To Live without God for a Year?
by Lawrence Downing
By Lawrence G. Downing, January 21, 2014
My friend and ministerial colleague Ryan Bell has set himself upon a journey that has an uncertain end. You may have read about his proposed venture in the Washington Post or perhaps heard him interviewed Sunday, January 12, 2014 on Public Radio. His declared intent: to life without God for a year.
Living for a year without God is not a quest most people associate with an Adventist pastor, but Ryan is no stranger to challenging traditional expectations and practices. Were it otherwise, he would not have attracted and held the diverse congregation that is Hollywood Adventist Church. Under his pastoral leadership, a unique congregation had formed that I believe was unlike any other Adventist church in the world. A profile of the congregation on any given Sabbath looked something like this: a wide ethnic and racial diversity—typical of most metro Adventist churches. It is the composition of this eclectic mix that takes Hollywood into a realm few other parishes inhabit. One would have seen a smattering of street people—some dirty and smelly who talk to the voices in their heads. Expect one or two of this group to stand up during the service and move about, perhaps even wander onto the platform—on more than one occasion, attempting to give “God’s message” to the congregation. Deacons move in to gently escort the budding prophet back to the pew. There were other parishioners to notice, too.
On a given Sabbath were 50 or so young people who worked or sought employment in the movie industry. There were actors, camera operators, set designers, screen writers, comedians, and sound technicians. This is only a partial list. Name me another Adventist church with a congregation like this! Ryan’s off-the-wall gifts (so defined by some) enabled him to provide some cohesiveness to this hodge-podge group, and, like the cat herder, now-and-again get them heading in a common direction. Was it a perfect and harmonious experience to be part of the Hollywood Adventist congregation? Probably not. So what else is new? This is not the important question! A better question is this: Did people hear the gospel? Did someone on a Sabbath morning address issues that confronted real people in real-life situations, and were they given biblical answers? From my personal observation, the few times I attended Hollywood, I answer yes. His voice to this congregation is now silent.
The catalyst for Ryan’s decision to set upon his precarious course (my evaluation, not his) appears to be related to the events that led up to his stepping down as senior pastor of the Hollywood Adventist Church. I am not well enough acquainted with the background events that led up to Ryan leaving his pastorate to comment. I will let others untangle the conundrum of institutional polity. Ryan has stated on his blog and in the NPR interview that the two Christian educational institutions where he has been employed as a contract professor, requested that he resign his teaching position. The loss of his pastoral and teaching positions left him without gainful employment and put him on an uncertain financial course. He reported that his available funds would be depleted after two months without income. He expressed his desire to find work of any kind. He has a family to support.
Responses to Ryan’s decision to live for a year without God are varied. Ministerial colleagues I have talked with are puzzled why he would make, what in their view, is such a foolish and risky decision. It’s like playing with the devil, opined one pastor. Younger pastors who know Ryan are at a loss to explain his purpose in all this. Non-ministerial friends I have talked with about Ryan’s venture express concern for his soul and wonder if he’s trying to make a name for himself. Few I have met think his trek will have a happy ending, hoping some good may come, but unsure what that “good” might be.
When I learned of Ryan’s decision to live for a year without God, questions began to float through my mind: How does one live like an atheist? Is there an atheist’s creed or an atheist’s guidebook for successful non-belief? When I brought these questions to a couple family members, one pointed out that living without God does not, in itself, equate with atheism. If one defines living without God as the absence of certain rituals and practices, one may continue to believe there is a God. The person for a time is incommunicado with God.
When a ministerial colleague, who knows Ryan well, and I were with a group of friends a discussion ensued related to Ryan’s announcement to live without God. One of the persons observed that he understood Ryan would not read the bible, pray or participate in religious activities for a year. My clergy friend responded, “That sounds like many of my church members.”
As I reflected on Ryan’s announced decision to live without God for a year, an old story came to mind that tells of the man who advertized he had the formula to turn lead into gold. The prospective lead-to-gold transformers gave the man their money and he, in turn, gave them the magic formula. As he got to the last ingredient he looked the person solid in the eye and said, “Now listen. Here is the essential part. When you are preparing this formula you must not ever think of the red-eyed monkey. If you do, the formula will not work.”
The person who chooses to live without God for a year, or a day, a micro-second or a millennium—the time is irrelevant—where is the red-eyed monkey? How can the person who has brain cells that still function become so disciplined not to think about God? If one thinks about God, references God in any way, even in jest or curse, can one then lay claim to living without God? I don’t have an answer.
Let’s take Ryan at his word: He wishes to explore what it is like to live without God for one year. Then what? After 365 days will he have concluded life is better without the Divine? Listen for his shout to the world, “I proved I can live without God for a year.”
Suppose, for the sake of discussion, Ryan announces at the conclusion of his trial-run that he found he could not live without God. He discovered that, despite his removal from God, God, the hound of heaven that he is, could not live without Ryan. With this positive affirmation in tow, how will Ryan’s Adventist friends/believers respond should he wish to unite with them again? Will we open a place for him? Will he become the new-found celebrity on the camp meeting circuit, there to shout forth the folly of following a godless path? Like other mysteries, time may provide answers. Then again…
It might be that within the pews we already have many defacto atheists.
Perhaps they are not as honest as Ryan portends to be. Claiming the name "christian" and mere warming the pews, sadly, for many, will result in an "I knew yee not". My question is, how do we engage these lukewarm nominals into a real community of faith in action?
I don't suggest anyone on their journey emulate him-but neither do I endorse the backlash against him (not from the corporate faith community leaders so much as from the common man in the pews). His social media pages have been abuzz, with the majority expressing care towards him, but a few too-vociferous and garrulous in judgment and condemnation of him.
The faith to question ones certainties is probably a greater indication of faith than the fear to not question the perceived realities.
