 1998 the apostolic letter Ad Tuendam Fidem saw the light, signed by Pope John Paul II. It was addressed to those who receive an office, that is directly or indirectly related to deeper investigation into the truths of faith and morals, or is united to a particular power in the governance of the Church. They were to be called to heel by the addition of a second paragraph to Canon 750.
Prior to 1998 that Canon consisted of one paragraph. – 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
Now a second paragraph is added which makes clear what is meant when the teacher professes that he firmly accepts and holds each and every thing that is proposed by that same church definitively with regard to teaching concerning faith or morals.
2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The teacher is being asked to submit his “religious” will and intellect to the magisterium of the church. Whatever the church teaches and proposes in the realms of doctrine and morals must be held and taught.
It would be well if Adventist leadership at the General Conference would spend some time reading Drewermann and the 20th-century history of the Roman Catholic Church. It could help prevent creeping tendencies in the same direction.
Gerard Frenk is a retired pastor and church administrator living in Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
This is a stimulating review and comparison, with much to think about. I agree with much and I also have disagreements.
Dissonance was created early on by the author’s idiosyncratic use of the term
“violence.” Common sense and the law tell us that violence refers to serious physical or psychological injury threatened or imposed on another without the other person’s
consent. True violence generally is and should be outlawed.
So why the need to characterize enforcement of vows and covenants, as conditions of
belonging, as violence? Is it to lay a foundation for justifying state control over religion? Surely the state has a compelling interest in preventing violence and punishing those who inflict violence on others, particularly if it is done systematically with institutional sanction.
Drewermann’s conscription of the word
“violence” to describe conscience and value molding behavior of non-state sanctioned,
voluntary religions strikes me as ridiculous. It betrays an emotional agenda on the part of Drewermann that undermines his pretense of objectivity and erudition.
Even more absurd is the implication that the pronouncements of Ted Wilson are an example of internalized violence. By Drewermann’s definition, all groups that base action and beliefs on firmly held ultimate values is guilty of violence. Why would anyone but an anti-religion intellectual elitist
seriously consider such a claim?
If we are truly to hold church leaders “accountable to the highest standards of belief based on a literal understanding of Scripture” why are we not hearing them teach about the Holy Spirit, who took the place of Jesus here on Earth and is the God who promised to live inside us and guide us into all truth? It is because members have been taught that being a “true Adventist” makes us true believers in God so we are not allowed to study scripture and wrestle with the issues that lead us into deeper truth and a closer relationship with God. As a result, we’ve become so afraid of the last phrase in Matthew 24:24 that we find it impossible to believe the plain statement of Jesus in John 14:12. So, it should surprise no one that there are clear similarities between Silver Spring and Rome.
Nathan, how quickly do some forget the Hitler’s Holocaust; Stalin’s Russian Genocide; Mao’s Red Book deadly results; Pol Pot’s diabolical exterminations;
North Korea’s policy of population control by starvation and summary executions;
And of course the “auto de fe” of the Inquisition/Catholicism. Wherever Church
and State, and or State alone controls the masses, heads roll. VIOLENCE REINS.
The massive current demand of the Power Merchants of Earth, the “money’ barons, the governments, the environmentalists, in that order, are rapidly gaining the “ONE WORLD ORDER” they seek, and when it happens, sooner than most realize, heads will roll, by the billions. No organized Church or society will be able to stand the Ruling powers edicts, given through the management of the United Nations. The
RC Church is one of it’s most powerful members. Pope Francis has been fervently
requesting protestants to return, united to the Mother Church, saying we in Jesus,
welcome you warts and all. The POPE will sit in power in Jerusalem soon. The UN
will resume the HRE’s unfinished business against the Middle East. A delay will happen should Trump become the USA POTUS. Folks, the end days are sooner than most expect. Pray a world wide nuclear holocaust is held in abeyance until individuals wake up to their individual decisions,
Earl,
Methinks you’re paying too much attention to conspiracy theories and wild ideas about prophecy when what the church needs is people who will be students of the Word who are willing to be inhabited by the Holy Spirit so that souls will be won for the Kingdom. After all, that’s the mission Jesus gave us to accomplish and we’re not doing a very good job of it right now because there is not a single nation on the planet where the membership of the church is growing anywhere nearly as fast as the growth in the general population.
William, your calculations of the growth of Christianity, or rather, worldwide Christian church membership, doesn’t include the “invisible church”. I believe there are millions of “unregistered” true Christians. A true Christian doesn’t need to belong to any denomination, nor do they make anyone a true believer in God, as you pointed out earlier. As a matter of fact, one actually exposes their mind to corrupt doctrines which have crept into most denominational beliefs, or as many call them, “faith”; but definitely not the true Christian Faith, which comes from the Author of Faith — Jesus Christ Himself.
DD,
You are correct about the “invisible church.” That is a measurement only God can make and the best human estimates are just educated guesses. For example, I have a friend who is a self-supporting missionary in China and what I hear from him (once every year or two) is that the number of those believing Adventist teachings is a considerable multiple of what the church officially recognizes because they are clusters of believers who often must meet in secret. I have also heard reports that the church is growing in overwhelmingly-Muslim countries where a person leaves Islam at the risk of their life. While such reports are hopeful, I think the safest assumption we can make about the “invisible church” is that those people often are more dedicated believers than many in the “visible church” because they must practice their faith under difficult circumstances.
A number of years ago one of my older brothers was driven-out of the SDA church by extreme legalists and he and his wife found fellowship with an independent, Sabbath-keeping group who are serious Bible students, in whom God has given many spiritual gifts that are used powerfully (healing, prophecy, etc.) and whose doctrines are a complete match. Their numbers are growing at least a dozen times faster than the SDA church in the same area. I have gotten to know a number of their members and I can attest they are practicing their faith in ways I wish Adventists would.
Thank you Pastor Frenk for a splendid and insightful contrast between Adventism and Catholcism, a contrast which reveals many overlapping indices.
Years ago when visiting Paris on Christmas Eve, my two young daughters and I ventured into Notre Dame Cathedral for the midnight mass ( only because emerging from the Opera House earlier in the evening we had watched the orchestra getting into buses and were told they were going to the cathedral to play for the midnight mass)
There was standing room only and we were squeezed in front of the sixty foot rear/front doors. At midnight they opened, admitting the scarlet cloaked Cardinal followed by a retinue of male attendants.
