WWJD and (unfortunately) Politicized Issues
by Cindy Tutsch
Last weekend my 92 year- old dad and I attended his high school alumni reunion in the little ranching community of Ritzville, Washington. It’s been 73 years since he graduated, and he and his buddy Chet were the only ones there from his class of 1938. Incidentally, when one of his friends said, “Wow, Adolph, you look really good! You must have great genes,” my vegetarian and exercising dad spoke right up and said, “Actually, I don’t have great genes. Both of my parents died of heart disease when they were only 71 years old. My longevity is due to my lifestyle choices.” (Including, I might add, his choice to love and serve God.)
My dad’s parents emigrated from Bessarabia. Many Germans had been invited by Catherine the Great to settle in Russia and farm. My industrious forefathers and mothers were among those who were given land to cultivate. Ultimately, my grandparents immigrated to the U.S. and ended up with many other German-speaking families in eastern Washington State. My dad spoke German until he went to school. All through school, he attended a German-speaking church. Before he went to college, he was hired at the local hardware store because he was bilingual, and many of the store’s clients still spoke only German.
I married an Austrian—he was a Fulbright Exchange German teacher at PUC. So maybe my family history colors my thinking about immigration. But I have to say, all these anti-immigration emails and blogs and talking heads seem really elitist and OK, downright selfish to me. Unless you’re Native American, you or your not-so-distant ancestors immigrated to the United States. But now some of you want to close or drastically tighten our borders?? (Don’t get me wrong—I’m all for vetting potential immigrants in an effort to keep out the drug czars, gang kingpins, and terrorists. It’s the attitude of “We don’t want people coming in who don’t share my religion, my language, and my color, that ruffles my feathers.”)*
Now, I’m not getting all political here. Please, save a tree and don’t write me a letter telling me what Ellen White says about getting involved in politics. As a matter of fact, I do happen to know what EGW says about politics, and I agree. (I am actually a registered independent, and when I vote, it’s on the on the basis of issues, not party).
What I’m concerned about here is not politics, it’s compassion…grace…caring…love. It’s hard for me to comprehend the mentality of a Christian who says, “I don’t want one penny of the money I worked hard for to go to provide health or educational benefits for someone who may not have worked hard like I have.”
First of all, the person some of you accuse of not working hard may in reality have worked very hard to overcome challenges some of us have never faced. But what if indeed some potential health care recipients have not worked as hard as you have? Do you really want to say, “I don’t want them to have health care, because I don’t think they deserve it?”
If Jesus had said, “I don’t want one drop of my holy blood to be given for someone undeserving,” we’d all be without hope and without life, present or eternal. We are all in the same boat, the sinners’ boat, and without the wonderful grace of our Lord, not one of us would have a chance. We don’t deserve a chance to live forever. Jesus offers us salvation, not because of what we have done, where we were born, how hard we have worked, the color of our skin or the language that we speak, but simply because of GRACE. Is there a lesson here, an example, about our attitudes toward those for whom Christ also died?
Commenting on the story of the Prodigal Son, The Interpreter’s Bible states, 'the elder brother ‘is sometimes an officer in the church, a leader in reform groups, a ‘key citizen. He thinks, or wills to think, that all other races are ‘inferior.’ A man out of work is simply unemployable: ‘I was always able to find work, and always worked hard. A prodigal like the younger son is just a wastrel.’ I had never thought of the elder brother as being non-inclusive or elitist or caught up in “works righteousness” in this sense, and I found it insightful for the present debates.
Maybe we would be less intolerant if we had personally experienced the pain of being without health coverage or without educational opportunities. Having traveled in many developing countries, I increasingly realize how much we in industrialized, Western nations have. Some stats indicate, for instance, that just 12 countries hold 80% of the wealth of the world. Others indicate that more than two thirds of the world population lives on less than the equivalent of $2 a day. So it seems to me that we should be a little less “me, me, me”— and a little more in the sharing mode, particularly when there are hundreds of references in Scriptures to care for the poor, the marginalized, those who have the least in society.
I’m also perplexed by all the shrieking that making health care available to millions who were formerly without health benefits would be tantamount to a government takeover. My brother Dave reminded me that is pretty much how some folks talked when a guy named Lincoln suggested that slaves deserved the "government handout" of freedom and equality! After all, the corporations that made up the South had lots of cheap labor to lose. Thus, they obfuscated the issues precisely as many business giants are doing today, hiding their supremely selfish goals behind the language of heaven and patriotism.
No wonder it's so hard to effect real social change; just ask Isaiah and a few other luminaries from the past. And clearly, the closer we get to fairness and justice for all, the more some folks with the biggest “plantations” run wild, squawking up a cacophony of vapid proclamations designed for only one thing, to terrorize the American people into embracing the shameful status quo, all the while preening themselves that indeed they "saved" the republic.
"Justice is driven back …and truth stumbles in the public square” and what are we as Adventists doing about it?
*According to my friends in other countries, snobbery is not exclusively an American vice. The yawning gap between rich and poor is getting wider in many countries besides the U.S. and immigration is a hot topic around the world.
Is there a class that folks take to be so politically unaware and make total nonsequitors of slavery versus socialized medicine. I mean really do you really think that politics is just political parties?
“Now, I’m not getting all political here. Please, save a tree and don’t write me a letter telling me what Ellen White says about getting involved in politics. As a matter of fact, I do happen to know what EGW says about politics, and I agree. (I am actually a registered independent, and when I vote, it’s on the on the basis of issues, not party).”
Just as a curiosity why to you think there are different parties…could it be the have different issues. Amazing!
Ron and Markham,
Apparently, you feel that my comments are political. I disagree with that assessment, but for the sake of your argument, my comments apparently convey a different view than the political views that you hold. Do you feel, then, that because my views are different than your views, I should not express them because I work at the White Estate? Are you suggesting that only people who hold your views should work at the White Estate?
Our early Adventist history was characterized by vigorous debate on a variety of issues. We did not all feel the same on every subject, and still don’t. But dialogue is an important indication of a healthy family, and that includes church family!
FYI, the White Estate directors do not read my blogs before I post them (for further info on this subject, please read my blog titled “Why I blog for AT”) It is not a condition of employment at the White Estate that we all think the same! We do hold similar views on many subjects, but as in any family, there are some subjects on which we might differ.
Nevertheless, I do from time to time ask various church leaders with expertise in the area that I am addressing to read my blog before I post it, and to give me suggestions. In the case of my most recent blog, which we are discussing, I vetted it before five church leaders before I posted it. A couple had suggestions for minor changes to my original blog, which I made before it was posted. The rest, whether they agreed with everything I wrote, encouraged me to post it.
I am not in this blog saying that our current Good Samaritan health legislation is perfect. For instance, I personally could wish insurance was not mandated for every person, because there are adults who will not seek health care even if they break both legs and are in advanced stages of cancer. Perhaps ideally that should be their choice. But we do not live in an ideal world, and if this legislation is deemed unconstitutional, then other provisions will also not be available for those who do want health care. For instance, persons with pre-existing health issues could legally be denied health care, which of course lines the pockets of insurance magnates. I find this unconscionable.
And really, the questions that I’m asking are more about our attitudes about the poor rather than directed to specific current legislation, though I think that legislation is a step in the right direction (helping others.) I am just really troubled by the attitude that “It’s my money and I’ll jolly well do what I want with it.” As I understand the tithing principles, we are only returning to God what is already His! So my money is not really mine, it’s Gods, which brings us back to WWJD? It seems to me that Jesus was all about helping people.
So maybe you are saying, Yeah, good, churches should be helping people, not the government. I agree, churches should be helping people. But vegan cooking classes in the church basement are not going to help someone who has broken their ankle or been diagnosed with Stage 4 uterine cancer. Churches can’t provide that kind of health care, and that’ s why insurance is important. Many people today do not have insurance and do not have the resources to obtain it. I think compassion would dictate our support of efforts to provide that kind of health care for others who have less. We have a strong history of medical work in our denomination. Helping people heal—physically and spiritually– used to be our watchword. I hope that it still is.
As far as the illegal alien issues, do a word study on alien. God has a lot to say about the stranger in our midst, and illegal is not one of the words he uses. I think people should go through due process. I think they should be here “legally.” But if they aren’t here legally, and they’re working to support their families at gainful employment or going to school to improve their lives (I’m not defending the drug trafficers whatsoever), shouldn’t we as Christians want to help them as much as possible make their status legal? What bothers me, as you may be guessing, is this attitude of “I don’t want to share. Go home. Or don’t try to get here even by legal means. We just don’t want you because you don’t look like us or talk like us.”
I have seen the conditions that many persons in developing countries live in, and believe me, if I were in their shoes and had the chance to better my life, I would try!
Honest, I’m not out here somewhere in political left field. I’m echoing the voices of the OT prophets, the voice of Jesus, the voice of Martin Luther on social issues, and certainly the voice of Ellen White who all say unequivocally, CARE FOR THE POOR AND THE MARGINALIZED and welcome the stranger in your midst.
Cindy,
To answer your essential “WWJD” question, it would help if the discussion were focused on the scriptural principles for charity and prosperity instead of debating with buzzwords that carry multiple and controversial meanings. It is curious that you would post your latest blog after the release of the latest issue of the AToday print magazine where I have an article on the subject.
In a nutshell, charity is an individual responsibility. Nowhere in scripture is there any basis for a government-based system where the earnings of those who have means are taken by force of law and justified on the claim that the results benefit the poor when the realities are quite different. The modern welfare system justifies breaking the 8th, 9th and 10th commandments (theft, lying and coveting). To be profitable any discussion of public welfare must measure man’s model and concepts against God’s model. Unfortunately the primary revelations from such a comparison are showing how little people who claim to be followers of God know about His plans and how unwilling they are to follow His instructions.
Israel functioned under a very specific “God given covenant” whose “temporal/economic” basis was based on land and tribe/family inheritance of that land. When the theocracy was ended by captivity a multitude of “greys” entered that can not be dealt with by any political party association. The present age works under a paradigm that is itself unjust as related to the thecratic covenant.
One can attempt to pick certain principles that appeal to political preference but they all fail (liberal & conservative) when compared to the covenants “big picture.”
That’s why one should not associate “the kingdom of Christ” with any present political party. Christ’s kingdom is spiritual only to be consumated when He appears and destroys the present age.
Perhaps one can argue “more or less just” on individual issues but true justice, I suggest, existed only in the “theocatic macrosystem” God provided…it is not to br wholistically found in the “age of the gentiles.”
And yes Cindy, I think you at times cross the line by inferring your opinions on “political issues” on health care or immigration are the “just” and superior by appealing to the OT prophets whose arguments were based on upholding covenant.
Pat wrote:
“Perhaps one can argue “more or less just” on individual issues but true justice, I suggest, existed only in the “theocatic macrosystem” God provided…”
How could that system have been just they had no health insurance!? Why they had no fire or flood insurance they could buy either. No when we talk about buying insurance from some underwriter or naturally the government if it becomes unprofitable for the insurance industry…then we are talking real justice!
When you break down people like Cindy’s arguments they are really foolish.
PS. Cindy, I am also married to an “alien” who it took 5 yrs. by “due process” to become a U.S.Citizen. When “illegals” are told it’s ok by the church it undermines law and those who attempt to follow the rules…because they are punished by attitudes that develop protecing the “illegal.”
WWJD? Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.