If what you have written here regarding ex-Hollywood Church paster Ryan Bell is correct, then whilst this news is sad, it shows the dangers and risk of liberals becoming disillusioned when driven mainly by the cultural influences of secular society and its government, especially when forcing it upon the church and losing faith when told they can't have their own way. Liberal theologians, pastors and church leaders who have over the years fed their congregations cultural junk food are largely responsible for this type of disillusion and for leading Adventists and others astray. The woman ordination issue is no exception as it is without doubt a culturally driven agenda servicing special interest groups.
Without God there can be no real living except living on borrowed time by his grace. During the year 'without God' makes one wonder what will be his rule of faith. Will he toss the Bible and go exclusively for a cultural secular atheistic construct during his fast? What will be the basis of his moral behaviour and thought patterns? Will he obey traffic laws and the general laws of the land? Will he still love? He won't be keeping the Sabbath I suppose or attend church or pray. Wow! It must take a lot to do this and I hope and pray he may find the answers he is looking for even though he is most definitely looking in the wrong places. I hope that those supporting his position on homosexuals and certain Adventist Fundamental Beliefs won't blame the church for what has transpired. The real danger still remains with the high possibility that this is only the tip of the iceberg as there may be theologians, pastors, leaders and members of our church who hold similar views.
I think re-reading original Bell article in the Washington Post article is worth it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/seventh-day-adventist-pastor-plans-to-flirt-with-atheism-for-12-months/2014/01/03/63bab1b2-74b0-11e3-bc6b-712d770c3715_story.html
I found this statement particularly interesting:
'Linda LaScola, a clinical social worker and co-author of “Caught in the Pulpit,” a book of interviews with clergy who have lost their faith, said while no one knows how many clergy struggle with unbelief, various denominations deal with them differently. She knows of one Episcopal priest who admitted to a parishioner that he did not believe in the Nicene Creed, a core statement of Christian faith that’s recited every Sunday in Episcopal parishes. There were, she said, “no repercussions.”'
My understanding is that many if not most of the top Christian theologians today also couldn't say they believed in the Nicene Creed (which essentially covers the basics of Jesus of Nazareth, born of a virgin, crucified and raised from the dead) if they were really put on the spot and answered honestly.
What's the future of Christianity? Is there any wonder the most 'mainstream' Christian denominations are dying the fastest? To paraphrase the new Pope Francis, perhaps we need to get back to a theology of simplicity – like the basics of the Gospel (like as expressed in the Nicene Creed) that many over our most clever churchmen no longer believe.
Since the Nicene Creed is not an original Bible statement of belief, unlike the simplicity of the early baptisimal converts were required to believe, it is not truly biblical. It was never part of Christianity until the Fourth Century so it was never a basic Christian belief. Those clergy who have rejected it are being true to original Christianity: believe in Jesus and follow his principles: "Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself." Or, as Rabbi Hillel said when asked about what is demanded of us:
"Do unto others as you wish they would do to you. All the rest is commentary." (And the church has added volumens of commentary since that time.)
You are right of course Elaine, and no doubt you probably support the SDA Church's position then not to use the Nicene Creed, even though in effect we probably could without too many problems. Let's suggest a simple biblical formular of belief then; however, you of course wouldn't beleive it anyway, so it's somewhat a moot point.
And you are right about volumes of commentary. However, liberals have added plenty of volumes themselves. I just think of the volumes and volumes written by liberal theologians to explain away the simple message of Jesus' death and resurrection. That is all just an altered state of consciousness or some other mental delusion, or that the Gospel writers had some hidden underhanded intent.
Definitely an atypical approach.
Bell may be using reverse psychology. By doing this he is challenging others to measure their relationship with God and better understand the importance of having a growing relationship with Him.
But as mentioned eslewhere, is it just a gimmick. Can one really not think about God in a deliberate manner. It is like not thinking of the monkey or elephant.
If Bell was truly serious, he wouldn't be writing articles or a blog. He'd do what every Australian knows, given we are a very secular country (far more than the US). Don't be anti-God, don't be atheistic, jut be apathetic.
I submit it may be the best year of his life, and perchance he may discover the joys of being truly human beyond the shadows of religion.
Chris, picking up on this comment, perhaps it would have been better for Bell to say he would live a year without religion. It isn't quite the same as living without God. One might suggest, and I suspect you Nelsonites would, that it is certainly possible if not preferrable to be big into God but be anti-religion.
But I suspect a pastor saying he was going to live a year without religion doesn't sell many newspapers. The man does need an income, which will inevitably mean hopefully a book deal. And I don't say that in a cynical way, but with all the empathy for a man trained to be a minister of religion, and perhaps nothing else, and now finding he has no way to support his family.
Perhaps a discussion for another time, but religious belief is one of the most intitimate and personal things a person can have – probably akin to sexuality. So why would someone want to tie that personal belief to a public job, that if your personal views changed, you either had to keep quiet, lie or lose your job.
Not a chance, Chris. Love your idealism – "Ye shall be as Gods…" But the reality doesn't fit. Loss of job, loss of marriage, loss of respect by many whose respect he has enjoyed – even though they still personally care for him and support him. Even the atheists that he wants to join for a year have been pretty hard on him, though there has been a nice sum of money raised to help him get by. It's always good to see people rally around to support someone when their world has turned upside down, even if it is the result of poor judgment and miscalculations. "…the joys of being truly human beyond the shadows of religion…" Puhleese!
Where have we fallen so low?
Nelsonites? Stephen, how low doth you dare stoop.
Seriously, I sometimes, and sadly wonder. All the clamor of men stands in contrast to the silences of God.
The louder someone tries to explain, shore up, rationalize their "faith" perhaps is really a fear they might perchance be wrong. One who knows he is an heir-despite that he gave up his inheritance-relies on his identity. Not on his intelligence and arguments in pointing out other peoples wrongs. His actions willing embraced even Peter and Judas. Despite their beliefs and behaviors.
And we claim that rejected orphans name????