My young daughter made the perceptive observation: Jist like the Adventists, Dad, NO WOMEN!
And this in a cathedral that was dedicated to a woman, our mother, the Virgin Mary. The only representation of Christ in this gothic structure is as a child in his mother’s arms!
And just as in Adventism where all women are second class citizens, EXCEPT our church mother EGW who occupies a pre-eminent pedestal rivaling that of Virgin Mary!
And speaking of VIOLENCE, our heinous heretical headship dogma promotes through male dominance, widespread spousal abuse throughout our congregations.
Hopefully your astute observations will not jeopardize your pension payments! I proudly share your Dutch heritage, my grandfather was from GRONIGEN, the Netherlands.
Pastor Frenk has made a valid comparison. May I suggest that the same spirit that motivated the Popes noted in his discussion who sought to shut down legitimate dialogue in the Roman Catholic Church is the same spirit that is inspiring the current Adventist General Conference president and his administration. Fortunately for us, we do not have to wait for the death of the incumbent holder of that office to have Adventism return to the moderate path it was pursuing under the administration of the previous GC President who was no liberal but he was also not a full-blown Fundamentalist. Now if the current GC president would only follow the example of the previous Pope, Benedict XVI, and retire perhaps we might just luck out and get a GC President more like Pope Francis — not exactly like him, but reflecting his general approach to the modern world. We can hope.
Agreed Erv, that there may be points of similarity between RCC and Adventism. But what’s new? You’ve been singing this song for 45-50 years. You loathe religious authority. What I find astonishing is your indifference to political/ cultural authorities that seek to control conscience, speech and thought through the police powers of the state. Please explain why the principles upon which you urge the neutering/decentralization of religious authority do not apply to the moral diktats of secular state and culture which are enforced by police powers at which the most repressive , controlling Adventist leaders would recoil.
The whole article is ridiculous and absurd. Every denomination must define itself and hold members accountable to the definition. The RCC does this, and so does every other viable denomination. So what? Like this is some evil that any church has a self identity?
If you don’t like the identity, hit the road. Everyone is free to choose who to fellowship with and the Reformation simply “hit the road” when it was obvious they could not get “the church” to define itself in harmony with the Protestant confession of faith.
Why “cry baby” all over the place with the fact that your own spirituality does not harmonize with the church you belong to? Everyone is “on the bubble” and we are all free to move on if we don’t like the agenda of any church, even the one we may presently belong to. No one tied you to a post or pillar in the church. If you can’t move the church doctrine, then move yourself elsewhere. What’s so hard about that?
Our church withholds freedom of conscience from its members by so rigidly prescribing what they MUST believe.
And just how is this shackling of the conscience done, Carrol? Who stands in the foyer of your church each Sabbath morning as Proxy for Torquemada Ted, interrogating members about their commitment to the 28 FBs, and prescribing punishments for unbelief?
I’m with Bill Sorensen on this one. I should think personal pride in one’s own fortitude would prevent a person from whining that attempts, by the “club” with which they voluntarily associate, to produce loyalty and unity, are so insidiously seductive as to interfere with free will. The only folks who seem concerned about a church that tells members what they MUST believe are those who don’t “succumb.” Where are all the Adventist “Believers Anonymous” who claim to be chained to believing against their will; who try as they might, just can’t get over their addiction to the church and its culture?
Maybe there’s some kind of Stockholm Syndrome that keeps Adventists psychologically in thrall to the violent church authorities who have imprisoned their hearts and minds. Perhaps that explains the Left wing Adventists and ex-Adventists, who frequent this website, and who can’t seem to get over their obsession with denigrating a faith from which they claim to be liberated.
Carrol, Please explain what you mean when you said “Our church withholds freedom of conscience from its members by so rigidly prescribing what they MUST believe.”
We have the 28 fundamentals which are not a creed and I take that seriously. I don’t see nor have I experienced such a lack of freedom. We are not bound by our leaders–they are only human–but we make our own decisions by our own convictions as God reveals them through our personal study and prayer. I think there is a great deal of diversity in the church on marginal issues. Obviously we are expected to revere the Gospel and salvation through Christ alone on which our faith is/was established. We also hold some views that are universal in the SDA church.
Rigidity is found in individuals in the church who may criticize, but they should not deter us. The only significant thing is the WO vote, but even that is being set aside where it is realistically not allowing the church to grow.
ER,
You and I may not take a particular doctrine seriously, but there are plenty in the church who are willing to say you are not a “true Adventist” unless you see things exactly the same way they do. The IJ and age of creation are just two of the latest examples.
“Our church withholds freedom of conscience from its members by so rigidly prescribing what they MUST believe.”
There is no “liberty of conscience” in any church community. You have a warped idea of what liberty of conscience applies to. It simply means no civil law can dictate what you believe about God and your relationship to Him.
It does not mean you can join any church you want, and then pontificate your own private opinion about what is truth contrary to the stated beliefs of that church community.
What is really sad, is your concept is the majority understanding of those who post on this forum. And so they “cry baby” all over the church community about some “religious freedom” that has no application with in a church community.
Just another evidence that common sense has departed from the mind of most Americans in civil issues and spiritual issues as well.
Gerard Frenk
As some readers will remember first hand, baptism in the 1950’s when I was baptized was nothing like today.
It was a special service on a Sabbath Afternoon, rather than a preamble to a church service. It wasn’t about the church.
There were two dozen or so of us, mostly newly pubescent. What is memorable is what the various ministers said. They all briefly recounted their relationship with the person being baptized. (We were not ‘candidates.’)
Then my father, using my name, raised his hand over my head and said exactly what ever other minister that day said, and only said, “Because you have accepted Jesus Christ as your savior, I now baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” He them baptized me, and quietly lead me out of the baptistry.
Today ministers speak not of humble acceptance of Jesus as Savior, but as you point out, ministers religiously reference self-determination and commitment as somehow meeting the requirement for baptizing what the church now terms as the ‘candidate.’
It is no wonder that the church, by lifting up itself rather than Jesus is only growing in certain cultures. Jesus, though, declared that if He was lifted up, He would draw all to himself.