WWJD regarding health care and politics? Who knows rather than He would heal some. He would not approve debasing the currency to avoid taxation and therby funding deficit spending…or perhaps the oppressive taxes of more than 10%. (I Sam.8:15-18)
Good points William Noel…the OT prophets do not support the present excesses in the “name of the poor.”
Markham
Thanks for sharing that good citation. The last sentence seems particularly relevant: “He showed that justice and mercy and love are the controlling powers in Jehovah’s kingdom.”
Another relevant one is “Christ identifies His interest with that of suffering humanity. He reproved His own nation for their wrong treatment of their fellow men.” Welfare Ministry, page 23
Pat,
I have not suggested that churches tell “illegals” it’s ok. There are things our government can do to make it easier for illegals who are engaged in legitimate activity to become legal, and I am supportive of those efforts.
Justice. . .mercy. . .love–in their practical manifestations is all that I am advocating.
Cindy,
What’s wrong with “illegals” going home and applying for citizenship in a “lawful manner” like many others in their respective countries?
The fact of “suffering humanity” does not prescribe the best “biblical mandate/ manner” of “political/economic” reality of dealing with those problems as associated with any “political party” legislation…now does it?
That’s all I’m advocating…in the legitimate process of governance as separate from the “spiritual kingdom of Christ.”
What does EGW have to say about the “responsibility” of the poor for “some” of their dilemma as a spokesperson for the EGW estate? How might that fit into the equation?
Ron–I do think that these issues have come to be attached to political parties. This is one of my points! (see title of blog) And it seems that some have become so tied to their political party that anything their party espouses is eagerly embraced, and anything the opposing party espouses is immediately condemned. But the reality is, there are planks in both party’s platforms which cannot be biblically suppported. So,instead of immediately condemning a proposal or piece of legislation because it did not originate with “my party,” let’s look at the issues, apart from the party with which those issues are commonly associated.
If we only listen to media or read information that reflects one party’s views, we may not be getting the full picture. For instance, it is commonly believed, because it has been often repeated, that high U.S. corporate taxes are preventing the economy from rebounding. But the U.S. actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any western nation, including all of the member nations of the OECD. That U.S. corporate taxes are high is an example of false information that has been disseminated by one party through its news agencies. An example of mis-information that has been disseminated by the other party is the failure to recognize that though labor unions have been of help to combat worker abuses, the unions themselves have also engaged in abuse and tyranny. We as Christians should be critical thinkers and endeavor to sort out truth from propaganda.
What does EGW say about the “responsibility” of the poor for their dilemma? While she encourages whose who would help others to (paraphrase) help them learn to catch fish, rather than always just handing out the fish, she also says “[Christ] turned away none who came to receive His healing power. He knew that those who petitioned Him for help had brought disease upon themselves; yet he did not refuse to heal them.” Welfare Ministry page 25 Oh, that we would receive the heart of Christ, and have true sympathy for suffering humanity!
Cindy wrote:
“For instance, it is commonly believed, because it has been often repeated, that high U.S. corporate taxes are preventing the economy from rebounding. But the U.S. actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any western nation, including all of the member nations of the OECD. That U.S. corporate taxes are high is an example of false information that has been disseminated by one party through its news agencies…”
I think this is what I really find most troubling about your articles. You have no factual information. What you have is talking points from the political left and you assume them to be correct. Then you act as if you are being politically independent. But anyone with half a brain can see the tremendous bias to your statements and the lack of factual information. I mean it is a blog after all if you have a fact it is easy to reference it to a supporting source. For example you misinformation in the above quote can be refuted simply by quoting the following from the tax foundation: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html
“Fiscal Fact No. 119
America’s political leadership is finally waking up to the fact that the tax rates businesses face in the U.S. are way out of step with our major economic competitors. Last year, for example, Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel proposed cutting the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 30.5 percent. While a 5 percentage point cut in the federal corporate tax rate may sound significant, it may not be sufficient to meaningfully improve the competitiveness of the United States.
Currently, the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent, second among OECD countries to Japan’s combined rate of 39.5 percent.1 Lowering the federal rate to 30.5 percent would only lower the U.S.’s ranking to fifth highest among industrialized countries…
When compared to other OECD countries:
24 U.S. states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan.
32 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than third-ranked Germany.
46 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fourth-ranked Canada.
All 50 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fifth-ranked France.”
There are indeed numerous other sources for this information. What you have said is simply untrue and it is unfortunately the same as the consistent poorly reasoned blog statements I have read in your articles. If you ever expect to deal with politics then you had better learn to access facts because we don’t want to have a society run by emotions and misinformation.
Ron,
The unfortunate thing to me about this site and new blog format is that it is easy to lose continuity of posters. I happened to go back and see that one was addressed to me by you. EDITORS- I suggest chronological postings would be best as previously mentioned and work on that “edit” mode.
Ron, as to your comment, I agree. A mentality has taken hold of the only way to efficiently deal with suffering humanity is “big brother.” I have always maintained that when the “federal government” could be utilized as “religions” co-partner in helping “suffering humanity” then there would be in the mind of previous objectors “no separation of church and state.”
It is not though there is no help for the “disadvantaged” at the state and local level and charitable means. No, it must be done at the federal level and one who disagrees opposes WWJD.
Well what WWJD is WJD/what Jesus did and that was not to appeal to the use of secular powers as such to promote the purposes of His kingdom…other than those proscribed in Rom.13 during the present age.
Often “mankinds solutions” put forward as a facade only cause “more suffering for suffering humanity.”
There is no biblical mandate on how we must respond in the “civil/legislative” arena. Each of us may arrive at different solutions in this area of healthcare for example with differing concepts of what justice means as Markham and William pointed out.
Society has limited resources for various good causes. They must be carefully chosen and paid for with everone having skin in the game to pay for it.
Unfortunately some parties major in victimhood without regards to law or cost. All parties are presently guilty of passing on cost to future generations by not paying “as we go.”…and I suggest that is unjust and not WWJD.
I want the church administration and it’s spokespeople to stay out of politics or I will stay out of that church.
Yes, editors, please make it simple and post comments chronologically!
Of course, the church is, and has been involved in politics since its beginning. Anyone remember Merikay Silver case? The suits against a church that wished to continue being called SDA? The recent backing of Prop. 8 in California? Those are only a few. Then, the current involvment in most expensive litigation in the Texas courts over land ownerhip, and in Australia over similar. The SDA church has spent millions of YOUR TITHE MONIES on law suits. Political? The entire eschatological SDA message is based on the political power uniting with “apostate Protestantism” and the papacy to force Sunday observance! Politics all the way!
I haven’t read William Noel’s Adventist Today article on the subject of charity, but it seems that the thesis must be that charitable governmental policy essentially enables wide-scale thievery, the bearing of false witness, and coveting.
In no way whatsoever do the principles of individual charity, as set forth in the Bible, contradict the prerogative of Caesar to tax his citizenry. Caesar’s subsequent allocations of portions of the tax revenue for the benefit of the older and poorer segments of the nation-state cannot be logically spun as violations of the Decalogue.
Stephen,
How can you be honest in commenting about what I wrote when you admit that you haven’t read it? Read first. Then you will understand what I said.
Steve,
I just read Noel’s article and perhaps you can find it here.
http://www.atoday.com/article.php?id=681
While it may be “pressing” to say Caesar can’t tax and do as you say, it is true that Caesar is not without limitations in what it does to be justice. Laws need to equally apply to all and currency needs to be based on “weights and balances.”
It is also true that what Caesar does is rarely within the total parameters of WWJD.
Pat,
The authority of government to levy and collect taxes is not the issue. As you have pointed out, it is how Government justifies the collection of those taxes and does with them that is the issue.
Patn—really? You would quit going to church because an employee doesn’t reflect your viewpoints precisely on every issue? Wow! If I had quit going to church because a church pastor said something I disagreed with, I would have quit shortly after I was baptized—fifty six years ago. But maybe I misunderstood you. Maybe you meant you wouldn’t go to the church that I attend. Well, that wouldn’t be a problem if you lived around the GC because there are about 70 churches within a half hour of the GC so you could avoid me pretty easily!
Seriously, Ron, I really encourage you to make Jesus the reason you go to church. Everyone else is human and will sooner or later disappoint you. Even the church members you really admire may seriously disappoint you at some point, but if worshipping Jesus is your reason for attending church, then those disappointments are bearable.
Here are some biblical texts and Ellen White citations that have led me to make the choices that I have. I read these things, and I say,”How would that look in the society and culture where I live?” And I have made choices based on these biblical principles. But I don’t claim to be an exclusive interpreter of these things. Maybe you, Pat, read them and say, “OK, I will volunteer at community services. I will build houses for Habitat for Humanity. I will contribute regularly to ADRA—but I will not support mandated health insurance or immigration reform.” And that’s fine. I’m not judging how you interpret these texts and how you choose to live them out in your own life. All I’m saying in this blog is, I don’t understand the reluctance of some to support government intervention to help others. But I’m open to learning. I don’t claim to have all the answers right and I want to keep being taught by the Holy Spirit, one day at a time.
The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God. Lev. 19:34
If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. Lev. 25:35
If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Deut. 15:7
Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. Matthew 5:42
Tell them to use their money to do good. They should be rich in good works and generous to those in need, always being ready to share with others. I Timothy 6:18
This idea that French must stand French, and the Germans stand Germans, and thus the nationalities stand apart in their independence, is a device of the devil. It is the truth alone that saves the nationalities. Manuscript Releases, Vol 15, page 359
Christ in men unites them on one grand platform, preparing for the uniting in one family in heaven. It is the truth that makes men one, and removes national prejudice. Man. Releases, Vol 15 page 359
No distinction on account of nationality, race, or caste, is recognized by God. He is the Maker of all mankind. All men are of one family by creation, and all are one through redemption. Christ came to demolish every wall of partition, to throw open every compartment of the temple, that every soul may have free access to God. Christ’s Object Lessons, page 386
In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free. All are brought nigh by His precious blood. (Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:13.) COL 386
Whatever the difference in religious belief, a call from suffering humanity must be heard and answered. Where bitterness of feeling exists because of difference in religion, much good may be done by personal service. Loving ministry will break down prejudice, and win souls to God. COL 386
We should anticipate the sorrows, the difficulties, the troubles of others. We should enter into the joys and cares of both high and low, rich and poor. “Freely ye have received,” Christ says, “freely give.” Matthew 10:8. All around us are poor, tried souls that need sympathizing words and helpful deeds. There are widows who need sympathy and assistance. There are orphans whom Christ has bidden His followers receive as a trust from God. Too often these are passed by with neglect. They may be ragged, uncouth, and seemingly in every way unattractive; yet they are God’s property. They have been bought with a price, and they are as precious in His sight as we are. They are members of God’s great household, and Christians as His stewards are responsible for them. “Their souls,” He says, “will I require at thine hand.” COL 386
Multitudes are so sunken in sin that they have lost the sense of eternal realities, lost the similitude of God, and they hardly know whether they have souls to be saved or not. They have neither faith in God nor confidence in man. Many of these can be reached only through acts of disinterested kindness. Their physical wants must first be cared for. They must be fed, cleansed, and decently clothed. As they see the evidence of your unselfish love, it will be easier for them to believe in the love of Christ. COL 387
With God there is no sect or nationality. Daughters of God, page 237
Christ tears away the wall of partition, the dividing prejudice of nationality, and teaches a love for all the human family. He lifts men from the narrow circle which their selfishness prescribes; He abolishes all territorial lines and artificial distinctions of society. He makes no difference between neighbors and strangers, friends and enemies. He teaches us to look upon every needy soul as our brother, and the world as our field. Desire of Ages, page 823
It is not earthly rank, nor birth, nor nationality, nor religious privilege, which proves that we are members of the family of God; it is love, a love that embraces all humanity. Mind, Character, and Personality, Vol 2 p 530
The words which the people were hearing from His lips were unlike anything to which they had ever listened from priest or rabbi. Christ tears away the wall of partition, the self-love, the dividing prejudice of nationality, and teaches a love for all the human family. He lifts men from the narrow circle that their selfishness prescribes; He abolishes all territorial lines and artificial distinctions of society. He makes no difference between neighbors and strangers, friends and enemies. He teaches us to look upon every needy soul as our neighbor and the world as our field. Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings, page 42
The stay of Jesus at Samaria was not alone to bring light to the souls that listened so eagerly to his words. It was also for the instruction of his disciples. Sincere as they were in their attachment to Christ, they were still under the influence of their earlier teachings,–of Jewish bigotry and narrowness. They had felt that in order to prove themselves loyal to their nationality, it was incumbent upon them to cherish enmity toward the Samaritans. General Conference Bulletin March 5, 1895
They were filled with wonder at the conduct of Jesus, who was breaking down the wall of separation between the Jews and the Samaritans, and openly setting aside the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees.