Rusty: 'Nelsonites? Stephen, how low doth you dare stoop.'
Oh Rusty, he who judges others… If I had a dollar for every statement of professed outrage…
If'd you follow the conversation on other threads you'd know I only use the term 'Nelsonite' in the highest of regards, not as a prejorative. It is named in honour of the spiritual leader of those whose mission it is to challenge Adventists and Adventists beliefs, and whether that is a good or bad mission is very much in the eye of the beholder.
I use it because I believe the labels 'conservative' and 'liberal' as essentially useless, because most of our regular 'liberals' here are former Adventists or they are Adventist members who don't subscribed to the two core beliefs that make up our very name: the seventh-day Sabbath and Second Advent of Jesus Christ. I have instead proposed the alternative term 'Pro-Adventist' and 'Anti-Adventist.'
'One who knows he is an heir-despite that he gave up his inheritance-relies on his identity. Not on his intelligence and arguments in pointing out other peoples wrongs. His actions willing embraced even Peter and Judas. Despite their beliefs and behaviors. And we claim that rejected orphans name????'
I have no idea what you're getting at here by these sentences. And if it is some jihad against the notion of labels, well I'm happy to agree – we'd be best without them – sometimes. However, I see all 'sides' of debate on this site continually using labels, especially the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative'.
Thus your defense is since everybodies doin' it, you shall too? Oh, that irresistable need for labels. Once we dehumanize someone with labels, we invariably slide further disenfranchising, demonizing…
Greek, Jew, slave…there's a lot of labels others have used. Do these then make you right to fashion your own-and to pointedly personalize so? To so handily claim you call people "Nelsonites" in highest of regard is epitome of ridiculous.
It may do well to consider that showing respect to someone is apropos-not as reflection of their character so much as yours.
Perhaps not at all surprising, that you do not understand my allusion to Jesus, the ultimate radical, liberal, progressive…the One who ratified our adoption, without regard to labels. Or our clamorous intellectual defenses of "faith". The elder brother likewise did not understand he-unlike that wayward younger-was not a slave, did not have to "prove" his identity with his beliefs and his behavior. After all, he'd never been to Sodom, never slept with a pig, never drank whiskey…
…how did Jesus prove who he was, son of God?
Not by deriding others as "Nelsonites", I assure you.
You "prove" your doubt of it, perhaps, with far too many words.
Despite that you -quite conspicuously- place yourself in the center of Adventism.
Rusty: ‘Once we dehumanize someone with labels, we invariably slide further disenfranchising, demonizing…’
Rusty I take your criticism on board – I really do. If your concern was an apparent pejorative undertone for the term ‘Nelsonite’, then I am happy to use a different label. But your criticism is here, my brother, a little hypocritical, sanctimonious and arrogant.
I do note, for example, that you yourself have chosen labels from time-to-time – often with derogatory and judgmental connotations. So be careful with casting the first stone at me. For example, in your very first comment re this article, you have used a number of stereotypical labels yourself in the following statement:
“It might be that within the pews we already have many defacto atheists. Perhaps they are not as honest as Ryan portends to be. Claiming the name "christian" and mere warming the pews, sadly, for many, will result in an "I knew yee not". My question is, how do we engage these lukewarm nominals into a real community of faith in action? I don't suggest anyone on their journey emulate him-but neither do I endorse the backlash against him (not from the corporate faith community leaders so much as from the common man in the pews).’ (emphasis added)
Have you not used labels, including ‘defacto atheists’; ‘lukewarm nominals’, ‘real community of faith’, ‘corporate faith community leaders’ and ‘common man’? In fact, you seem to challenge people’s right to use the term ‘Christian’! Do I complain about you daring to stoop in the use of these overly simplistic labels? You are engaging in quite a lot of stereotyping yourself here Rusty.
I wholly admit labels are imperfect but they are a fact of life. You use them yourself. The very first thing God had Adam do was label all the animals. Labels form the basis of social and social science, including on matters of religion.
Pray tell us all what you suggest as a better shorthand for the current terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ nomenclature, which all ‘sides’ use in this place? And don’t say you suggest no labels, because you have demonstrated you use labels yourself.
I did suggest ‘Pro-Adventist’ and ‘Anti-Adventist’ as better alternatives than ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’. I am happy to use alternative labels if some find them unsavory; however, I find some of the labels you have used yourself quite unsavory.
Rusty: ‘Perhaps not at all surprising, that you do not understand my allusion to Jesus, the ultimate radical, liberal, progressive’
Rusty, these are just more labels! Perhaps I didn’t understand you because you have attempted to oversimplify who Jesus was with your own need to label Him. At least in my use of labels, I did not attempt to deny Jesus to at least half of the Christian-Adventist population.
For example, you are clearly demonstrating your own personal bias and agenda here, in attempting to label Jesus a ‘raddical’, or a ‘liberal’, or a ‘progressive.’ What do these terms even mean exactly? Jesus was also arguably a ‘conservative’ and a ‘restorationalist’, depending upon one’s point of view.
In fact, despite your own rant against me, you have simply gone ahead and used that overly simplistic term ‘liberal’! That simply nonsense term, which is the underlying reason for which I have attempted to find a different label.
What purpose can you have for the use of these labels if not to disenfranchise and dehumanize those who describe themselves as ‘conservative’ and not ‘liberal’, or ‘restorationist’ and not ‘progressive’?
Rusty: …how did Jesus prove who he was, son of God? Not by deriding others as "Nelsonites", I assure you.
Rusty, I never suggested Jesus was a ‘Nelsonite’ or not. Nelsonites, or ‘Anti-Adventists’, may or may not believe Jesus was the son of God. However, they do all reject that Jesus was return in a literal Second Coming. That is the very definition of them.
Unlike you, I have not tried to pigeon hole Jesus. It is you my fried who has suggested Jesus was a ‘liberal’ and a ‘progressive’.