How can we put Jesus, and Jesus only back into the baptismal service?
How can we simply require a, Yes, to one question: Knowing of the historical Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church are you willing to be a member?
I am not sure what church you attend, but I have never heard a baptism not based on accepting Jesus nor making Him central. Baptisms are made a special event and seem no different than. They do include not using drugs.
I do question equating baptism into Jesus on par with joining a particular church. I don’t see biblical support for that. It could go along with baptism in a statement afterward and inviting them into the church family is that is their desire. However, one should no be required to join a church at baptism. What do you think?
ER,
Something I think we often overlook regarding baptism is that it is just a milestone marking the start of a person’s path toward discipleship. Jesus told us to go and make disciples. We study the Bible with people before they are baptized and assume they continue afterward when many are lulled into the routines and forms of Adventism without ever becoming the soul-winners Jesus desires for each of us to become. That failure is a direct result of our ignoring and actively resisting the gifts of the Spirit instead of embracing them.
Bill,
How may ways can the question you propose be understood?
Can the question be understood as being about the advent movement? Or can it be understood as being about an organization that was created to promote the movement?
Can “historical” beliefs be understood as a reference to the early adventists’ opposition to hierarchy, creedalism and dogmatism? Or can it be understood as a reference to a list that is employed as a creed (as a way to determine a person’s orthodoxy) and is way too long to be reasonably considered fundamental (basic to either Christianity or the advent movement)?
When the first local conferences and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists were created in the 1860s the word, “Church” was conspicuous by its absence. The pioneers were afraid the creation of a “church” organization would lead to dogmatism and assumptions about spiritual authority being vested in the organisation. Can the wording of your proposed question be understood as a reference to BELIEVERS in the pre-millennial ADVENT of Jesus? Or can it be understood as a reference to a religious organization and, if so, does referring to the organization as a “church” imply that it is or ought to be hierarchical and dogmatic? How big a step is it from referring to an organization as “a church” to referring to it as “the church” and the spiritual pride that language promotes?
Roger,
RE: your last paragraph. I fear what the church founders tried to prevent has become our present reality. Complicating our view of the church is that each of us who grew-up in the church has a personal concept of what “historic” Adventism is that matches our memories, but which often contrasts in many ways with the actual history of the church. Complicating this is attempting to define a “believer” based on a set of particular beliefs when strongly-opinionated and disrespectfully vocal individuals in the church have embraced variations on those doctrines, feel the particular doctrine about which they are most concerned is being violated by everyone else and that they are commissioned by God to go and correct everyone’s “errors.”
In dramatic contrast with that, “believe” as Jesus used it was not fact-focused, but relational: our complete and total trust that He is God, that He loves us and that He is powerful enough to fulfill His promises to us. With powerless forms of godliness so dominant in the church it is easy to see how we could be trying to define “belief” in terms of particular views of specific doctrines while not grasping what it means to actually believe in God. Real belief is found where the power of God is present. Are you seeing the power of God at work in your church? If not, you need to be asking God for the Holy Spirit to lead you into the truth about what it means to actually believe.
William,
In personal conversations with people who were once members of the SdA organization, no longer are and who totally disagree with the concept that an organization is “the true church”, I find that many of them are conditioned by decades of habit to still refer to the SdA organization as “the church”.
The true church isn’t “my church” or “our church”, it is the Lord’s church. The language we use influences how we think and how we act. In this particular case, referring to an organization as “the church” makes it more difficult for people to think of members of other denominations as as being fully Christian based on their relationship with the Lord. It makes it more difficult to avoid the us-vs-them mentality that prevents many Christians from seriously considering the adventist emphasis on the heavenly nature of the millennial kingdom.
When I was a boy (1940s & ’50s), we often heard sermons and sometimes read articles in SdA publications about the deleterious effect of non-adventists being too much influenced by their traditions.
Alas, SdA traditions may be different from those that were thus decried but they are traditions nonetheless and they are powerful and they are deleterious.
Roger and William
How about we define the church by the believers, rather than define the believers by the church.
How about we follow the pattern of Acts 15.
If we did so, we would be far more sensitive to where the Spirit is leading, rather than focused on differentiating our present plight in terms of where the Spirit led in the past.
I first heard open conversation in the 50’s and 60’s, upon Seventh-day Adventists having reached 1 million worldwide, as to whether Seventh-day Adventism as a ‘movement’ would be suffocated by Seventh-day Adventism as a church.
That question rapidly became rhetorical.
So, how about we observe the spirit in our personal experience and in the experience of those we know and collaborate with them in so living.
And perhaps, like Acts 15, church leaders will be compelled by accounts of our experience.
Even in churches, indeed especially in churches, change moves from the edges to the core.
We live on the edges.
Pretty exciting!
Bill,
I totally agree. Following the leading of the Holy Spirit causes exciting changes and I’m having a whole lot of fun being part of it. If anyone is daring enough to admit they’re bored with their religious experience, the Holy Spirit will be more than happy to have them join is “on the edge” where we’re growing in our relationships with God.
Very thought provoking article and something we should deeply consider. The protest of Adventism against Catholicism has finally created a mirror image. It is no longer the same denomination that many of us joined many years ago (and some who have left) and become more like its religious arch enemy! Most ironic!
Bill,
There is nothing wrong with urging people to be open to the Spirit’s leading. The “problem” develops when people assume that if the Spirit calls one Christian to a special emphasis among the many truths about the creator or how he deals with the terrible emergency of sin, anyone called to another emphasis is necessarily not “led of the Spirit”.
Suppose, for example that someone says that if I don’t visit the sick as often as he does or if I don’t visit those in prison as often as he does or if I don’t attend services on the weekend AND midweek, I’m not as good a Christian as he is–or that I’m not a Christian or not a “real” Christian.
How is that different from me saying that if he doesn’t rest on the seventh day of the week or that if he fries an egg on the sabbath day that he isn’t as good a Christian as I am–or that he’s not a Christian or not a “real” Christian? (Oh dear! Since the prohibition is about baking and seething food on the sabbath day, does frying an egg fall in a different category?)
Regardless of how we perceive the working of the Holy Spirit, the “spirit” (lowercase s) in which we promote the special emphasis the Lord has given us is revealing. I think there are more people who reject the seventh-day-ness of the sabbath because of the WAY is presented than reject it on the basis of so-called Christian tradition.