When the love of Christ is cherished in the heart as it should be, when the sweet, subduing spirit of the love of God fills the soul-temple, there will be no caste, no pride of nationality; no difference will be made because of the color of the skin. Each one will help the one who needs tender regard and consolation, of whatever nationality he may be. Letter 26, 1900
The truth is all powerful and far reaching. It will unite nationalities in one great brotherhood. . . . Christ in men unites them on one grand platform, preparing for the uniting in one family in heaven. It is the truth that makes men one and removes national prejudice. . . . Our High Calling, page 171
There is no person, no nation, that is perfect in every habit and thought. One must learn of another. Therefore God wants the different nationalities to mingle together, to be one in judgment, one in purpose. Then the union that there is in Christ will be exemplified Counsels for the Church, page 288
In one place the proposition was made that a curtain be drawn between the coloured people and the white people. I asked, Would Jesus do that? This grieves the heart of Christ. The colour of the skin is no criterion as to the value of the soul. By the mighty cleaver of truth we have all been quarried out from the world. God has taken us, all classes, all nations, all languages, all nationalities, and brought us into His workshop, to be prepared for His temple. Testimonies to Southern Africa, pages 85-86
I felt urged by the spirit of God throughout the meetings to impress upon all the importance of cultivating love and unity. I tried to present the danger of building up separate interests between nationalities. We are all bound together in the great web of humanity, and all that we do has a relation to others. Historical Sketches of the Foreign Missions of the Seventh-day Adventists, pages 174-175
“We are all bound together in the great web of humanity.” I love that! Having traveled on behalf of the White Estate in all thirteen Divisions and in 61 countries, I have found that travel combined with the religion of Jesus is fatal to bigotry and prejudice. We are all His children, and He treasures our watchcare for our siblings.
Sorry, Ron, I think I meant to write “Pat!” And sorry, Pat, I think I added an extra “n” to your name. !
William Noel
Why do you find it “curious” that I posted on a subject that may have some remote connection to the subject of the article you published in the print version of AT? I didn’t post my blog in any way to counter yours, or to rebut it, or to agree with it. But I have a question for you:
If you think that the ideas in my post do not parallel your ideas, would you welcome that diversity of thought,or would you be upset by it?
Cindy,
Coincidence does not prove cause and effect so I’ll accept that there was no connection.
I welcome diversity of thought, respect it and encourage the testing of differing viewpoints to promote understanding. As followers of God we have an advantage in such discussions when we compare popular opinion with scripture because it gives us the opportunity to turn mere discussion into inspired and empowered ministry.
Pat Travis,
Your acknowledgement that “it may be ‘pressing,’” or a stretch to say that Caesar cannot tax his citizenry and allocate portions of such revenues to the older and poorer segments of the nation-state, indicates a total understanding—and tacit agreement with—my point. Whether you perceive such governmental policy to be fair or not is not the question. The question is: is it in any way a violation of The Commandments for Caesar to subsidize older and poorer segments of his citizenry with portions of the tax revenues that—both legally and Biblically—he is duly authorized to raise (for his government). The answer to this question is clearly “no, it is not.”
While it is also clear that “what Caesar does is rarely within the total parameters of WWJD,” the same may be said of many religious organizations and individuals; and has nothing to do with the fact that there are Biblically prophetic criticisms concerning authoritarian oppression of the poor—and no injunctions against governmental or corporate charity.
The argument from (the perspective of) social pathology that Noel and other “conservatives” have made against “social liberalism” does not justify the illogical leap, stretch, or the “pressing” required to conclude that governmental assistance to the elderly and the demonstrably poor is an enabling of sin; and therefore in and of itself sinful.
Stephen,
If it is a sin to worship on Sunday because it is man’s way instead of God’s, then how is supporting a public welfare system that is directly contrary to God’s principles and instructions not also being disobedient to God and a sin? God offers us His power to do minister in the ways he has outlined if we will only obey. So, why do we persist in defending man’s ways instead of pursuing God’s plan?
With all respect my brother, I have no idea where to start with your view of things generally; and with this statement and question particularly.
First off, who ever said it was “a sin to worship on Sunday”? Secondly, your parallel conclusion that the “public welfare system” is “directly contrary to God’s principles and instructions” and is in some way “disobedient to God”—and likewise sinful—is, with all respect, absurd on its face.
There is no Biblical injunction against a public welfare system. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible.
If God tells us to do something one way and offers us His power to do it that way, why do we need an injunction against doing it otherwise? Is not our choice to do it our way instead of God’s way the very basis of sin itself? No, there is no Biblical injunction against a public welfare system.
God’s plan for charity is a mandate for individuals to practice. A public welfare system was never part of His plan. How can we expect God to bless us if we are not working according to His plan?
William Noel,
Your premise that God has provided instruction for the ONLY method or means of charity for any and every social unit of mankind is, shall we say, faulty. The Bible provides instructions for individuals and churches; but you conclude—without reason—that this precludes the state, or presumably even businesses, from engaging in corporate (or large-scale) charitable activity.
There is no Biblical model for businesses to engage in charity. Following your line of reasoning, such activity might be considered sinful; since God has provided instructions for individuals and churches to be charitable, but not businesses. Corporate entities do not confiscate the wealth of its voluntarily invested ownership you may say; whereas governments do. However governments have a Biblically sanctioned prerogative to tax its citizens. For you, my brother, this is an inconvenient truth; because it basically eviscerates the argument that using a fraction of tax receipts to assist the elderly and the destitute is sinful, or leads to sin.
It might be reasonably (if not plausibly) argued that if individuals and churches actually did what God would have them do, there would be no need for governmental assistance for the elderly and the poor; but to say that government, or any other entity, is wrong—or even sinful—for standing in the gap is ridiculous.
Stephen wrote:
“There is no Biblical model for businesses to engage in charity.”
It is like a theme here for the political liberals to be so consistently factually wrong. Farming would be by most economic criteria considered a business since they grow to produce to sale their various crops. The Bible specifically told the farmers to leave the edges for the poor to harvest. The book of Ruth gives us an account of someone practicing that form of activity. The declarative misinformation here is astounding, I can only assume that such people as Stephen and Cindy simply have no interest in actually investigating their ideas or other peoples ideas because they are so sure that they are right, yet they are so consistently wrong.
But thinking the government as a charity…well that is a whole large bag of nonsense.
Your point is taken on the Biblical agrarian economy Ron. So then, if the federal or state government were to mandate that America’s corporately and privately owned farms “leave the edges for the poor to harvest,” or tax the equivalent of “the edges” to provide for the poor, as a form of a food assistance program; would this be OK with such politically conservative people as yourself and William Noel?
government is not a charity therefore when government taxes it is not simply for the poor and food assistance. So in American government both state and federal taxes are assessed on person and businesses. If you think the constitution sets the role of the government as to provide for the poor and elderly you don’t understand the constitution…that is the basis of our government. When you seek to make it seem that that is the role of the government you overstep the political foundation of our nation. In which case you should be providing us with an entirely new constitution for our consideration. As it is in the Federalist papers James Madison expressed that the constitution is not meant to set up equality between everyone, we don’t have a right to equal houses and equal property, in short it is not to about redistribution of wealth.
Government is not a charity, but it can properly carry out functions that may generally be classified as charitable.
Without getting into a treatise on either the General Welfare Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, or enumerated powers versus implied powers, suffice it to say that Madison and Hamilton had differing views on Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and Hamilton’s view has long prevailed—in a rout.
In a nutshell, this is why it is constitutional for Congress to have passed laws prohibiting child labor, and those which call for inspection of food, or those which promote and police air travel safety—and those which provide assistance to the elderly, the poor, and the elderly and poor who are sick.
I have never suggested that any such general welfare laws provide for equality of income, housing, etc.
Hamilton’s views were certainly never intended to represent the type of big government that you envision. Hamilton’s section 8 statement says that Congress can make laws for the taxation of things, being under the meaning of general welfare. So what, taxation is not redistribution of wreath it is not the real subject here. Social Security had a specific use at it’s inception. That did not stop the federal government from taking the money from social security taxes and using them for other things and leaving iou’s. You on the left seem to feel that there is not help provided by the government for the poor and elderly. Of course that is not true, you say things like:
“For you, my brother, this is an inconvenient truth; because it basically eviscerates the argument that using a fraction of tax receipts to assist the elderly and the destitute is sinful, or leads to sin.”
even though no one made such an argument. You don’t really deal with the facts or what anyone says but you create straw-man arguments. Actually your whole statement is quite deceptive, as the difference between Hamilton and Madison is not found in subsequent laws of the FDA or TSA etc. But then when you have so little facts on your side it is so much easier to set forth self serving statements like you did by making the statement about Israel “There is no Biblical model for businesses to engage in charity.”.
If the government is engaged in charity then people will simply say that it is the governments responsibility to take care of these people and they will cease their own charity giving. That is the future you want to make for America which currently gives more in charity of individuals then any nation in the world. But when government hands out charity it does so under the inconsistent government model. See the pictures of the family destroyed home from the tornado and the FEMA letter that says the house is livable. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/broken-bible-belt-homes-in-ruins-from-tornadoes-denied-aid-by-fema-for-insufficient-damage/
Ron Corson,
I hesitate to do this, but it MIGHT help to go back and read William Noel’s article and his postings on this particular blog if you deny that no one has made the argument that using taxes to assist the elderly and poor is sinful, or leads to sin.
You also state with certainty that “Hamilton’s views were certainly never intended to represent the type of big government that [I] envision.” What type of “big government” is the type that I envision?
I meant to say ” if you deny that anyone has made the argument…” (Can’t wait for that edit feature to arrive! LOL)
Obviously you still have not read my article, so let’s help you out a bit. The contrast we are presented with is charity done God’s way or by a system that, in every dimension and purpose, is against God and seeking to subvert and destroy faith in God. (Yes, that really is the foundation and purpose of liberal-socialism.) So, our options are these: do charity God’s way or in compliance with a system that is inherently evil and against God. Given that choice and my experience with the Holy Spirit in recent years, the latter is unthinkable and options in-between are too tainted with compromise to be considered. I choose to follow God plainly and totally because I’ve seen the results of following man’s plan.