Rusty: ‘Despite that you -quite conspicuously- place yourself in the center of Adventism.’
Where I place myself within Adventism is a matter of debate. However, you seem to place yourself in the centre of Jesus! You appoint yourself the arbiter of His views, in naming Him ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’.
Your hypocrisy here simply takes my breath away.
I'll accept, that quite simply, your defense is because I, or everyone else, does it, then it's OK for you, too. OK. Fair enough. You go right on ahead personally and specifically sterotyping people. and suggesting they ought not even darken the doorway of Atoday.
I have no clue where you are going with these obfuscations (really, Jesus a "Nelsonite"? Where did you make such a fantastic construct?). Perhaps you did not understand the sheer irony of me labeling Jesus as a radical. Well-thats precisely why the Snahedrin, fine collection of lawyers and MDivs, hung him.
Because he dared make the biblical claim simply that he was the son of God, and didn't use alchemy, levitation, or convoluted doctrinal arguments ad nauseum to prove so. And because he dared shatter all the social taboos, hangin' out with the crack whores, the homosexuals, the misfits pushed out of the faith community.
Elaine, Joe, Chris, Irv…are no less a child of the God who Gathers than even one so obviously esteemed as you. Labeling them as Nelsonites is so far beyond the pale that white becomes black.
Suggesting that the Nelsonites leave this venueso you can ostensibly "discuss the issues important to the SDA faith" completely destroys the message of Jesus, which in my sometimes humble opinion is the only issue of value we ought be concerned with.
Perhaps a reading of scripture as case law or proscriptive document yields a different god. I don't know.
Rusty, I'm sure it will come as no surprise to you to find out that I think you have really overreacted. What is wrong with stereotypes, particularly if the description – a neologism in this case – accurately reflects a particular mindset that is not inherently good or bad? What in the world does that have to do with whether one is a child of God?
May I suggest that you reserve your indignation for those who use truly despicable and odious stereotypes like "whitewashed sepulchres" or "den of vipers." And when the meaning of, or intent behind, a descriptive term is not self-evident, you might seek clarification before condemning the stereotyper.
Rusty: 'I'll accept, that quite simply, your defense is because I, or everyone else, does it, then it's OK for you, too. OK. Fair enough.'
So you're admitting you're a total hypocrite then? We are judged by the way we judge others. You started this whole thing, but taking a comment I made to Chris, blowing it out of proportion by getting on your high hobby-horse, and then casting the first stone. And now I have written in the dirt in front of you showing your hypocricy – and you don't like it.
The difference between you and I is that I conceded, in good Christian spirit:
'Rusty I take your criticism on board – I really do. If your concern was an apparent pejorative undertone for the term ‘Nelsonite’, then I am happy to use a different label.'
I've admitted my 'sin of labeling'. You my friend have simply ignored your own 'sin of labeling' when you label people, the average attending Christian, the Church leadership and Jesus Himself!
And my label of 'Nelsonite' is directed to a bunch of people I know about – Elaine Nelson and those who roughly share her views. You direct your labels to a massively wide class of people.
'I have no clue where you are going with these obfuscations (really, Jesus a "Nelsonite"? Where did you make such a fantastic construct?)'
You brought that obfuscation up, not me, when you asked rather bizarrely asking:
'…how did Jesus prove who he was, son of God?
Not by deriding others as "Nelsonites", I assure you.'
I was only using the term 'Nelsonite' in an entirely different context, and as a short-hand to describe the merry band that seems to believe (or disbelieve) the same major things as Elaine Nelson. I was using that term as a short-hand description – just as you have. I think 'Nelsonite' is a much better descripter than 'liberal', which is the label you use yourself.
'Perhaps you did not understand the sheer irony of me labeling Jesus as a radical.'
But what about your use of the stereotypical labels 'liberal' and 'progressive' for Jesus. Why use that label except to dehumanize at least have of Adventist-Christianity who see themselves as 'liberal' and 'progressive.'
You condemn me for using labels, but you are the worst offender. You hypocrite.
Nathan: Rusty, I'm sure it will come as no surprise to you to find out that I think you have really overreacted. What is wrong with stereotypes, particularly if the description – a neologism in this case – accurately reflects a particular mindset that is not inherently good or bad?
The truth is there is nothing with labels. We all use them. Rusty uses them. Rusty even used stereotypical labels in his rant against me using labels!
I'll follow your cue, in your inimitable good christian spirit. You, of course, are right, on all counts. I shall raise no defenses, no "only" no "because", no tit for tat. Sorry.
I will, however, maintain your use of "Nelsonite" is pointedly personalized and unwarranted labeling. I'll leave it to the moderator-and Elaine-to deal with you. If either one gives more than a gnats gasp about it.
Shabbat Shalom, Steven. May the peace of Jesus surround you like a mantle.
The Christian-Adventist Church should be available to everyone Rusty – not just your narrow definition of just a 'liberal' and 'progressive' Jesus. I think you own way of trying to define Jesus is unwarranted labeling.
As to that good old cry of calling in the Moderator – the classic refrain of the person who must play the man and not the ball.
Happy Sabbath to you Rusty.
P.S. It is Stephen or Steve – not Steven.
Of this we may be certain — even though my brother Ryan may attempt to ignore God as though He does not exist for a year, at no time during this period will God be ignoring Ryan. And we, God's people, will be waiting for Ryan when the year is over, and embracing Ryan unconditionally throughout.
I was trying to decide how to word what I want to say, but you did it, James. I'm with you. And with the last paragraph Larry wrote, about God not being able to live without Ryan. Personally, I think he's simply trying to honestly engage his questions, doubts, and pains. I do fully expect a happy ending. In the meantime, I am praying for him. Also for those who think they see clearly enough to judge him. Either way.
Making judgments is just a part of life, Debbie. How clearly does one need to see something in order to be entitled to express opinions about it?