Roger,
I think you’re making an excellent point about the way the Sabbath is presented being an issue. Most often it is presented in a legalistic way because the emphasis is on what we do to be holy instead of what our relationship with the One who is holy leads us to do to share His love. Isaiah 58 talks about what God’s people are doing that dishonors Him and calls them instead to doing good works that bring glory to God. Instead of listing all the things we won’t do on the Sabbath, what if we reversed the question and asked how many things we can do that bring honor and glory to Him, and then actually did them?
As I have said many times on here, our presentation of Sabbath is lacking. Other Christians don’t take it seriously because they know Jesus is their rest. We leave Jesus out of the Sabbath when the day is all about Him in this current end-time period. In the Three Angels Message we so loudly proclaim, we ignore the “righteousness of Christ in verity” in the Third Angel’s Message. He is our righteousness–our rest from our works for salvation. The rest that the Jews rejected (Heb. 4). But He never took the day out of His commandments–it was a symbol of His rest not to be rejected. This needs to be presented in every evangelistic service!
Until we accept His rest as saving us and not a day, we will continue to work for our own salvation by proclaiming the Sabbath without its true meaning! Those Christians who accept Christ as their rest are closer than we to the Truth as it is in Jesus.
Study the three angels: (1) Worship the Creator; spread His good news; (2) the churches/religions in confusion fail the people; (3) those who worship the beast and depend on the works of their minds and hands shall perish. This includes integration of belief and state and lost liberty of faith. “Righteousness by faith in verity.” (EGW)
Tell me where I’m wrong!
Truth as it is in Jesus.
William,
There are three things I want people to know about me before I attempt to teach them (or even answer their questions) about seventh-day sabbath keeping.
1. I believe we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. I believe there is noting “good” we can do–no evil we can avoid doing–that will earn or deserve the approbation of the almighty.
2. I believe in the primacy of scripture. I believe anything purported to be special revelation should be evaluated and interpreted by older revelation. I don’t expect all true believers to understand the Bible exactly as I do.
3. I believe the true church consists of all true believers, regardless of our denominational affiliation. The Lord has called me to encourage fellow Christians (regardless of their denominational affiliation). He has not called me to convince or convert anyone.
Once people have even a little bit of evidence that I subscribe to those three doctrines, it is much easier to explain my beliefs about the sabbath.
1. That the sabbath IS the rest we enter as we learn to trust the Lord entirely for our salvation.
2. That the sabbath DAY is a God-ordained symbol of that relationship of trust.
3. That it would be better to rest on another day than the one the Lord created, blessed and sanctified than to think I can earn or deserve salvation by resting on the seventh day.
Roger,
Your priority list and mine match exactly. Unfortunately, a lot of Adventists have that reversed and their explanation to someone about the Sabbath is legalistic instead of relational.
Friends,
When we say “we are going to church”, we are practicing the exact error that is really in our hearts.
We have made something we are, into a weekly event. We’ve made the word “church” into an impersonal, shallow, intellectual, 3 to 4 hour a week activity.
Erroneously, we have our life at work. We have our life at home. We have our life of activities. We have our life with our church. We have our life with our friends. It is all become separate and compartmentalized.
God has saved you and you belong to Jesus Christ, then your new identity as a person is now with the church. The church, corporately, is now who you are. And you are to live the reality that you are the church 24 hours a day / 7 days a week.
We think growth as a Christian is learning more about the Lord, instead of knowing Him as a person. Experience is where true growth occurs.
In our day and time we know very little of spiritual intimacy. We know very little of how to be joined in heart and be truly knit together as a people of God, yet deep down, we all long for it. We have traded the intimacy of true church life for the falseness of an institution.
We are a living and breathing temple of living stones who encompass the true and living God. We are alive! We are the church!
Perhaps Nate will enlighten those of us who are so benighted that don’t know who are the “political/ cultural authorities that seek to control conscience, speech and thought through the police powers of the state.” That sounds very much like what Mr. Trump would seek to do in the United States if he is elected as the US President. But perhaps Nate has someone else in mind?
Really, Erv?
Perhaps we can start with academia where there is far less freedom of thought and expression (at least conservative thought and expression) than most religious communities.
The space here is far too limited to scratch the surface, but you can google the subject if you want to learn more. You might start with disinvited and almost disinvited speakers to
college campuses, most recently Jason Riley and Charles Murray at Virginia Tech. You might read Mike Bloomberg’s trenchant (heavily booed) insights for the University of Michigan commencement this year. You might then want to look at polling data indicating that some 40% of millenials don’t believe in free speech.
Then you might wish to Google Obama and the 1st Amendment, and you will learn that This administration believes that freedom of religion should be confined to houses of worship; that when Christians do business or act in the civic arena governmental moral agendas trump conscience if conscience refuses to honor and facilitate what the government decides to honor and protect.
Come on, Erv. Just because you support the use of state power to trump religious conscience surely can’t blind you to how recessive it is. This is way too easy. Look at gender issues, illegal immigration, sexual orientation. The entertainment industry, political bureaucracies, academia are firmly controlled by the far Left, which coercively pushes its agendas as moral imperatives, punishing and ridiculing those who…
…cont. those who dissent. Look at the backlash sparked by the North Carolina bathroom law. It says that if your birth certificate classifies you as a male, you use the men’s room. If it classifies you as a female, use the women’s room. And if you don’t want to use the restroom dictated by your birth certificate gender, get your birth certificate changed. Seems pretty reasonable to think that the citizens of North Carolina should be able to make that call, right? Wrong! Entertainers are cancelling engagements there. Businesses and states are threatening not to do business there. And the Justice Department is threatening to file suit.
Well Erv, I’ve barely begun. But I don’t think any amount of evidence would convince you of how oppressive and controlling the Secular Left is. As for Trump, I’m not a fan. But other than a thin-skinned testiness, and penchant for attacking those who criticize him that rivals President Obama, I haven’t heard him say anything to suggest he will use the police powers of the state to control conscience, speech and thought. He is a demagogue – not an ideologue. And I don’t see that he has any readily identifiable moral center or guiding principles that would lead him to impose Leftistist or religious moral values on the country.