William Noel,
I have now read your article and have addressed your points in my responses. Christians and Jews have instructions and Biblical admonitions for charity. However your [il-] logical conclusion that governments are precluded from engaging in activity that might be considered in some way charitable is a non sequitur.
As an individual, you should certainly follow “God’s way.” It is not sinful for a representative government to do what it can to alleviate the effects of poverty and sickness among its elderly and poor citizens just because you say it is; or because you are ideologically opposed to such use of tax revenue.
You are apparently confusing/conflating capitalism with Christianity.
Stephen,
There is no Biblical prohibition from government engaging in charitable activities. The problem is when the justification for government involvement is based on lying, theft and coveting with the long-term objective of destroying faith in God, which is the foundational objective of liberal-socialism. I’ve studied liberal-socialism for years to understand it and my opinions are the result of that study. For me, to support it in any way, shape or form is unthinkable because it is so contrary to God’s ways.
No, I am not “confusing/conflating captialism with Christianity.” I’m simply exposing the evil nature of liberal-socialism. Any discussion of capitalism takes us into a new area that probably would be best addressed in a different setting because the popular concepts people use to describe capitalism are largely inaccurate.
William Noel,
Since you acknowledge that “there is no Biblical prohibition from government engaging in charitable activities” you have taken away the underpinnings of your argument. The claim that the “justification for government involvement is based on lying, theft, and coveting with the long-term objective of destroying faith in God…” is a personal, ideological opinion for which there can be no substantiation or proof because it judges and impugns the motives of everyone who disagrees with you politically—in broad-brushed fashion. (This is of course, something that you, as a professed Christian, have been admonished not to do.)
It may have been even more accurate for me to conclude that you are apparently confusing/conflating conservative political ideology with Christianity.
Cindy,
I am referring to situations like those of the United Metodist church where a political social gospel became primary in the 70’s along with other political/social issues and the membership suffered greatly for it.
My point is that “political activist” should not express their views as a leader “as representing the church or by the use of the pulpit.” I will cease going to that congregation. Everyone is entitled to their view on politics just don’t use church time in an official capacity to promote it.
Israel did not have a law against the alien but they were servants without alloted land in the nation. The US officially has laws against illegal immigration which are not being enforced properly inducing States to create laws for what they consider their well being. One is encouraging a lack of respect for civil law in supporting known illegals violating the law. The Bible does not guarantee/teach anyone can reside in any nation they choose without regards to civil law.
That in Christ there are no divisions is exactly true. That does not guarantee or promote “nations without borders” in regards to civil law. That is a “spiritual not civil principle.”
I also maintain there are many avenues that one may follow regarding health care as to WWJD without being onboard with a “national insurance plan.”
Stephen, I merely maintain that “social liberalism” is a process downward and not upward in governance. It is a path towards collectivism, control, and fewer individual choices. Ultimately the state will be an enemy of “true religion” as there is room for no other god for socieities inclusive view.
Amen! Totally agree, Cindy! I share your passion. And yes, I’m smiling 🙂
Pat Travis,
Needles to say, you have every right to your opinion of “social liberalism” leading toward “collectivism” leading toward “fewer individual choices” leading toward…whatever you conclude are the religious implications of your opinion.
Obviously, my take on eschatological events and the processes and political philosophies that will catalyze these events is very different than yours.
Cindy,
A friend wrote me an e-mail asking if I had seen this discussion. I’m astonished at the comments you have received. Are these people Adventists? Or shills for Fox TV?
You wrote a moving essay and as I read it I thought how much thought that you had put into it.
We are living in strange times. When Christians have adopted an Ayn Randian way of looking at those that are less and have less. When Adventists have joined the camp of the very ones that one day will demand allegiance to a Dominionion/Reconstruction theoracy or else.
Does it ever occur to those that would turn away the economic refugees that it is God that has brought them to this land for His purposes. This North America should be the largest mission field in the world. We have people here from everywhere. From places where no missionary can go but they have been brought here where they can hear that they mean something to the Creator.
What satisfaction would your critics receive from trying to discredit you? Really I don’t get it.
Does every one need to be reminded that Jesus was taken as a baby into a foreign land for his safety. One could say that he was an illegal.
Noble Egalitarian aspirations within a Society may form part of some of the Religious and Political platforms but yet may still remain as aspirations only if they are not vigorously enacted or implemented by the organs of such platforms. These meaningless ‘pieces of legislative paper’ are an insult to the poor who in most cases cede their vote to be used as proxy by unscrupulous persons whilst ignoring the plight of those desperate for such aspirations to be realised.
The Christian Church is built on the bedrock foundation of Jesus Christ who unequivocally identifies Himself with the poor; the meek; the lowly; and the oppressed of this world. Make no mistake about that: those are His ‘peeps’ – the sheep of His pasture too!
I applaud Dr Tutch and ‘others’ who stand for such a high calibre Christian Principles and salute her and ‘others’ on behalf of all the many poor, downtrodden, oppressed, sick and afflicted people of this World who will probably never even see or even hear any of these words but can be rest assured that even though, without knowing, ‘they’ have the unwavering support and attention from those who see through the WWJD eyes. Praise the Lord God of Heaven for such sentiments and support for the ‘least of these’ my brethren!
One may notice that I am very biased towards the poor and needy for a number of reasons and work among people living in abject (I mean ‘abject’) poverty. Some of ‘these’ poor souls join us at Sabbath Worship and share a meal with us every Sabbath Lunch. I can imagine the disgust in the faces of many in the First World upon seen such atrocious demeaning conditions that some live in and the derision to get rid of ‘them’ as though they are vermin of cockroach status.
…But they are ‘these’ too that the King of Glory came to Redeem as His Own: with His Precious Blood He has redeemed them and ‘they’ ARE HIS PEEPS! Compassion, Unselfishness, Empathy, Generosity and the Advocacy of such on behalf of ‘these’ poor forsaken souls is paramount to what True Christianity is all about. (I recall reading how Hanna Moore was stifled by some for wanting to reach out to ‘all the world’)
When articles with these sentiments that advocate doing something for the poor and needy and also that challenge Governments, their citizens and NGO’s, especially the Christian Church to respond to the plight of the poor I get sooo excited. If someone preached a sermon like this at my Church, I would have to be called to order for jumping up and down in my seat and shouting more than my fair share of Amen’s and Hallelujah’s and even my wife would do the same but in a more dignified manner of course.
[Matt 25:40] The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
Brother of the poor – in Christ
T
Hi AliA,
I’ve lived, worked and traveled to HK,Bangladesh,and Thailand…and many others. Somehow they all demanded a passport to allow me in! In HK and Bangladesh I had to have a work visa associated with my passport given by the respective country.
Yet, when it comes to the US immigration policy and WWJD becomes unique and must be different from all these other countries in the world. So WWJD would obviously demand they all stop passport policy and Bangladesh immediately have medical care for all it’s citizens. Folks, come down out of tour alice and wonderland tower.
———-
———-
Stephen,
“Classical Liberalism” is not to be associated with present “social liberalism.” They are on differing ends of a continuum of the amount and degree of government control. Somehow when I read one will not be able to “buy or sell” I associate that with strong centralized government…not “limted government.”
When I read of the plain of Dura, I read not of an “irreligious people” but an inclusive one…excepting the unique God of the three worthies who would not bow down to the all inclusive god and the king.
Oh well…that’s just how I read it.
Pat,
I’m going to disagree with your statement that “classical liberalism is not to be associated with social liberalism.” I’ve read too many writings by liberal-socialist philosophers to buy that concept. Modern liberal-socialists want you to believe that so you will not see the inherent evil they are seeking to impose on our nation and the world. The only differences between the policies of a modern liberal-socialist and a brutal totalitarian communist regime are the speed and violence with which they are imposed.
Pat Travis,
The eschatological take on Daniel and Revelation (12-14) to which I subscribe coincides with religious powers influencing the state to enact laws having to do with religious observance; wherein the inability to buy or sell is a consequent penalty.
The only laws that have been enacted prohibiting adults from buy and selling (in the nation of my birth) have been enacted in response to religious impulses and influences.
How about Hitler? How did the Jews do with that “buying and selling” in the “collective/facist Germany? He used the “liberal church” for His utilitarian means in support of his “social vision for Germany” and was opposed by the “confessing church”…including the SDA’s who just loved his vegetarian principles promoting long life unless of course you were Jewish…oops.
Tell me which of the Beast in Daniel is not first and most of all a “Temporal power” that of course also has the support of the “willing religions?” All false religion rides on the “back of the beast” it isn’t “the beast.”
Huh? I won’t be arguing against Hitler revisionism; I’ll just revise my statement to this extent: the eschatological take on Daniel and Revelation (12-14) to which I subscribe coincides with religious powers influencing “temporal powers” to enact laws having to do with religious observance, wherein the inability to buy or sell is a consequent penalty.
Thus far, the only laws that have been enacted prohibiting adults from buying and selling (in the nation of my birth; which is also the nation represented in Revelation 13:11 according to my church’s take on eschatological prophecy) have been enacted in response to religious impulses and influences on the temporal powers that be (or that were).
I think I got it! Back in 1947, if an Adventist suggested that Blacks could go to the GC cafeteria or be admitted to Washington Adventist Sanitarium, they’d be “all political” ’cause one party was actually pushing such “worldly issues”.
So today, if Cindy suggests that your hardworking neighbor family ought not to be bankrupted through lack of health coverage, and a political party agrees, she is just getting into politics. Yes indeed, nothin’ new under the sun!
But the really frightful thing about so many of these posts is that it’s clearer than crystal that too many Adventists are not burying themselves in the furrow of human need and dynamically working to better the quality of life for all Americans here and now, even as they point to a Better Land.
If you’ve ever been thrown out of the health care system ’cause your wife has cancer, you’ll understand that Obamacare is just about the most Lincoln-esque blessing that’s happened since…uh…Lincoln!
“If you’ve ever been thrown out of the health care system ’cause your wife has cancer, you’ll understand that Obamacare is just about the most Lincoln-esque blessing that’s happened since…uh…Lincoln!”
That kind of sums it up,Obamacare has done nothing…not even implemented yet but believing in it has made it as great as freedom from slavery. So we are not really arguing with some of these people on any kind of objective level, but upon their hopes and dreams quite apart from any kind of reality. That is politics based upon emotion, it matters little what the facts are and greatly what their feeling are and is no way to run a society.
To set the record straight on the pre-existing conditions front, according to The White House Blog (as posted on July 29, 2010 by Nancy-Ann DeParle), as of “September 23, [2010] the new law makes it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against children under 19 with preexisting conditions. In 2013, discriminating against anyone with a pre-existing condition will be illegal, but we know Americans need relief now. That’s why the new law created the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. This plan offers coverage to uninsured Americans who have been uninsured for at least six months and unable to obtain health coverage because of a pre-existing health condition like cancer, diabetes or lupus.
Coverage will be available at the same rate as it is for an average person who does not have such a condition and the program is entirely funded by the federal government. The program is temporary and will last until 2014 when discriminating against anyone with a pre-existing condition will be illegal.”
Here are two links to this Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan:
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/provisions/preexisting/index.html
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/new_plan_options_2011.html
To “set the record straight” the result has been that all companies that used to write insurance for children under the age of 19 with pre-existing conditions no longer do so. If your employer offers group health insurance and you have a child under 19 with a pre-existing condition, you stand at least a 50% chance of having your coverage cancelled or not written in the first place.
The bigger problem with Obamacare is that it was promoted as a way to cut health care costs. The first result with minor children who have pre-existing conditions is that they are being forced into Medicaid, which is taxpayer provided and costs more than care provided under private insurance. So, has Obamacare helped? No. It has only taken a problematic situation and made it worse.