When you say that you think Ryan is simply trying to honestly engage his questions, doubts, and pains, are you not implicitly judging him positively? And if my common sense and less sanguine view of human nature lead me to be a bit skeptical of his motives and intellectual honesty, is my judgment, free of ill-will, somehow less Christian than yours? I do appreciate your prayers, but am troubled by what comes across to me in your comment as a rather self-indulgent piety, implying that uncritical credulity constitutes the moral high ground on this issue.
No self-indulgence or piety intended. When I said I was praying for all, I included myself. I don't think I see clearly enough to judge him. I can have opinions about the action, and so can you and everyone else. Expressing them does not necessarily imply either condemnation or affirmation.
Exactly! Couldn't agree more. Thank you for that clarification. We all really need to be careful when we make judgments to do so with humble acknowledgement that we are simply judging outward appearances. Only God can know and judge the heart. I, above all, need to be careful that I do not, in my judgments as a professing Christian, harden hearts of others against God and thereby bring judgment against myself.
I think Bell's actions speak louder than our speculations about why. He could have quietly and gently slipped away on this ill fated journey but instead chooses to wage a P.R. Campaign to milk out every ounce of bad he could lay upon his former employers. Not only is this a black eye on Adventism but against Christianity in general. Bell was calculating in his actions. We know he doesn't believe in the Bible but his best bet is that he never in his life tasted of the good gifts for if he had then there is no turning back from this journey into hell. Bell is no cult hero but now an enemy of Jesus Christ. "Leave him alone he is joined to idols.". Or as Paul would say he has made a shipwreck of his faith. He is still a leader though with 20000 followers on his blog. It is not an easy thing to be lost and Bell is going to find out it is "the way of the transgressors which is hard.".
Yes, an enemy as was Saul of Tarsus, an enemy as was Nebuchardnezzar of Babylon, an enemy as was Namaan the Syrian General. I agree with Larry Downing that this is a perplexing and complex issue. I agree with Glen that Ryan Bell has made himself an enemy. But I'm afraid that Glen Streiemer appears to have forgotten that Jesus has commanded him not to gloat over or judge even enemies and condemn them to hell.
As near as I can remember, I distinctly have heard the command from on high is to love our enemies? Love you Ryan. Miss you. You're welcome home any time, I just hope and pray every day you don't catch anything fatal from those swine.
Nathan, Jack and others.
Nathan:
I've just discovered you had made comment above on this "I submit it may be the best year of his life, and perchance he may discover the joys of being truly human beyond the shadows of religion."
"Not a chance, Chris. Love your idealism – "Ye shall be as Gods…" But the reality doesn't fit. Loss of job, loss of marriage, loss of respect by many whose respect he has enjoyed – even though they still personally care for him and support him. Even the atheists that he wants to join for a year have been pretty hard on him, though there has been a nice sum of money raised to help him get by. It's always good to see people rally around to support someone when their world has turned upside down, even if it is the result of poor judgment and miscalculations. "…the joys of being truly human beyond the shadows of religion…" Puhleese!"
Don't think I wrote that ignorant of the difficulties Ryan is facing. My statement is in spite of such "realities". It may indeed be one of the hardest years of his life, though I suspect most of the costs were well "accrued" by the time of his public decision. I think only one of the employment situations was removed after the announcement. The other prior?
The "best year of his life"- aspect I have in mind is on the deeply personal level; the level that can offer one a sense of peace and wellbeing in spite of the outer "realities" of which you speak. As a Christian you of all people should understand this sentiment.
The difference is that I am suggesting he will find this sense of joy and peace (in spite of the storms) when he discovers life without the imposition of some ancient text, or imaginary god, telling him what to believe, how to act, what to eat, where to go etc etc: That indeed, he is Ryan Bell, and the only thing that matters is the ethic and value of living life with a respect for his life, the lives of others, and that of nature around him.
I was walking around a zoo on Saturday and passed some Muslim women in all their gear. The thought stuck me again, "how absurd and sad, here are people, allowing the writings of some dim witt who lived 1500 + yrs ago to dictate to them how to live down to the last thread! They grant authority to a so called "prophet" to control their entire existence. It is incredibly sad. It should go without saying that there is no reason to think this same tragedy is not taking place with the Bible – the shadows of religion are dark indeed when people know not that they are in them!
Now you say "Puhleese!" Well, no. I speak from experience, and I think your priggish attitude (I've used that word deliberately, after double checking its meaning, not to offend, but to capture the way yours, and too often other's, religous attitudes sound…and at risk of sounding thus myself:) smacks of one so embedded in the shadows as to be fully blind to their existence. My deepest regret is only that I took so long to see the light from the depths of my culturally and self imposed shadows. It is this experience that I believe Ryan may well encounter.
Jack: I'm sure you don't mean it the way it comes over, but I find your "swine" description a bit unkind. Is there any place to imply another person or group of persons are "swine" based on their way of seeing life. I suspect you are bouncing of the Prodigal and his pigs, but even so, it seems rather harsh.
I'm glad, Chris, that your faith brings you joy and peace. I'm afraid, however, that your faith in the power of Ryan's recent choices and journey to bring him "the joys of being truly human beyond the shadows of religion" within the coming year sounds absurdly religious, not to mention naive – like a Christian missionary telling people that belief in God and the Bible will transcend and supersede the realities of their more basic emotional and material quotidian struggles. Ryan may well look back on this year with gratitude as his life heals and as he grows. I hope so. But right now, Ryan doesn't need atheistic pie-in-the-sky platitudes or some naturalistic philosophical perspective. He needs material security; he needs emotional stability; and he needs a caring, accepting community.