Erv, Nathan is so on the money with his observations that secular anti-religionists are an extremely intolerant group. I know three professors who teach at the large State University where I work who tell me they cannot (dare not) facilitate a critical analysis of issues in Biology or Human Psychology that would challenge the secular worldview.
The Free Thinkers on Campus, most ironically, have attempted several times to stop our church from giving away free books on Intelligent Design Theory on Campus. Fortunately, free speech, is still viable for me, but not in the class room for teachers who would wish to respond in a ‘thoughtful’ way to student questions.
Irvin, come on Sir. a person would have to be blind and mute without any physical
contact, not to know who is running the show in the USA, and Globally. It’s those in HIGH PLACES. In the USA, Government Puppeteers, and in the rest of the World the
Money Barons, and their underlings, Heads of Government, the United Nations, and the Militants, who always follow orders. Things are rapidly coming to a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, and keep your eyes closed a while longer, not very long however, and you will know for a certainty. Must be a bit lonely in la la land.
I think Nathan has made valid points that are evident in our society. And, Earl, I don’t believe in conspiracy theories other than the one the adversary is carrying on, and he will use both liberal and ultraconservative in his attempt to win us over. It’s not about politics, but that is how people are making their choices. (Maybe we don’t have any choices!) At some point the adversary will bring them together. Right now it is difficult to recognize who he is using or who we can trust.
Nathan,
It seems to me that you are very much in favor of liberty….for those whose lifestyles you approve.
Who will defend your liberty when the majority disapprove of YOUR lifestyle?
Liberty is historically connected to private property. I won’t worry about my ‘lifestyle’ being protected if my private property is secure and I am free to use it as I please.
Unless of course my ‘lifestyle’ is wicked, then the Law of God leans heavily against me.
me.
The more freedom to speak, the more people who will speak.
Limitations on speech are almost always limitations on unpopular ideas. The tendency is for the majority view to be encouraged, and the minority views to be silenced. The inevitable result is that the diversity of ideas being expressed within a society decreases.
What is the line between expressing one’s opinion and defamation?
The answers to the following questions are a starting point for futher exploration into the realm of truth and wisdom for Adventists.
What is the difference between freedom of speech vs defamation worlwide?
What is the relationship between freedom & crime?
Does freedom of speech exist in a libertarian society?
In practice, freedom of speech and the diversity of ideas are against each other in a Seventh-day Adventist organizational culture. That is the lesson of our history as the “winner” has to stand out to beat and rule over the other diverse “losers” in democracy.
In our church we need to give each other the space to grow, to be ourselves, to exercise our diversity. We need to give each other space so that we may both give and receive such beautiful things as ideas, openness, dignity, joy, healing, and inclusion.
Sam,
Are you suggesting that the church should no longer fashion itself democratically? If the answer is, Yes, I tend to agree. There is no record of any of the religious expressions in scripture taking a vote on anything. Acts 15 is highly instructive in this regard.
Acts 15 encouraged speaking by all interested parties, and sought and heard reports from distant communities of Christians. And on the basis not of argument, and certainly not of vote, but of reports of the Holy Spirit’s expression in the lives of the communities of Christians, the whole of Jewish tradition rooted deeply and explicitly in scripture was dismissed out of hand and without dissent in the summary James made of the of will of the Holy Spirit as expressed in the lives of Gentile believers.
It is instructive also that despite theological warfare in Jerusalem initiated by believers ‘from the sect of the Pharisees, the communities of Christians across the empire were Spirit lead directly. The Spirit reached the core from the edges, rather than going directly. This remains true today, as well, by all accounts.
Were our church so Spirit led today, and operated without voting how would church management be different in practical ways and what might the effect be for church members do you imagine?
Bill,
Seeing your remark about the theological warfare in Jerusalem being ignited by a sect of the Pharisees triggered a memory from reading a history of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. On the day when the Roman legions sent tens of thousands of arrows on trajectories into the Temple courtyard and killing thousands was the same day when three different sects of the Pharisees were fighting and attempting to kill each other. Why? Each was blaming the others for their disobedience to God being the reason the Romans were attacking. Yet they were all to blame because of how they had stirred-up the people to rebel against the Romans.
All the discussion about the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is essentially moot to people like me. From 1959 to this year, I was a member of about a dozen SdA congregations in about a half-dozen states and elected to offices in several of them. I was only a member of a nominating committee once but not once in those fifty-odd years was I ever aware of having even helped to select a delegate to a local conference, let alone a union conference or the general conference.
Unless a “member” is affected by a conference officer or a pastor telling him what to do, “conferences” are essentially irrelevant to him.
What is the point of being a “member” of a denomination if you don’t have any input whatsoever beyond the local level?
If people in Africa are accustomed to not doing business on the sabbath day and then they are “delegates” to a General Conference session in the United States, do they use public transportation, stay in hotels and eat in restaurants on the sabbath day after they go back home again?
It seems to me that just because something is customary doesn’t necessarily mean it is the best way to do things.
The five year General Meetings, in person, should be passe. They are strictly an opportunity for the hierarchy to politic, receive praise and approbation. Solidify their celebrity, to the cost of millions of dollars. It is a worthless expense. In this day of fabulous communications, it all could be done by internet. And every member could vote, not just a few hundred.
Earl,
1. If we were to adopt your suggestion about every member voting electronically without physically attending a “conference” meeting, would that allow us to vote for the following?
a. Officers who would assign each congregation a new pastor no less often than every four years
b. Officers who would select pastors on the basis of whether they are more interested in whether people become Christians than on whether they become members of our denomination
c. Officers who would select pastors based on whether they place more emphasis on salvation by grace alone through faith alone than on criteria for denominational membership
d. Officers who would select pastors based on whether they encourage adults to study their Bibles for themselves rather than holding indoctrination classes and calling them “Bible studies”
e. Officers who would select pastors who would represent the advent movement as a special emphasis within the Christian church instead of representing the movement as an alternative to protestantism
f. Officers who would select pastors who, without being manipulative, would preach sermons that are inspirational, and informative and encourage personal religion instead of institutional religion
Until we do adopt your suggestion about voting, how do we participate in ways that would encourage those same ideals?
How would attending a meeting, whether union or G.C. every five years improve those qualities desired? How many world delegates are interested in your local congregation’s needs?