For the sake of discussion, let’s stipulate that literally (not figuratively, or practically, or many, or most; but literally) “all companies that used to write insurance for children under the age of 19 with pre-existing conditions no longer do so,” this would of course suggest that there were companies which would not write such insurance before; and that not everyone in such circumstances before had, or could afford, such insurance.
For sake of further discussion, let’s also stipulate that your statement that “if your employer offers group health insurance” and your “child under 19 with a pre-existing condition” puts you in position to where “you stand at least a 50% chance of having your coverage cancelled or not written in the first place” is accurate. This would suggest that there were in fact individuals in these circumstances whose employers did not offer group health insurance in the first place, much less to those in these precise circumstances.
The fact of the matter is that the administration’s health care initiative was always more about health care and insurance coverage access than it was about cost containment; no matter how you may perceive it to have been promoted.
If you study the statements by the Democratic leadership and the president during the debate leading to the passage of Obamacare, there were two constant themes: increased access to health care services and cost containment. Reality has already shown it to be an abysmal failure on both points. Of the 30-40 million people it was claimed would be able to get insurance coverage, the Congressional Budget Office and the Medicare Actuary both estimate that in 2014 the maximum increase in the number of people covered will be about 7 million, leaving the other 23-33 million still uninsured. Also, costs by that time will have been driven up 8-12% per year or double the current rate of inflation in health care. Those are official, on-the-record estimates from government officials with the best access to the most data.
Dave4 Justice,
I want you to understand that I am not saying this country is not now in a deteriorated state that may require “national healthcare.” I am saying it is a step downward and a reflection on the human & societies condition of an increasing dependence on the federal government and less upon the local States and charitable aspect of community caring towars the all powerful state which carries the attitudes of the beast.
regards,
pat
Usually, I disagree with Cindy Tutsch, but here, I find that I generally agree with her sentiments and the values they express – compassion, justice, human solidarity.
The discussion of a topic like immigration is so often fraught with oversimplifications. Stepping back from the issue and examining the it from its myriad perspectives, I think we would find a more nuanced picture emerging. As I can see from the comments from some on this board, echoing those I hear from certain quarters in the wider American society, nuance is often lost, or at the very least, it is hard. What is easier is the black or white, this way or that way, liberal or conservative.
I usually begin with the premise that it is the prerogative of every country to determine whom it will allow to enter its country. Also, for national security purposes, and for general accountability, it makes sense to know who exactly is in your country. In my own case, at the micro-micro level, I like to know who exactly is in my house. My wife often invites people home for Sabbath dinner – often people I don’t know, frankly. However, I usually make it my point of duty to engage each of them in conversation and get to know them. It also makes for good manners, also. So yes, there ought to be a legal process of immigration (and there is) that should be followed.
I also happen to know that migration has been a constant factor throughout history, from the time that humans began their trek out of Africa to other parts of the globe. Human beings have always migrated in search of a better life. The quest to better ones self, provide for family, and freedom itself, has been the story of migration. And the history of migration to what is now the United States of America is no exception. I wish I could hear from more persons an understanding of the plight of people living in certain parts of the developing who lead lives of desperation, and who would risk life and limb to go somewhere else where they can realize their aspirations. Isn’t this the case for the many immigrant groups who came here – the Irish, those from the British Isles, Western, Northern and Eastern Europeans, the Italians, etc?
From everything that I know, it is my opinion that, ideally, people want to stay in their own countries, but, with few exceptions, they make a decision to migrate out of necessity. We can look around at a number of countries and regions that are prosperous, or relatively prosperous, and for the most part, their citizens aren’t coming here. People from Japan, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, etc, aren’t coming here en mass. Also, immigration from a number of developing nations in Asia, Latin America (except Mexico), parts of the Caribbean and even Africa, has also decreased over the years. There seems to be a correlation between improved economic conditions and decreased outward migration.
I think this is a crucial point that often seems to get overlooked. Outward migration (emigration) would be significantly reduced (to even paltry numbers) if the quality of life of citizens in those countries were improved. Lack of opportunity and political repression are the main causes of emigration. Also, if governments are corrupt and resources are either stolen or squandered, there is further impoverishment. And if foreign entities, government or private, facilitate this corruption to preserve an elite within that country, often with the goal of taking its natural resources – resources from which come great wealth – while replenishing a Swiss bank account while the elites look the other way, we can easily see how this will affect the lives of citizens in that country. How about the situation that arises when, due to past colonialism and the rape of a country’s resources, governments receive austerity packages from the multilateral financial agencies (which are usually controlled by the US and Europeans) when they ask for help; those austerity measures usually include further selling off of the countries assets/resources, sharp to barely minimum spending cuts in education and health care, policy prescriptions that work against the interests of those countries, further misery and hardship, and overall, more indebtedness. Innovation and capacity-building are impossible when people are uneducated or have little access to decent healthcare. How about the fact that sometimes workers endure deplorable working conditions, with little or no protections, while working for peanuts for Western multinational corporations which make billions in annual profits and which we support with our buying habits. Often, environmental regulations get thrown out, if there were any in the first place.
What are these citizens to do? I know what I would do if I lived there. If I found that I could do nothing to change the situation, I’d get the hell out and try to find my way into one of those rich countries whose government or corporation contributed to the hardship in my country.
Addressing the above factors on a global scale will not only address the issue of immigration – illegal and legal – but would go a long way to creating a more just world. They will not be addressed by aid or charity as most conservative Christians like to think. The solutions are, yes, political in nature.
I wonder if the following would be seen as politics by some?
Psalm 9:18 For the needy shall not alway be forgotten: the expectation of the poor shall not perish for ever.
Psalm 12:5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
Psalm 10:9 He lieth in wait secretly as a lion in his den: he lieth in wait to catch the poor: he doth catch the poor, when he draweth him into his net.
Psalm 10:10 He croucheth, and humbleth himself, that the poor may fall by his strong ones.
Psalm 10:11 He hath said in his heart, God hath forgotten: he hideth his face; he will never see it.
Psalm 10:12 Arise, O LORD; O God, lift up thine hand: forget not the humble.
Psalm 10:14 Thou hast seen it: for thou beholdest mischief and spite, to requite it with thy hand: the poor committeth himself unto thee; thou art the helper of the fatherless.
Deut 15:7 If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:
Psalm 82:3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Psalm 82:4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
Psalm 140:12 I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and the right of the poor.
Deut 24:14 Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:
James 2:1-13 My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?
If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
T
T,
Where in the above are scriptural references enlisting the help of “the gentile nations” for the building of “the spiritual kingdom of God” rather than individual beleivers attitudes and deeds? That does not prohibit the “gentile nations for doing as they deem best.”
regards,
pat
Hey, Pat
The PRINCIPLES of an Egalitarian Society where justice, equal rights, and freedom from oppression (including economic oppression) prevails, is clearly revealed in the Scriptures above. They also call for us to speak out against atrocities against the poor, which would most definitely include whether the State, Capitalists, Bankers, the Church, Gentile Nations or Despots, etc., are the perpetrators of these said atrocities. Social Justice and Civil Rights doesn’t necessarily have to be Party Politics only but rather Issue based as referred to in this blog.
Anyway, so what if politics may be part of the debacle? It is still about fighting for the economically disadvantaged and oppressed. As a Christian I feel strongly about this. I am an Apolitical individual myself and last voted for the freedom from Racial Discrimination in my Country some years ago. I have experienced first hand what it is to be chased away and threatened with arrest and charged as a criminal for swimming at a beach which was restricted for a certaion skin colour only. I remember asking the person making the threat of arrest whether the water would turn ‘black’ if we swam in it. It was humiliating and made me very angry. I remember been arrested while still a teen with some friends for been in the wrong area and having the wrong skin colour. Yeah I know what it feels to be oppressed.
Worse than this was that certain jobs were restricted for the fortunate skin colour whilst educational and economic opportunities hugely favoured the same skin colour and their people group. What made it all the more wicked was that the oppressive aggresors called themselves Christians yet preached racism from the same pulpits.
So Yeah I say True Christians should stand up and make there voice be heard at least on behalf of the poor and needy which includes the elderly and children, obviously though in a Christlike manner as would befit a Soldier of the Cross.
The JS WORLD lies somewhere between the First and the Third World and these people need God, Love and Healthcare too. Hey, what about those Native Americans in Canada and the US whose land was stolen from them — they were systematically massacred and herded into ‘reserves’ like animals? Where’s the healthcare for them? Huh!
I would however strongly also supplement this fight for the poor with our Seventh-day Adventist Health Message which focuses on the Preventative rather than the costly Curative Healthcare which will at least give many a better quality of life and allow them to die with dignity because of their hope in Christ.
Anyway [Rom 3:29]”Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,”
Peace
T
T & Al,
So the problems all over the world were caused by the US and as such they must have no immigration laws that are to be enforced…since they caused all the socio-economic problems “in Mexico” and elsewhere.Rubbish.
As I have pointed out, my wife is from the Phillipines and it took 5 yrs. to get her citizenship…and we did it through the “legal” immigration process. One can work legally as a citizen to increase the annual allotment for legal immigrants but to ignore immigration laws creates “lawlessness” and disrespect for civil law.
God being a God of the gentiles has nothing to do with national immigration laws.
Let me offer an anology. What if everyone with a lower income than you wanted to come and live with you and share your wealth. Now you may be able to incorporate a few but there are limits to what you can allow. May I say a nation can only accomodate a certain amount of immigration and provide a continuing job base and benefits for it’s own citizens. This is the reasoning behind “immigration limits.”
It is valid.
regards,
pat
Pat Travis said:
“So the problems all over the world were caused by the US and as such they must have no immigration laws that are to be enforced…since they caused all the socio-economic problems “in Mexico” and elsewhere.”
This would be a misunderstanding of my post, or an indication that you didn’t read it in it’s entirety – granted, it’s a bit long.
Philippines…not as previously spelled.
“a nation can only accomodate a certain amount of immigration and provide a continuing job base and benefits for it’s own.”
What is that magic number of new bodies in the U.S.? And during what period of time?
Just by normal birth rates, the U.S. is constantly growing in numbers and most of the new immigrants can find employment in work that citizens will not do. Here in California, and other southern and southwestern states, agricultural work is almost completely done by immigrants. If those who would prefer it be done by U.S. citizens, be prepared for double or more the current prices being paid. Farmers must have a ready work force at certain times and these workers are ready and willing–something U.S. citizens will not do.
Many do come and work for a while and then return home. Their estimated addition to GDP cannot be ignored.
There are also many highly educated professionals who are most welcomed here, particularly in Silicon Valley–and have started new businesses and become millionaires. Just like interracial marriage, an integrated work force results in more innovation than limiting to only U.S. natives.
T,
PS.
The OT references of yours speak of the violation of covenant law in Israel by the prophets. It is specific for the parameters of Israels covenant responsibility.
James likewise says nothing about a nations right to have immigration laws. I do beleive in equal application of all laws to all citizens however…regardless of race,religion or previous national origin.
Justice should favor neither rich or poor by the way…the same laws should apply to all. Charity towards others less fortunate is Mercy & compassion not “Justice.”
Stephen, “the privately owned farms leave the edges for the poor” has been modernized
from the Israelite situation to the taxes which goes to the poor, as well as other things. The Israelites had no taxes, only their tithe, which was only 10%. That would be a small percentage of tax for most people today.