I too speak from experience. I know something of the feelings of loss and desolation brought on by a really bad year. I found Christ during that year. It didn't change it from being the worst year of my life. But without that year, I'm not sure that I would have discovered Christ as He is or found the joy that I now know. Monte Sahlin writes elsewhere on this website of such a year that he is going through. I do believe that "all things work together for good…" But it's usually not as instantaneous, nor as intellectual as you make it sound, Chris. I feel sorry for those whose pain and disillusionment, caused by an image of God imposed on them by others, has resulted in evangelical bitterness and anger toward the life-giving, freedom filled reality of God experienced by many Christians.
You sound so bitter toward the beliefs of folks who claim that they are no less free than you? All belief systems have known adherents who specialize in creating dark and sinister shadows from ideological abstractions. I appreciate your confession that you speak from experience. Indeed! We all do. And that is why we should be reticent to normalize or universalize our beliefs, or to denounce the beliefs of others.
You believe freedom comes from surrender to what you have concluded are the principles and laws of the natural world. I don't denounce you for that, even though I think you are wrong. For someone who has found freedom, Chris, you seem terribly obssessed with taking a laser light and mirrors into the "shadows of religion" to reveal and distort what you choose to see, while ignoring larger realities that might be seen if you were willing to go out into the sunlit courtyards to find out how many Christians actually experience God and are living their faith.
Nathan,
My faith!?
I suppose, based on the reasoning you have used to reach that rather strange conclusion, as a lawyer you would find it perfectly agreeable if, after summing up your case based on the best of evidence, the judge addressed you and congratulated you on your wonderful faith. Seriously, defining such as "faith" would be rather silly, and a little mocking of the facts; perhaps especially so if he continued on and declared you were wrong!
While my conclusions may have resulted in an experience, they are in fact based on a raft of evidence (which will change and grow, and may result in changes to my understanding – but that is the nature of questions and evidence. I make no claims of fact for anything. Zilch, nada, nothing!). In contrast, the experience you hold up could well be argued to have failed to take into account vast amounts of evidence, and to rest upon claims for which there is striking absence of evidence. On this basis I could congratulate you on your faith, but I fail to see the reverse.
Now you are just being silly, Chris. The experiences each of us hold up, as well as the reason, logic and authority upon which we base our conclusions and understandings, certainly fail to take into account vast amounts of evidence. Furthermore, we have built-in filters and habits of the mind that enable and cause us to distort the evidence and even misperceive our experiences. It's called being human, a limitation that those who can only see that reality at work in others often do not see in themselves. Such individuals are often diagnosed as suffering from delusions of grandeur or a narcissitic personality disorder.
Now if I stood up in my final argument, and said that the plaintiff, tragically confined to a wheelchair because of an inadvertent slip of the surgeon's scalpel, was about to experience the best year of his life, and find the joys of being truly human beyond the shadows of the materialistic workaday world, that would be a faith-based mocking of the facts and evidence, bordering on lunacy – a faith statement which would doubtlessly earn me an early retirement from defending medical malpractice lawsuits.
To say, when someone is going through a personal Hell, with no exit in sight, that it may be the best time of his life, and that he may perchance discover the joys of being human beyond the shadows of his former life (religion), is about as pure a faith statement as I can imagine. I will stop short of saying it is pure lunacy, because in context, it is a beautiful sentiment, Chris, and I congratulate you on your faith.
Not to "tempt fate" or disrespect anyone, but I have lived free of religion for more than 40 years.
I feel fortunate.
Participation in other kinds of communities has fulfilled my social needs quite well.
This does not make me an "enemy of God" or of any religious person (unless s/he
chooses to be my enemy–and that is usually irrelevant).
I do not know the reverend Ryan, and what he does or does not do matters little to me.
What's your interest then in this particular community of faith, albeit of the online kind, found on AToday?
I grew up adventist, became very serious about my faith, to the point of becoming a
theology major and serving as a "literature evangelist." I was at PUC at the same time
as Erv, Larry, Andy, and some others who show up here from time-to-time. I am interested
in how these and other friends have lived their lives. I have attended several of my academy
reunions, and I keep in touch with some of the old classmates. Some of my relatives stayed
in the church. Others didn't. I continue to be interested in the role of religion in peoples'
lives, including various religions and various places around the world.
My interest in AToday is that it is a "faith community" with which I can connect in the
sense that the backgrounds of people here resemble my own more than is the case with
most. A few have experienced some levels of questioning and skepticism rather like
my own. It seems to me that AToday is partly about communication beyond the
typical confines of the church–actually a rather laudible purpose, considering that
the church tends to be rather insular. I have the feeling that when someone leaves,
little, if any, effort is made to ever communicate with them again. Further, I feel like
we who leave seldom explain in detail why we left and how leaving affected us.
Thanks Joe. I always appreciate your approach here.
I have grown to see AToday as some sort of SEAL training camp for my beliefs. Although it is meant to be about discussing issues of contemporary importance for Adventist members (per the AToday mission statement), the reality is this is a forum for ex-Adventists to challenge Adventists. But you know, that is totally ok with me.
I mostly enjoy it – even when at other times I hate it. As the great Elaine Nelson herself likes to say to the effect, and I do agree with her, that unless you have looked elsewhere, and challenged your own beliefs in a critical way, then you aren't really being honest with yourself. You are no different from someone born into another religion by accident of birth.
Steve, you have reminded me that AToday is intended to be "about discussing issues of
contemporary importance for Adventist members." So, I take it that really means SDAs
talking with SDAs. I'm not quite sure why I thought it had some broader purpose. I
stand corrected.
While several members have been warm and welcoming and seem to have made an
effort to make me feel "at home," a careful reading of the purposes of AToday confirms
what you say, Steve. This is a publication and site for adventists. How very adventist!
Insular. Talking among themselves, but not with others–except to preach or attempt
to convert (no listening to others allowed). Not that there is anything wrong with that
if that is really who you are….
So, once again, farewell friends. Warm wishes to you all.
Joe, I don't disagree with what you say. However, the name and mission of AToday is clear to read.
I would much prefer if the 'owners' of AToday would simply change the mission, and perhaps the name, of AToday.