Roger, I’m not sure you really mean what your professed ideals seems to endorse – officers ensuring that Adventist pastors all offer the same happy-face, borderless, do-it-yourself pablum that avoids the prickly prophetic aspects of religious traditions and Biblical teaching – aspects that might confront, challenge and try to mold cowboy consciences according to Biblical precepts and understandings of the nature of God and humanity.
Your idealism simply substitutes one form of manipulation for another command and control ecclesiology. I can see it now. Pastors who do not submit to the love-inspired diktats of the hierarchy (soft coercion) will go to Adventist re-education camps. If that doesn’t work, then maybe they can be reassigend to hospital chaplaincy work. Then, if they still remain enemies of “love,” off to the Gulag.
Your encapsulation of the ideal outcome under Earl’s radical democracy is in essence a call for denominational suicide. Your “solution” ignores human nature. Humans seek meaning and significance through something larger than themselves that has boundaries and identity. When the church and its communities of faith repudiate claims to any authority over conscience, its members will turn elsewhere for meaning and significance. And they will find open arms in the pagan religions of the state – social justice, equality, and environmentalism – which are more than willing to use violence to achieve their ideals.
“It seems to me that you are very much in favor of liberty….for those whose lifestyles you approve”
Roger, this non sequitur that you offered yesterday, in response to my examples of non-religious coercion of conscience, is absurd. I have been making two points: 1) that it is a dangerous twisting of language and common sense to describe as “violence” the non-political moral suasion used by churches; and 2) when it comes to breaking down and shaping conscience through shame, guilt and reward, western religions are pikers compared to the contemporary secular religions adhered to by the bureaucratic, academic, media and entertainment establishments.
I have no idea why or how you got the idea that I was advocating liberty only for those policies and practices that I approve. As long as they do not infringe the natural rights and liberties set forth in the Constitution, I think citizens should be able, through their elected State representatives, to express their values however they want. If citizens in your state think the state should legalize a marriage between you and your dog, that’s their business. If the requisite majority of Americans want to embed – or procribe – such a right in the U.S. Constitution, there are procedures for doing that. If the citizens of North Carolina want to legislate that all public bathrooms be uni-sex, with no stall partitions and no private areas, that’s their business.
But I really don’t understand why you raised this issue.
Erv, Nathan is so on the money with his observations that secular anti-religionists are an extremely intolerant group. I know three professors who teach at the large State University where I work who tell me they cannot (dare not) facilitate a critical analysis of issues in Biology or Human Psychology that would challenge the secular worldview.
The Free Thinkers on Campus, most ironically, have attempted several times to stop our church from giving away free books on Intelligent Design Theory on Campus. Fortunately, free speech, is still viable for me, but not in the class room for teachers who would wish to respond in a ‘thoughtful’ way to student questions.
Roger/Nathan. i interpret Roger’s plaintive comment as a desire for recognition that the individual church member’s input and participation is important to the whole membership,
as without the individuals, there would be no organization. And for a certainty every single Conference constituency, budget & finance, and all other business sessions i attended over the years were totally fixed before convening, and seeking only a rubber stamp. All conference and above, the local church, every single policy, or directive, all decisions, flow downward.
O’, you can offer suggestions, “send us a letter on that”, and it is received by the conference office, and promptly filed forever
in the round filing cabinet. The frustration is understandable. A
similar situation exist in the USA political system. The local politician returns home from Washington to visit his constituents, and promptly returns to Congress and votes the
opposite of his input, as he wears the party’s tie. He is a member of the “club”, where his treasure resides. In a statewide California election a short while ago, an issue was voted by a big majority, but later reversed by a single Judge.
Roger, the SDA church is a tail wagging the dog. Why?? Because they are arrogant, aloof, and control the MONEY. Always, always, follow the money control for your answer. Yes to most all your questions.
Looks like Roger misconstrued your comment, Earl – at least until the end of your comment -“Yes to most all your questions” – Obviously you were simply underscoring what a waste the G.C. conflab is. Not sure about that. Conventions are not all bad for an organization.
Roger’s suggestion would amount to more tail-wagging, in that officers would still control what is said and done by pastors. Only under Roger’s ideal, it would be mob rule becuase members would directly vote for the officers. Maybe we could then get someone like Donald Trump to replace Ted Wilson. And quite frankly, I don’t think you or Roger would like that pure democracy, because in the Adventist Church, most members believe strongly in hierarchical, traditional authority. Are you okay with that? It is the institutional hierarchy that protects folks who appreciate outlets like AToday against the more traditional, rigid fundamentalists who are in the majority. Be careful what you wish for.
The source of doctrine is not consensus but scripture. A more democratic church structure would increase rather than diminish conflicts, especially about doctrine.
If we learned to minister under the direction of the Holy Spirit, the role of the General Conference could be reduced to raising awareness about mission challenges and funds for them.
And yet that recent Pew poll says that most Adventists are Democrat. Mystifies anyone who has dealt with church administration.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/
Why would that surprise you, JM? Seems perfectly consistent to me. Paternalistic, top-down, elitist thinking, leading to command and control governance. Attempts to make the citizens/members gratefully submit their beliefs, actions, and money to the superior wisdom of central planners. Highly moralistic justification for taking away personal liberty. Confining freedom of conscience to houses of worship. What’s not to like about the Democrats if you favor an organization guided by revealed wisdom known and understood only by a consecrated elite?
Nate, demographics does a much better job explaining Adventist voting patterns than ideology. Black SDA vote pretty much like other blacks. Adventist Latino’s vote like other Latinos. Higher education and advanced degrees, which are very
common among urban Adventists. They tilt left just like the non-adventist demographic. In rural areas, small Adventist churches are
full of members that vote Republican.
An honest study of Adventist voting patterns might conclude Adventism doesn’t really effect the votes its adherents cast.
That may well be, William. But the similarities between Adventist authoritarian, moralistic attitudes and the Democrat Party are still there. I would very much like to hear a Left wing Adventist coherently explain why we should have a more decentralized, congregational Church structure, but a more centralized command and control political structure. Elaine, for example, argues this evening that Institutional greed on the part of the Church is not Biblical. Yet my sense from her strongly Left leaning politics is that she favors a share-the-wealth federal government. is there a principled distinction to justify strengthening the federal government’s power and control over the lives of your fellow citizens, enforceable through violence, but weakening the authority of the church which cannot legally use police power, and only has very limited authority as it is given to it by virtue of voluntary membership in the organization.?