Elaine,
You’re missing an important dimension of the Biblical model for charity: the personal relationship that develops between the giver and the recipient. It is one thing to feed someone. It is quite another to get to know the people you help. The first result of every one of Jesus’ miracles was that it improved someone’s life. Your effectiveness at helping someone is magnified and multiplied when you have a personal relationship with them.
The problem with that, and why many countries moved to a centralised system of charity, is that it is easy for charity to depend on the one needing charity meeting your expectations. People who don’t do what churches think they should, people who don’t live as the wealthy think they should, can easily end up not getting charity. That is why governments were persuaded to move into offering assisatance on the basis of need, not on the basis of whether certain people thought thay ‘deserved’ to be helped. Outside the US this move was often supported by the evangelical and non-conformist churches, and there is still a tendency for those churches to lean much further left than most US evangelicals would ever have nightmares about doing. The SDA church, having mostly a middle class membership, tends to be an exception to that.
So, what are you going to do to practice charity according to God’s plan?
Elaine,
Israel did have taxes under it’s kings on top of tithe. One could argue as to the original covenant imposing taxes however God warned Israel of how a “king like all the other nations” would impose taxes.1 Sam.8. Kings were anticipated in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants but they were limited in what they could do by covenant.
There were poor/levite and stranger “tithes” collected to entertain them every 3 years. Also they were to lay aside portions to be used for the festival travels.
Present taxation is simply the “right” of a nation according to Rom.13. It does not mean all it’s “taxation” procedures are just or “equally applied.” Some suggest these “tithes” plust king taxes came to about 25% of income. However Lev.19:15 neither rich or poor were to have preference before the law.
regards,
pat
Pat,
If “present taxation is simply the right of a nation” then what makes its “’taxation’ procedures…just or “’equally’ applied” in a democratic or representative republic (such as the United States) is clearly in the eye of the beholder/voter. You and others clearly are of the belief that the intentional directing of some of the tax receipts toward assistance to the elderly and to the demonstrably (though admittedly relatively) poor, is unfair, collectivist, and/or sinful.
Some of you apparently have conveniently forgotten that this same government does not tax churches, and provides tax incentives for individual charitable contributions for the purpose of encouraging charitable activity. Churches and individual believers cannot use the government or tax policies as an excuse for not doing more than they/we do to alleviate the effects of American poverty.
I have a passport too. Had to pay the government to get it.
But as a Adventist that truly believes that Jesus will be coming “soon” I want to think beyond the man made borders and wonder what heaven really thinks about these issues. I know from the Bible that God actually punished nations that deliberately set upon the refugees from Egypt.
Israel was told to be kind to the “stranger”. And the “stranger” is even protected by the Creator in our most honored commandment. God recognized the stranger as well as servant girls and animals. They were NOT to be mistreated.
The Roman church has put out the cartoon character of St. Peter at the gate to heaven allowing or not allowing in those that have died. Has this idea sneaked into the Adventist church and caused a suspicion that God will require a passport into heaven?
As a church why are we not demanding health care for everyone? Are we just limited to a 5 day plan to stop smoking or little seminars on eating veggies? We have created large hospitals and at one time the purpose was for healing bodies and saving the lost.
Our selfishness is going to cost us our “passports” into heaven.
Ali,
It’s interesting that many that want the church to push for socio-economic programs are “fearful” of a “Dominion” theology. A dominion theology is about as likely as Long island being covered by water from “global warmming.”
It seems to me that “those” pushing for so many government programs on a church “moral basis” may have a “plan of their own” for church state union…while those they are so fearful of actually seek “limited government.”
Like to explain that oxymoran?
I find it interesting because of the churches goals in association with the National Socialist party in pre-WWII Germany of course for societies well being.
Limited Government is good and necessary…History, I think reveals that too much is bad and stiffles choices and individual initiative.
regards,
pat
Pat,
You may not have noticed that many who are calling for so-called limited government are also quite often the vocal advocates of faith based government initiatives, and government subsidization of parochial education, and of increased police powers, and of the government being in the private morality business, etc.
Only libertarians—who are against such things—are for “limited government.” Social liberals and social conservatives both want activist government; they just want the government active in differing areas.
Those who want their religion—euphemistically characterized as their “faith”—to influence society, the state, the “culture,” governmental policy, etc., call them what you will, will not rest unless and until they are “successful.”
The church (meaning all churches) should not take a public position on political propositions, but as individuals we are responsible for out brother, (Good Samaritan?)are we not? This would mean that we would offer aid in the ways possible and taxes are the simplest way to help others to protect life, limb and property. Why is it more important to protect our highways from accidents than to protect persons from the ravages of broken limbs and diseases that can be treated, even cured?
Do we “love our neighbors” while letting their house burn down for lack of fire protection (paid for by our taxes) but let his children die for lack of health care? No one can pay enough to cover an expensive heart transplant or even by-pass surgery, yet with everyone paying a small portion, together, it can help those with very costly treatment options. This is the way in which insurance has worked since its inception:
Wide coverage for everyone, enables the truly needy to be compensated. And who knows when he will be the one in need?
Currently, we who can afford insurance pay for everyone who can’t, but it is more costly for us than if everyone paid. Just as taxes are paid by everyone, health insurance could be paid similar to vehicle registration, sales and income taxes and more. The many countries that have healthcare for all their citizens are not the ones who start wars, invade countries and attempt to police the world. Which nation does that?
Pat,
“It’s interesting that many that want the church to push for socio-economic programs are “fearful” of a “Dominion” theology. A dominion theology is about as likely as Long island being covered by water from “global warmming.””
Since I am new to this board and discussion…
I will have to base my read about where people are coming from by their words.
From that statement alone, I’d say you just don’t know much about what is happening in the world of the Religious Self-Righteous. Nearly the entire leadership of the Republican party has been taken over by those that would de-construct the Government of this country and Reconstruct it into a theocracy. If you are suggesting that this is not going to happen…then you are also not a student of the writings of EGW and the Great Controversy. While a goodly number of Adventists have been sitting in their living rooms waiting for the Sunday Law to come busting through their front door…the back door has been opened and the thing that they fear the most is coming in quietly to sit down with them.
The Evangelical, Roman Catholic, Mormon (Spirtualism) have joined hands to agree on points that they hold in common. They fully intend to overturn laws of this land and they are in common agreement to enforce their beliefs on the rest of us. They are in agreement about Abortion, Gays, Guns, States Rights, Prayer in Public Schools and that this country was formed as a Christian Nation.
When the Rapture does not happen then the popular preachers in their mega churches will come together to declare that although the teachers of the Rapture were good folk, they were wrong and the nearly unknown theory of the Rushdoony, Groval Norquist, James Kennedy, Pat Robertson James Dobson crowd will be declared the real doctrine of the real Christian church.
It won’t be Sunday laws that come first. It will be social engineering on a huge scale. They are going to go after those that they have been bellowing about for years…the Humanist, the liberal, the progressive, the atheists, the agnostic, and then the “others”. The Hindu, Muslim,the Buddhist, etc. And the whole world will be converted to their cause. The last ones to go after are those that are Christian that will not accept their laws and mandates and their version of the 10 commandments.
And by the way… Since one of the plagues is a terrible heating of the world… then perhaps you better rethink “Long island being covered by water from “global warmming” is a long shot. How about “islands disappearing”?
I suggest that you watch the movie Al Gore put out.. An Inconvenient Truth…
Also, Rabbi James Rudin’s book. The Baptizing of America
ALIA,
It appears to me you have been reading the wrong books and we see a different picture. That some may want various moral commitments in society is not “Dominion/Recontructionist” theology. Even among a small segment of Presbyterians Rushdoony and the small segment of “Dominionist” is extremely small. Post-Mil is ot the main venue of Presb. by Amil.is.
And, back to my question…how do you associate the oxymoron of “limited government” & the “conservative movement” with the “dominion” and control which is actually much more prevalent with “collectivist/large government” mentality?
Are you assuming Gore actually knows what he is talking about? :>)
On vacation…occasionally look in this week…
regards,
pat
PS.
By the way, for the most part the RCC has always at it’s leadership favored a “large government” for social programs of it’s liking.
That is not to say there are not many conservative RC which their are. Ludwig Von Mises, an economist, in his book “Human Action”, points out historically and in dogma that the church leadership is not in favor of limited government or “free enterprise.”
This part of the reason for the RCC early association with Hitler and Mussolini and such things as Germany’s “Positive Christianity.”
Control needs powerful central government. That inclusive religion and the state may join for the desire of the social well being of society…I do not doubt. That it comes from the “classical theologically conservative Protestant evangelical community”…I do doubt!
Pat,
Could it be that the historic model of Christianity and church leadership and their pursuit gives us, not a model for how the church is to function in society, but how how God does NOT want it to function? That our focus should be on ministry empowered by the Holy Spirit instead of pursuing power?
I more qiuck point as I go out the door ALIA,
Read,
“1986, Economic Justice for All: On Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy U.S. Bishops.
Compare with Paul Heyne’s rebuttal in this article.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=916
I’ve been there done this since 1986 AliA
Regards,
pat
Pat,
Oh dear… I’m afraid that I won’t be reading your suggestions for fear that they are the “wrong books”.
As to Al Gore. I threw that comment in just to test where the wind was blowing. Your response didn’t disappoint, it was just what I expected. “Are you assuming Gore actually knows what he is talking about? :>)” Yes, I do know that he knows what he is talking about. He has tapped into the science and those that really know. If you would ever bother to watch the film your eyes would also show you that he speaks the truth. (Kilimanjaro’s ice cap is nearly gone. Rivers, lakes, inland bodies of water are dust.
The world is still drying up from the Flood and where the ozone layer has a hole, the Australians have the highest rate of skin cancer.)
You on the other hand sound like a mouth piece for the Fox crowd and even a “ditto head”.
There is a reason that the Religious Right and the Repugs claim that there is no weather change. First for their corporate sponsers and then because they have preached the gospel of the Rapture claiming that it doesn’t matter if every tree is cut down and the entire world is a over heated wasteland. After all they will be out of here and protected from ever going through a time of trouble.
There has been a shift though. Little by little the preachers are seeing that there isn’t a Rapture happening and maybe they will be here for a 1000 years so they had better take care of Mother Earth.
As to the Catholic’s teaching a social gospel then of course, right or wrong we should not see the logic and benefits for humanity. Lead us on to Capitalism and God bless the IMF and the stolen assets of the poor. Their land, trees, water, oil must be taken from them for the wealth of richer nations.
Jesus taught Social Gospel. The early church was designed to take care of the poor, the widow and orphans. Those that had gave to those that didn’t. Their daily needs were met. Jesus outlined exactly those that would be saved. Nothing about the selfish. He did have his harshest words for the hypocrites. Those well educated, self righteous, churchmen of his day. In comfort they condemned and the woman that they brought before Jesus is a perfect example of their characters.
It is amazing to me that Adventist persons are arguing against social justice, and against kindness to strangers.
It is really true that the Conservative have concrete thinking. May God help us!
Pat
“how do you associate the oxymoron of “limited government” & the “conservative movement” with the “dominion” and control which is actually much more prevalent with “collectivist/large government” mentality?”
This is an easy one.
Ronald Reagan the one afraid of the government coming to help…grew the government like no other up to that time.
Sounding off about the government is a staple of a certain segment of society.
It really got it’s steam up to and during the Civil War and after. Those that want less government also was a majority rule. They do not want the Federal Government to protect those in a minority. That is what it boils down to.