How about the new name of "Adventist and ex-Adventist Today"?
And how the new mission of "encouraging dialogue between current and former members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church"?
I believe Dr Taylor is a founder of AToday, but I am not sure who the other 'powers that be' are/
Isolation is the mother of ostracism. Adventists have more than enough disagreements within themselves so we should leave it to the members who take multiple positions on their beliefs
but wish to be left alone with their own insulation. Continue you on as you were.
Totally agree with Elaine. My issue isn't what AToday does – my concern is what it does in practice doesn't match what its own purported name and practice is. My suggestion is that the 'owners' of AToday change the site's name and written mission statement to make it clear this place isn't just for Adventist members. Would you not agree?
Joe, i hope you haven't exited yet. i consider you a valued friend. i havefound your human relations to be A1. Those who make the rules own the football. Interesting is that although i haven't tallied the SD Adventist FB's pros, versus those former SD Adventist FB's con's, there seemed to be voices adequately holding up both views. i welcome such diversities on any "open forum" type blog sessions, otherwise rehashing the same traditional views by all participants agreeing would be akin to all whacking the devil, and that would soon be monotnous. i personally do not wish any dialogue with the enemy.
i love the scripture, "by their fruits ye shall know them". i say your basket is full with no bottom in it. If you don't reconsider your hasty exit, we have lost a dear friend. Perhaps the leadership here will consider opening up the parameters of who is invited to participate. eh what??
I think in practice the parameters are pretty open Earl – as you rightly observe. I guess the problem is the official name and mission on this site doesn't seem to match those realities.
I think the 'powers that be' need to have a big think about what sort of site they want AToday to be. Do they want it to be primarily a forum for SDA members, across the theological spectrum, to discuss issues important to the SDA Church? Or do they want it broader than that, in primarily seeing it as a place of dialogue between Adventists and ex-Adventists.
I have no problem with the latter idea at all, and in reality, this place is one of dialogue between Adventists and ex-Adventists. The problem is, and I think Joe might agree with me here, is that this does not seem to be reflected in the official name and mission of this site.
He is following the maxim of one of the greatest philosophers in history: Socrates; who said
"The unexamined life is not worth living"
Another great writer-philosopher, Alexander Pope:
"Know then theyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of mankind is man."
"For virtue's self may too much zeal be bad
The worst of madmen is a saint run mad."
Is there anyone that could let me know how I may get in touch with Ryan Bell. He came to our home about 20 years ago in Ontario Canada?
Try Facebook. He is relatively easy to find on there.
i will not live a moment without my God, my joy, my All in All. He is my morning, my mid-day, my evening, my 24/7 every day i breathe. i can't imagine one saying i will live without God. i have a fear for what may happen to Ryan Bell. Is he by choice in a wilderness, without the saving grace of the Comforter?? Christ triumped against the wily one, but Christ is God of all there is. What strengths have Ryan to cope with the onslaught of one who relishes his decision to meet him face to face in the arena?? Yes, Brothers and Sisters, we must prevail on the Holy Spirit, and guardian angels that excel mightily, not to leave Ryan alone to fight demons.
No one who has a close relationship with God just walks out of church one day and decides to leave God for year. This almost always will occur after a gradual drifting away from God's leading. I'm talking from my personal experience here and what I've seen over the years in the lives of umpteen others.
One may get discouraged, disillusioned and distressed at times (we all do) but blaming God or putting God on the dock isn't the solution. However, if this is the way some 'wrestle' with God, which I think the person mentioned in the blog is really doing, then that is one way to perhaps grapple with one's faith. This, however, may affect those under one's sphere of influence and may sow the seed of doubt and despondency.
It is important to note that so-called 'progressive' worldviews have resulted in what has transpired at the Hollywood Church under the leadership of the pastor in question. He has made known his position on homosexual behaviour, homosexual marriage and has indicated his unbelief in the 'remnant' church in relation to Adventism together with unbelief in the Doctrine of the Investigative Judgement. Where did all this come from? Goes to show how damaging and detrimental holding so-called 'progressive' positions on doctrine can be. Again, it concerns me that there may be many more in the same boat as the former Hollywood Church pastor.
Those responsible for poisoning the minds of others and ultimately turning them against God will be accountable for what they have done and are doing to the children of God as they have done to the former pastor in question. The effects of the events culminating at Glacier View is one such example and one which also may have strongly had an influence here in this case. Many disgruntled Glacier View supporters are still some of the most active vehement enemies of Adventism today. The ex-pastor may have got under their clutches it seems and just look at the results.
Trevor: 'One may get discouraged, disillusioned and distressed at times (we all do) but blaming God or putting God on the dock isn't the solution'
Trevor I have often felt much the same ways at time, especially when there have been major disagreements over controversial issues at Church. I have felt like simply not going. Even worse I have felt like blaming God.
But then I remember that it isn't God's fault that other people can be jerks at times. And I continued to attend Church to see Him, not merely because I had run-ins with other flawed human beings.
James Standish, the editor of the Record (Adventist publication of the SPD) had a very interesting article a few months ago. He basically said that at the end of the day, when people leave the Church for citing other people, that is usually an excuse. It is because we all have run-ins with other Church people, because Churches are full of sinners. The real underlying issue is a soured relationship with God.
Joe. I hope you are still reading. We were supposed to get together for lunch. I have just moved closer to you. Frederick has some great restaurants.
David. Yes, we should do lunch in Frederick. There are a number of good restaurants
to choose from. I especially like a Thai place that is right in the middle of town.
I'll be in Hagerstown on Monday and Rockville on TUE.
Earl. I am your friend whether I post here or not. Feel free to contact me by email:
agingapes AT gmail DOT com
I wish you all well. I'll try to not be a jerk, Steve. Best to you too. BTW, I agree that
people don't usually leave the church as much over relationships with other people
as much as changes in their attitudes about or relationships with God. I have not
found any organizatons yet that are totally "jerk-free" regardless of their professed
connections (or not) with God. But I suggest that some people seem to be jerks because
they try to force everyone else to accept their concept of God–complete with all
sorts of baggage. Does that seem familiar to anyone here?