Nathan,
I agree that, “in the Adventist Church, most members believe strongly in hierarchical, traditional authority.” That is almost certainly true of members of our denomination who have never been protestants, never been influenced by a society that was predominately protestant. In the 21st century, the majority of of SdAs live in countries that were never predominately protestant.
In the United States, do most adventists believe strongly in hierarchical, traditional authority? My father was raised in the Roman Church. If he had believed strongly in hierarchical traditional authority, he would have remained an adherent of the Roman Church.
He didn’t. Instead, he joined an organization he thought was encouraging people to read their Bibles for themselves, study for themselves and think for themselves–i.e. to be thinkers, not merely reflectors of other men’s thoughts. He taught me that true Christianity is a personal religion and he taught me to abhor institutional religion as the greatest danger to true spirituality.
We can quibble until the cows come home about details of theology (I think I can explain my beliefs about as well as anyone) but at the end of the day, who is going to take the message about the nature of the kingdom to protestants? People who aren’t protestants have only the supposed authority of a religious organization–no way to select which one to follow.
Generally true. HOWEVER, when the status quo is unreachable, the Ivory Tower, Glass Ceiling, cocoon, ostrich/head in sand syndrome, exists, you should take the bull by the horns and get it’s attention. Rather than let it continue to “bulldoze the troops”, the only way is to cut off the money supply. You keep feeding the ever devouring treasury God, and things get worst, game over. Take a stand to twart what has become a non responsive money god.
Earl,
For my entire working life, I tithed my gross wages. When I was in business for myself, I tithed my gross receipts–mostly fees. So I have already tithed the money the government took from me and is now doling back to me in the form of Social Security “benefits”. (The absurdity of that language!)
I believe the tithe should be used only for the support of full-time gospel ministers.
For the benefit of those who are in a quandary as to how to submit a tithe of their increase, what do you recommend?
In an agrarian and herding culture as the Israelites, the “increase” is only what is left after the expenses of seed, feeding and caring for the flock, and feeding one’s family from the food and flock.
Translated into modernity, a business would deduct all expenses necessary to operate the business and only the net profit would be taxed
For employees, tithe should be on the “increase” also, as that is the OT rule. I have heard pastors calling for tithe on wages before any deductions: taxes, SS, etc.
But for Christians, the is no tithing mentioned; but Paul’s statement: “As long as the readiness is there, a man is acceptable with whatever he can afford; never mind what is beyond his means. This does not mean that to give relief to others you ought to make things difficult for yourselves. It is a question of balancing what happens to be your surplus now against their present need” (2 Cor.8:12-14).
How many stories have been told about the faithful tither who gave his last dime? This is not what tithing was meant to be.
This discussion has hit on some interesting points. I would tend to agree with William Abbott in that, insofar as political voting patterns are concerned, the Pew study is probably more reflective of the demographics of the SDA Church in the U.S. than anything else.
On the other hand, I don’t quite understand William’s statement that “an honest study of Adventist voting patterns might conclude Adventism doesn’t really effect [sic] the votes its adherents cast.”
How so? How should (or perhaps why should) Adventism affect the votes that its adherents cast? It just seems to me that that particular question would have to be answered in order to conclude (from any study of Adventist voting patterns) that Adventism doesn’t really affect the votes its adherents cast.
William’s observation that Adventist faith considerations don’t seem to affect Adventist voting patterns seems empirically true, Stephen – at least if we accept that they mirror voting patterns in the general population. Whether they should is a different question. I believe that my Christian world view very much affects how I vote. Though uniquely Adventist religious tenets have never been a factor for me. The Church, qua corporate citizen, certainly has a right and responsibility to protect religious autonomy and conscience against encroachment by the state. But beyond that, I think it should not, as a corporate sponsor, carry the banner of Christ into political battles to advance its doctrinal stances, such as health issues.
Some issues, like vouchers and gay marriage are gray areas. The Church needs to be very careful in these areas to make sure that it is basing its opposition or support on 1st Amendment grounds – not moral or public policy considerations.
BTW, the fact that Adventists vote similarly to the general population could inferentially refute Frenk’s (the author of this Review) thesis. For if the Chirch has insidiously – violently – commandeered the consciences of its members against their will, wouldn’t we expect to see that reality somehow reflected in the civic behavior of the believers?
As I understand it, the Pew study didn’t involve a very wide sampling of SdAs. Be that as it may, among those SdAs who vote, there are two widely differing political views. SdAs with either of these two views consider their view to be “the way Christians should vote”. On the one hand, there are SdAs who are opposed to the use of civil laws to impose religious beliefs, religious practices or religious prohibitions on the general population. Such SdAs tend to think of “conservative” politicians as more inclined to do that so vote against the conservatives. On the other hand, there are SdAs who think the best way to promote “family values” is to vote for candidates they think will vote for laws to impose those “values” on the unconverted.
Does anyone who is following this thread have an opinion as to which way our denomination is currently trending?
Yes Roger, I believe that you have nailed the voting factors and motivations for many SDA voters; including mine, to some extent.
Nathan, you appear to be saying that you vote without regard to particular or unique Adventist tenets; whereas, as Roger indicates, others vote based upon particularly unique Adventist tenets—yet both you and those of us who vote based upon unique Adventist tenets believe that we are voting as a Christian should.
Isn’t that interesting? Some of us believe that our church has been given prophetic eschatological insight that many other Christians either don’t have or simply ignore; while others of us don’t necessarily believe that this is true. This dichotomy is occasionally reflected in voting patterns.
I would say Roger that denomination is trending more my way than Nathan’s way. Anecdotally, I think that those that see things Nathan’s way are finding themselves more and more comfortable in other faith communities.
I tend to agree with you, Stephen. But our historical memories are short. When I say I vote in accordance with my Christian world view, I am referring to what I see as the Biblical view of human nature, freedom, and personal responsibility – not things like the Trinity, salvation, or Jesus’ teaching about servanthood, dying to self, giving up rights, etc.