The Dominionists have been taking over the government for the last 30 years. They have found their way into local seats and state and national. This is what we are seeing since the 2010 election of the so called T party. Those guys are Dominionists. If you think that they are a small little off shoot bunch, you are not aware of what is going on.
The majority on the SCOTUS are Dominionists. They are Roman Catholic.
Dominionists in the name of limited government are out to destroy all social programs in this country. And the public schools, and the military among other services funded by the tax payer. Their claim that the country is going broke serves their purposes to scare the uninformed. Tax breaks for the wealthy and wars that should be stopped are draining the treasure from this land.
Mean time, the focus is on social issues or value issues.
And by the way – There are three very huge sets of churchmen that are Dominionists. The Roman Catholic, The Evangelical, and the Mormon. Each and everyone of them believe that there is no separation of church and state. They all want a theocracy. That is not a small number.
It is amazing that those who want “limited government” are the most vocal pro-life and opponents of same-sex marriage. This is not limited government, but most intrusive and invasive government into one’s most personal lives. The hypocrisy of it all!
Coupled with absolute opponents of any corporate or high-income tax cuts (“don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree”) and yet who are the most vocal hawks in D.C.? Plenty of $$ for war; none for healthcare for the needy!
ALIA,
Do you recall who historically was in favor of the magazine “Christian Century?” The “theological progressives” or “t. conservatives?” Who at that time started “Christianity Today” magazine.
Was it the “t. progressives” that made up the “German church” that accepted Hitler OR “the more t.conservative–confessing church” that opposed Hitler?
My point is it has been in the 20th century the “theological progressives” that have most sought the “growing state” for the social funding purposes of the state…they choose the “Dominion role of triumphalism on earth.”
Reagan’s error was that he thought or implied by lowering taxes that would stop government spending. The opposite occurs unless at the same time the nation has “sound money” that prevents the nation from merely extending more debt or “inflating/debasing” the currency. So Reagan was in error because both those aspects were not dealt with at the same time. The same goes for today for any “populist” who merely wants to lower taxes.” No problem, the country merely creates more deficit soending and QE1, QE2,…and futere QE3+. So don’t talk to me about Rep. or Dem., I am referring to “limited government” as understood by Jefferson and Madison and “Classical Liberalism.”
Not the “social liberalism” of today OR those religious ideas that seek the “financial help” of the state for their own use or social imperatives of the nation.
Did you read the “Bishops Pastoral letter?” Who sides with that…religious progressives, mainline Protestants or… religious conservatives? It is rather clear my friend.
regards,
pat
Pat Travis,
It should be noted that theological progressives/liberals can differ very significantly from political or social progressives/liberals; as can theological conservatives from political and/or social conservatives.
There are participants on this site who are clearly socially conservative, yet just as clearly theologically liberal. The inverse of this is probably the way that I am perceived; that is, socially liberal yet theologically conservative.
Stephen,
I do not doubt there is a continuum containing all types of possibilities…from anarchy to total government.
My point is that “theological conservatives” ,not to be specifically related to SDA’s, in general are opposed to large central government and favor “limited gov.” whearas “theological progressives” in general seem quite comfortable and “trusting” of large central government socio-economic practices conforming to their “socio-economic-religious” objectives.
This “progressive/liberal” religious attitude could also be construed as having “theocratic goals” on creating the kingdom “in the now” not much different than the goals of “Christian Century Mag” in the early 20th century.
regards,
pat
Your generalizations Pat are no doubt colored by your ideological leanings and by your conversations and experiences with theological progressives whom you may have encountered or witnessed. My point is that you apparently have not noticed that there are millions of theological conservatives who desire to win what they perceive to be a culture war in the United States; by means of gaining control of the levers of governmental power with the intentions of winning America back for God. Further, they see this as their calling and destiny in that they believe that this country was founded as a Christian nation and that the country has since lost its moral bearings.
Now, if you doubt this to be the case, or if you doubt that such people are serious, or that they have much of a chance to succeed, then I would invite you to visit the United States from wherever it is that you may reside.
To be sure, there are theological liberals who would like to bring about an egalitarian utopia; but the theocrats and “dominionists” are almost exclusively conservatives. Most theological liberals that I’ve encountered hardly believe that there is one true and living God; much less that He wants them to win their nation for Him.
Stephen Foster,
You absolutely “get it”! The amazing thing about the Dominionist/Reconstructionist is that they operate in broad daylight! Their plans are printed and Youtube is full of their speakers.
I find it interesting that it has been religious and secular Jews that have been doing the most warning about what they have planned for “the rest of us”. Adventists should be front and center in bringing attention to their diabolical plans. Liberty magazine and Lincoln Steed have been offering good articles now and then. But it isn’t enough.
Actually, my friend, it is you who “gets it.” However, since you say that you are new to this site, perhaps you should be made aware that many here do not believe that historical Seventh-day Adventist eschatology is accurate or legitimate.
As to Ellen White and The Great Controversy, many here perceive that to merely be a misguided and plagiarized product of the times in which she lived, and dismiss whatever they opt to dispose of—because of disagreement–by invoking the plagiarism theme.
This is why when they see what she has written actually occurring before their very eyes, they ignore it; or concoct other explanations for what they are witnessing. Another reason for this denial is that there are inconvenient political or worldview implications to that which appears in Chapter 36.
I just returned from a weekend in Chandler, AZ. While there I read a book written by A.T. Jones. Now there was someone that really “got” it. I’ve never read anyone that could explain Religious Liberty and Freedom of Conscience as clearly as he did. The book: Civil Government And Religion: Or Christianity And The American Constitution (1889).
If you read that one and then read: The Baptizing of America The Religious Right’s Plans *** For The Rest of Us*** By Rabbi James Rudin. You will have a very clear picture of what has been going on in the US for over a hundred years.
While those that were clamoring for Sunday laws during the later 1880’s were very open and up front about what they were doing. That was the issue that they went after. In Arkansas they put Sunday laws to work and only went after the strange people called Seventh day Adventists. The salon owner that opened on Sunday or others that did work were left in peace. Not the Adventists.
Today the over zealous Dominionists are not putting Sunday laws up front.
They have abortion, gays, prayer in public school, and other issues that are front and center. They are just doing the same work only attacking in a less direct way. They may not even suspect that Sunday laws will even be that important to them. But after they work on and gain victory on those other or first issues that they have in common…they will soon enough go for Sunday closing laws. But by that time any protests will be in vain. “Good” people will have averted their eyes from those that are attacked because it isn’t them.
When Adventists join forces with Mormons, Evangelicals, Roman Catholics to do all they can to prevent civil rights to individuals or groups of the “other”…then they will not have any moral legs to stand on when their cherished rights are taken away.
As to EGW. She has a lot that she stated about Dominionism. Satan is claiming dominion over God’s created earth and all that is in it. He will seek it through those that claim to be doing Christ’s work.
Anyone that thinks that this is not happening needs to do some home work.
The relationship of theological conservatives or liberal sto political views can vary a lot from one country to another. The alliance between evangelicals and the conservative parties in the US is a result of historical events, and is not necessarily duplicated elsewhere. In Britain and its ‘colonies’ the evangelical churches often formed alliances with the more liberal parties, and while the influence of US evangelicalism has lessened that, it is still not uncommon. It may be because the distrust of goevernment common in the US has not been so common elsewhere. Social democracy is also much more acceptable to conservative Christians outside the US. Not saying either side is right, just that the US situation is not the only way it can be.
Stephen wrote:
“To be sure, there are theological liberals who would like to bring about an egalitarian utopia; but the theocrats and “dominionists” are almost exclusively conservatives. Most theological liberals that I’ve encountered hardly believe that there is one true and living God; much less that He wants them to win their nation for Him.”
The one thing you forget is that there are many political liberals who care little about religion but see the use of religion as a way for them to gain power. For example there is currently political advertisements against conservatives because they hold to the capitalist ideas of Ayn Rand. So the radio ad plays Rand decrying Religion and God. How can these Republican leaders hold such a person or that person works in such a high regard the ad asserts. The ad and the foundation that put it out receive large amounts of money from George Soros. A noted political leftist and atheist. The real problem here is that many people who are politically left don’t know that they are being used. They don’t know what is propaganda from truth and they don’t take the time to research anything. And in Adventism they hold on to their old time stereotypes about Christians being the enemy so that the religious right is expected to take over and take away freedom even though historically it has been the large socialist and communist states that have done the most to remove liberty from people. In todays world there is precious little threat from the Christian right to take away peoples rights. They may fight against new rights such as gay marriage and abortion but those were not really rights in any historical way, just the new supposed rights of the very recent past.
So you can name George Soros as a “noted politcal leftist and atheist”. And who else can you claim is going for this power take over? Ridicules! First of all.. the airways are owned by the Right. In case you were noticing Rupert Murdoch owns an amazing number of news sources all over the world. Corporations are running the other major news outlets. Can you name one liberal that has the radio time and markets that Rush Limbough and his ilk have? There was one measly little station outlet going. Air America but it is gone. MSNBC has 3 Progressive voices.
The power in this country is held by the Banksters and Wall Street gangsters. They are not liberal or progressive. It is silly talk to try to come up with a Marxists motive for Progressives.
It will be the Conservatives that have motives for power that are going to win for awhile.
It is not the Progressive that is trying to tear down the wall of separation. And it certainly is not the Progressive that is demanding a theocracy.
And for your information. The Kingdom Now crowd are right wingers.
AliAgins:
You are correct the conservatives have radio, liberals have most television, the major TV networks and cable news aside from Fox, the liberals have the vast majority of print news both newspapers and news magazines but you just ignore them and people like Stephen who has been constantly shown to be wrong on his assertions in this thread think I am the one being propagandized. You really have to wonder about some people and their complete misuse of information.
I’d really be interested in learning which liberal newspapers you are referring to. I’d love to subscribe. I get the very right wing Press Enterprise that is owned by the Dallas Morning News. Not liberal.
http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html
Myths of a liberal media.
We shall see Stephen,
The mainline churches and RCC are much more in line with the world zeitgeist than the odious “theological right.”
Those “inclusive entities” are acceptable TO A WORLD spirit that is allergic to the idea of Christ being the only way to salvation.
I took AliA’s bait because he asserted his view of a dominionist “theological rt. which I still maintain is about as likely as NYC going under water from anthropogenic global warming. The progrssive left both theologically and politically also seek a kingdom “in the now.”
regards,
pat
Pat Travis,
You have noted that “the mainline churches and RCC are much more in line with the world zeitgeist than the odious ‘theological right.’” The problem with this line of reasoning, of course, is that the theological right is at issue here only to the extent that it is also the political right—and then thinks and acts as the “theocratic “right.
Further, the dominionist theocratic right actually includes members from mainline churches, the RCC, and fundamentalist/evangelical denominations in the United States; and obviously, in some parts of the international community, certain Moslems and even certain Jews.
As for Ron Corson, the fact that the political movement known as the “Christian right” has recently (and/or currently) had particular social issues in its sights or on its agenda is catalytic to the movement in terms of generating motivation to acquire political power, electoral success, and governmental control.
You, Ron Corson, have a template of a conspiracy theory for how things are developing; and yet claim that others are being propagandized and do not know it. The template from which I operate is another conspiracy theory for how things are developing; and I believe that you are being propagandized and do not know it.
Stephen,
You, I suggest, are uninformed as what is the “theological right” vs. theological left” and the classical liberal vs. “social liberal” of today so it is hard to communicate with you and for you to understand my “deeper” meaning.