In our Sabbath School, we often discuss some version of the question: Does classical Adventism attract religious "jerks" or does it create them? The consensus answer tends to be "both." I personally come down on the side that classical Adventism in North America tends to attract as converts certain personality types at certain points in their life journey. If one is born into and socialized/acculturated within the Adventist subculture, there is another set of effects in play. In North America, I would submit that you can usually characterize a local Adventist church on the theological/life style liberal/conservative spectrum by knowing the percentage of adult converts that are members–as that percentage increases the church tends to be on the conservative end of the spectrum as the percentage decreases the local church tends to move toward the more liberal end. There are special cases and thus exceptions to this generalization.
Would Dr Taylor or Joe like to offer a bit more on what they consider a 'religious jerk'? That seems like such a subjective concept.
I think in any organisation, society, culture or group, there are always two extremes seeking to pull it apart. Being "balanced" between those extremes is really difficult.
Erv and I may not see jerkishness or jerkosity quite the same way, and Steve, I want
to be sure to point out that I do not see "religious jerks" as the only kind of jerks
there are. Far from it. So I'm a little more interested in discussing characteristics
that are exhibited by jerks of all stripes. And I really want to urge that we not judge
people, and stereotype or ostracize anyone just because they are jerkish. After all,
some of my best friends are jerks. And I am probably somewhat of a jerk, although
I try not to be.
Some candidate jerkish qualities: always having to be right, inflexibility, inability to
see things from the perspective of someone else, brittle, intolerant of the views or
lifestyles of others, etc.
Am I being jerkishly intolerant of others? Maybe…. I sometimes see conversations
among some individuals as a veritable jerkorama.
Joe: 'always having to be right, inflexibility, inability to see things from the perspective of someone else, brittle, intolerant of the views or lifestyles of others, etc.'
Yes, great list. I really like that list because you certainly get people on both 'sides' of any debate who can demonstrate those qualities. For example, I really like Julian Assange and what he tried to do with Wikileaks. However, from the interviews I have seen, he is a total 'jerk' – especially by your definition.
Brother Joe, if “always having to be right” is a qualifier, then this site and similar sites or formats—wherein opinionated people gather to exchange, offer and defend opinions—are jerk magnets; or jerk bait. Apparently no one here is “without sin” as far as that qualifier is concerned.
The slogan for atoday.org might be: “Where jerks of an Adventist/ex-Adventist/quasi-Adventist feather gather together!”
I suspect that I am not as careful in my use of terminology as Dr. Erwin is. To me, a "jerk" is, almost always, a fanatic and typically a religious fanatic. I would agree with Joe that there are certainly other kinds of "jerks", for example, of the political stripe, i.e., political fanatics. To Joe's correct characterization of religious jerks as "always having to be right, inflexibility, inabilitry to see things from the perspective of someone else, brittle, intolerant of the views or lifestyles of others," I would just add the inability to tolerate ambiguity.
Dr Taylor: 'I would just add the inability to tolerate ambiguity.'
Yes very interesting indeed. Have you seen the movie 'The Reluctant Fundamentalist'? The punchline that I liked is that any sort of extremism, whether it be corporate extremism or religious extremism, is dangerous. I think there are certainly 'jerks' on all sides of most issues.
Whether 'classical Adventism' has more jerks than the 'non-classical Adventism' (whatever those terms means) is an interesting question for debate.
Joe and Ervin – both interesting and very good definitions of 'jerks' or rather fundamentalists.
I guess a slightly variation on that theme, for me a 'fundamentalist' is someone who only ever sees things in simplistic black-and-white terms. For me, a 'mature' approach to any subject, whether it be religion, politics or the craft of making paper aeroplanes, is to realise things are often more complicated than they first seem, and there are often exceptions. I believe someone (it may have been Dr Taylor) expressed this in the notion of 'first-year lies.'
To take politics, both left-wing and right-wing politics is now-days distilled into simplistic 7-second sound bites, that simply demonizes opponents and fails to address the complexity of solutions needed to address very complicated problems. The situation with religions is often little different.
And most of the religious debates about SDA 'distinctives', in my respectful opinion, is dominated by polarised and simplistic arguments, that fail to distinguish the greater complexities on offer. Both 'sides' of the debate often adopt simplistic extremes. Take for example the SDA doctrines on:
So I see plenty of unflexible, stereotypical approaches to issues of Christian-Adventism on this site – and there is plenty of blame IMO to go around to both 'sides'.
And I could also add to that list:
Again, I find there are plenty of fundamentalists, both left-wing fundamentalists and right-wing fundamentalists, who approach inflexible and overly simplistic solutions to very complicated problems.
Well,
A couple of months ago on this thread I made this comment:
"I submit it may be the best year of his [Ryans] life, and perchance he may discover the joys of being truly human beyond the shadows of religion."
I don't know if anyone else has been following Ryan's blogging; I have. This morning I read his latest blog. In reflecting on the year it has been since he left pastoral ministry (not the year without God – yet), he had this to say:
"…But honestly, at this one year mark, [from leaving ministry] I’m mostly just relieved to not be enmeshed in religious life any longer. I am relieved to not have to pump everyone up like Tony Robbins, every Sabbath morning, and motivate them to give and share and serve. Because of this change, I am, as I said on Facebook on Sunday, “healthier and more alive than I’ve been in a very long time. I feel like I’ve been—pardon the expression—born again.”
This sounds terribly "churchy", but I have to say "Amen!"
What will the rest of his year without God bring? More of the same I imagine. He goes on in the blog to give an observation to Pastors based on his experience.
Here's the link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yearwithoutgod/2014/04/01/born-again-a-former-pastor-one-year-on/