Those who see a political role for the church qua church, as opposed to individual church members voting according to the dictates of their conscience and civic view, tend to favor big government and blur the distinction between church and state. And that is dangerous.
I don’t believe I have ever said that Christians or Adventists should vote a certain way. I will certainly vigorously debate those who use O.T. teachings to justify snactuary cities or wealth redistribution; or who use Jesus’ life or teachings a moral imperative for the church to carry the banner of Christ into the political arena. And I have also registered my strong objection to those who claim God is on the side of Ted Cruz.
Your pretzled logic (at least IMHO) regarding keeping conservative “overt” Christians out of political office strikes me as very unChristian and very Adventist (perhaps primarily among Black NAD Adventists?), since Adventist eschatology is the only rationale you will concede for this “convenient” political posture. But I am repulsed by the statements of Glenn Beck and others injecting God’s will into politics.
Nathan, autocratic hierarchical organizations always creates a bitter taste in the mouths of it’s members. My association with military, and government assignments mitigated careers with same. When absolute leadership is a reality, and the rank and file must follow unquestioned orders, the troops have no input, and must accept both positive and negative instructions. As in a courtroom, rightly or otherwise, the Judge is always right. The SDA Ivory Tower hierarchy, as says Larry, resides in a sound proof chamber, with audio speakers on the outside blasting absolute “bulls”. We have 3 levels of redundant leadership sucking off the
life of the rank and file membership. Two of those layers of redundancy
should be removed, so that the individual remaining “subservient” element will be a “lean” mast head, for the Congregational role of the individual churches, working at their behest, and election to the Mast Head, elected every 4 years, for a single term for the leader, with every member participating by internet voting, with an outside professional recording organ paid for recording the results. This puts every single church on record of how capable they are in carrying the Gospel message to their neighbors. Can you imagine how “LEAN AND MEAN” some churches would become in sharing Jesus the Christ??.
should read ….”militated careers with same.”
Stephen,
I think you were answering the question, Are SdAs voting patterns a reflection of our beliefs? If I understood you correctly, your answer is that, as time goes on, the SdAs voting patterns less and less reflect our beliefs.
That wasn’t my question, however, so let me try to restate it.
Brother A (lest’s call him Adam) considers it a violation of the religious liberty principle to vote for candidates who want to use civil laws to impose religious beliefs, religious practices or religious prohibitions on the general population. On the basis of his deeply-held religious conviction that if he wouldn’t want civil government to promote Islamic beliefs, practices or prohibitions, she shouldn’t use civil laws to impose his own religious beliefs, practices or prohibitions, Adam votes against anyone who is campaigning to “put God back in the public schools” or campaigning to “protect” professed Christians who discriminate against those whose lifestyles they disapprove.
Brother B (let’s call him Bob) thinks civil government should reflect Christian values so Bob votes for anyone who is campaigning to “put God back in the public schools” or campaigning to “protect” professed Christians who discriminate against those whose lifestyles they disapprove.
At the moment, in the U.S at least, there seem to be about as many Adams and Bobs in our denomination. Is either group growing? Which?
I understood your question Roger, but did not do a good job of answering it. What I am saying is that those of us like Brother A (Adam) are in the majority and that we are in the ascendancy within our denomination in the United States; and that the Pew poll is reflective of this reality.
Stephen,
I hope and pray that you are correct in your assessment of that particular trend among members of our denomination. I would be much encouraged if you–or anyone else–can send me evidence of that trend as events develop.
r.metzger44@gmail.com
Silver Spring, Mary-land really is like Rome. The GC headquarters is like the Vatican. The position of GC President is like an SDA Pope. Ironically, both have been vehemently opposed to Women’s Ordination and have taken an autocratic leadership style on that issue. Both “popes” are viewed as nearly infallible. The whole SDA hierarchy is like the Catholic hierarchy. Division presidents are like Vatican-based Cardinals. Union presidents are like field-based Cardinals. Conference presidents are like archbishops. Conference area leaders are like bishops. And the GC president is the Pope. They both hate women’s ordination. And tradition rules over the Bible. It is the GC Papacy. It is ironic that SDAs criticize the papacy so harshly, when they are actually so much alike.
The book in question was written by a rogue priest that does not believe in the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. So Bill S is correct to make the point that if someone doesn’t like the doctrines, leave the church, don’t try and make everyone else into an unbeliever as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Drewermann
However, the point of the article was “to compare the current direction of General Conference Adventism with the road travelled by the Roman Catholic Church in the relatively recent past.” Which concluded with a warning about the “disturbing” and “creeping tendencies” of SDA’s to follow Rome.
The RCC represents an Old Covenant theological model, which includes a separate priesthood, controlled by a high priest that sits on a throne in a large Temple. This hierarchical model, which does not allow free speech or Gospel reform, also promotes the Moral Law as foundational for salvation, even as all are forced to embrace what is taught or leave.
The SDA’s are Protestant. They should represent the New Covenant model whereby all are priests, (both men and women), with Jesus being the High Priest. The temple is not a building, but living believers in Christ, all equal in spiritual value. Such a correct NC model reflects the great Protestant doctrine called the PRIESTHOOD OF BELEIVERS.
Unfortunately, the SDA’s have embraced the SAME Old Covenant model as Rome. This is why the few control the many, and why both censor Gospel reform. The…
I can understand why people who think our denomination should be hierarchical and creedal and dogmatic would say it is. Maybe they think that if they say if often enough, any tendencies to the contrary will be overcome.
But why would someone who thinks our denomination shouldn’t be hierarchical and creedal and dogmatic say it is?
I’ve had SdA pastors and SdA laymen tell me my theology is mistaken but that is just their opinion. Because I don’t consider anyone to have more spiritual authority or any other kind of spiritual authority than I do, telling me I’m mistaken doesn’t constitute hierarchy or abuse of power or any such thing.
The nearest I can remember of any officer of our denomination telling me what to do was the one time a pastor told me that now that I had been elected to an office in the local congregation, I was obligated to attend every board meeting.
I told him that I intended to attend as many board meetings as I could but to please not insult me by saying I was obligated to do so. What any member of any local church board is obligated to do is strictly between him and the Lord.
Do pastors think of themselves as employed by the conference president or/and other conference officers? Let’s encourage both pastors and conference officers to think of themselves as employed by the constituents of the conference.