It is easy to be a “progressive” on the emotional level but “clssical conservatives” have to think of reality and consequences.
regards,
pat.
As you may have previously noted Pat, it was not me who disagreed with you in your distinguishing classical liberalism from social liberalism the other day. That was our friend William Noel, as the record will show. (Something suggested to me at the time to have you correct him on that.)
Classical liberalism is indeed more akin to laissez faire libertarianism than it is with contemporary social liberalism. This is, however, not germane to our discussion as our disagreement centers around the area of what each of us mean with reference to the “theological” left and “theological” right; and specifically to what extent each influences or seeks to influence public policy, and what are the resulting repercussions and ramifications.
Many speak of immigration without not even spending the time and doing some research but the only ” information ” they have is “foxnews “. So sad . Cindy , thank you for this excellent article . I worked so hard to get an education , and I remembered finishing my college and getting my first job , I was making 60 dollars a month working as a teacher , one of the saddest things was to see my Mom doing Laundry for other people because what I was making was not enough to support her . To make matters worse , there were two earthquakes in 2001 , our small house was destroyed and we lost everything we have . so on January 13 2001 I left my country and came here to the states illegally .If I wanted to come here legally , I needed to have properties , money and other things which I didn’t have . I remember arriving to Portland and calling some ” friends” who had been in El salvador for an evangelistic meeting. Somehow they were not happy and then I learned that somehow , to love “your neighbor” doesn’t apply to all situations . They were the first who turned their back on me . Fast forward , I was able to fix my immigration situation. Later I went back to school and decided to become a Pastor . So when I read Cindy blog , it really touch my heart . In God’s eyes we are all equal , he gave his blood for all of us .
Fred,
Your experience sad to say is not an exception. There have been brothers and sisters from Africa and Latin America and South Pacific that I personally know about that really believe that if they come to America that their Christian “family” will reach out to them and help them just survive. I also have experienced a “mission” trip to Nicaragua where we very blessed Americans wore our worst clothes to do dirty work building a church but when it actually came to interaction with the people something was missing. There was a toilet on the job site but it didn’t have a seat. I sent someone with 5 bucks to hardware to buy one. And one of the American women told me that I should not have done that that the women of the family would prefer not to have a seat! I told her that there isn’t a woman in the world that would not want a seat on a toilet. But that is just a tiny example of how rich and proud we are against different cultures.
I’ve made friends with people from Africa and through their eyes have seen how they perceive their treatment by their “brothers and sisters in Christ”. We have a long way to go for a piece of humble pie.
William and Stephen,
A good review of “classical liberalism” vs. modern social-liberalism most often practiced by the contemporary Democratic party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
regards,
pat
Stephen,
I am aware of the “LIberty Mag” complex of always associating EGW’s warnings with “the religious rt.” It might be of interest it did not exist in her day but she warned of her understanding could have occured around the Chicago world fair when really just the mainline protestants existed.
Like wise the tower of babel was a “religious group” of people who shook their hand at God to created “their kingdom” on earth…I suggest this is the focus and spirituality of “modern Babylon.”
I suggest, properly understood it is not “theological conservative protestants” that would best be related to her understanding of “apostate protestantism” but the mainline theological liberal churches of today that embrace such things as “higher criticism.”
regards,
pat
Allow me to remind you that the only segments of the American political class who legitimately claim to favor limited government are those of the libertarian variety, of the classic liberalism tradition. Social conservatives are as different from these types as are social liberals.
Try as you might to invest the theological left with political clout; the fact of the matter is that the theological left in the United States is not nearly as influential in the public policy arena as is the socially conservative theo-CRATIC political right. People like Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis, and whatever organizations they are associated with, are not exactly household names; whereas Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family political arm, and the late Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and their ideological and political descendant organizations (Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition and Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council) certainly are. (Not to mention the late D. James Kennedy’s organization, and the Franklin Grahams and John Hagees of the world.)
Liberty Magazine’s bias or “complex” is toward shedding light on the dangers that EGW pointed to in chapter 36 of the GC. That should be your/our concern; as opposed to being concerned about whether the dangers are on the political right (or left). I submit that those of you, who are emotionally, intellectually, or culturally invested in the political right, have a “complex” that currently obscures the painfully obvious.
The only part of what may be “termed” the theological left with any clout in this country have been those in and from the “civil rights” community; and these people, though politically liberal, are almost uniformly theologically conservative. Their influence has therefore been largely limited to the realm of racial inequality.
Finally, you have perhaps unwittingly presented us with the quintessential false choice in that “apostate Protestantism” is surely comprised of both” theological conservative Protestants” who are effectively (and conveniently) ignorant of the essence of Protestantism, as well as those members of “mainline theological liberal churches” who are likewise ignorant.
Stephen,
That the political left OR right can be used as a “utilitarian” political tool is obvious. Cindy’s comment was basically about a federal healthcare program & immigration. I disagree with her on both issues. That’s ok but her position does not by a biblical or EGW position neccessitate her’s is WWJD. That is the “drivel” I object to concerning political matters.
Where is this Christian coalition and political right take over we have always been warned of by Liberty Mag? Their position is odious to the majority of americans. Now as to their position on “limited government”, in the “socio-economic” realm of the federal government provisions for social programs…they are with out a doubt more in alignemnt with “classical liberalism”…limited government than the more “liberal” Campola, Wallis etc.
When the government is the “main provider” of services then the government can quickly decide who can “buy or sell.” Can they not? This simply does not occur under “limited government.” Can you show me where in “economic history” Stephen?
Hitler used the “liberal church” in utilitarian means to support state purposes in “social reconstruction.” Which group described above might be more conducive to such ideas? The “religious left, middle,general population” or the “religious rt?” I suggest NOT the latter.
Now, I am not “in the religious rt” but simply think their being used continually as “strawman” for a “takeover” by SDA’s/LIberty mag and the secular socio-liberal government types is simply without vallidity. As a rule they are disliked because they oppose federalism and desire certain “general moral” concepts in society. That certainly is not without foundation in the “founders of the US Republic.”
Perhaps many surprises remain for us all…but the religious rt, at best will only be a partial utilitarian player in the “big picture.”
The main driving “spirituality” is creating the “kingdom…both secular or spiritual” in “the now.”
Christ, as the only path to salvation will not be an allowed mentality in that scenario. I assure you, as “Christians will be hated on all nations” for Christ’s namesake. That is the issue Stephen…so don’t fall too in love with the “powers that be” for provision.
regards,
pat
This theme of Hitler revisionism that you recurrently lapse into is a dark alley down which I will not venture. Suffice it to say that if I were to draw parallels of propaganda, nationalism, and the demonization of whole ethno-religious segments of a society to the Nazi regime and those on the “right” (in my posts), it would start something unpleasant to say the least. That said, it is curiously contradictory to admit on the one hand “that the political left OR right can be used as a ‘utilitarian’ political tool;” and then on the other, to claim that is unlikely that the conservative church will be so used—when it is conservatives who almost exclusively lobby for and defend a variety of faith based initiatives and public funding of religious education.
What position of the Christian [C]oalition and political right” is “odious to the majority of [A]mericans,” Pat? Is it their position on school prayer, or state support of private parochial K-12 education, or their positions against gay marriage, or abortion? Which of their positions are sufficiently “odious to the majority of Americans” so as to prevent any who espouse such positions from enjoying electoral success on a statewide or federal level?
In point of fact, a “take over” of the government, if that was what was feared by SDA religious liberty and “secular socio-liberal government types,” would only require a few “religious socio-conservative types” to succeed to U.S. Senate seats in next year’s elections, and for another religious socio-conservative “type” to win the presidency; and for “those” (types) currently in office to largely remain there. However this is not what is feared or guarded against in the pages of Liberty or by the NAD PARL. Instead, particular judicial and legislative actions and/or policies—not electoral results—are closely monitored; as it should be.
Perhaps we are observing things from two different models or templates. Admittedly, my view is shaped by an historical Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of Revelation 13: 11-17, and by The Great Controversy. If, as you observe and analyze things, you are using a different model or template, then we will not agree; and, sadly, may have to wait and see.
After reading a number of these posts–it’s just overwhelming what you started, Cindy–it does seem to come up as a political issue where many engage in sterotyping.
I aggree with your original post and the compassion you have strived to express. Such an atitude is in keeping with the Old Testament God and with Jersus’ ministry. I am reminded of the judgment scene in Matthew 25, that indicates the major character qualification that humans are judged on is compassion.
It would certainly be ideal if all had access to health care, but as Trevor Hammond said (he had a good post), we need to practice prevention and the country needs to be educated on it like they were on smoking, which has decreased. (I really get angry when I hear Michele Obama’s preventive health care initiatives mocked–too many people what to go on their selfish and destructive ways.) Our church has a large role to play in history on this point, and they must be willing to reach out to those they think are “new age” or other varying belief systems that hold human life and animal life as valuable. But we need more encouragement from our church leaders than what we are getting.
The problem I find with the proposed federal health insurance program is that it is not being planned very well and doesn’t address the wrongs in the health system at present. I’m afraid it will end up costing lives and leaving poor people and all people without adequate care. There aren’t even enough doctors, and that is hardly addressed. Compassion must consider the results of rash decisions that aren’t clearly laid out.
Both of these issues have practical results that need to be considered or they will backfire and hurt the people they are trying to help. It’s unfortunate that the poor and the alien are being used by politicians on both sides and polalrizing our country. And big corporations and labor unions are also part of the problem of greed as well as the drug dealers on the street.
I do agree with all the posts that call for compassion and working to help the disadvantaged in our country and in our personal sphere of influence.
Note: I see that the few women on here are for compassion!
I enjoyed Cindy Tutsch’s nicely written article. Congratulations for taking on such a controversial subject there in the United States. I am in Costa Rica and for about 40 years have been a missionary here, mostly with the SDA org, but since 2003 with Missionary Partners Foundation.
I pretty much read through all this string of lively blogs this Sabbath afternoon. As I read along through the many remarks I noticed that there seems to be basically three groups of people represented. In terms of US politics I mused: this blogger is Republican, another Republican, yet another Republican, now here’s a Democrat, Republican, Republican, Democrat…. So there we have it, two of the three groups. The preponderance is Republican, and that is very reflective of the WASP US SDA population in general. It is healthy that there are Democrats still sprinkled in. I wonder how many of these Republicans are into Tea Partying? Though a number of you really lovely people express the prudent idea of keeping “politics” out of the church (meaning party politics, not SDA politics) nevertheless it is no easy thing to accomplish. The times I have visited churches in the States in recent years it generally takes only about 10 minutes (I’ve timed it) before somebody comes sidling up and lays a vegetarian curse on the nation’s President, or seeks to reveal a wealth of knowledge about how the current administration is leading the country and the world to ruin.
The third group I noticed among the bloggers is a very tiny group, and I didn’t really see anyone responding to their entries. Some of these come from abroad and have firsthand knowledge about life and its struggles in certain lands where most of you would really not want to be stuck permanently. Thanks Al Good for your thoughtful remarks. Trevor Hammond has possibly come closer than many others looking into the face of poverty right there in North America. Trevor’s leaping-to-his-feet response to the idea of bringing relief to the poor sank deep into my heart. My life is dedicated to that work too, especially sponsoring children and youth here in Central America who long to get a good education. For many years we have also been coming to the aid of abandoned mothers with children to raise in the most dire conditions—these are Adventist families for the most part. I truly loved Salvadoran Fred Reinosa’s heart-touching message valiantly composed in his second language. Dear families like his abound here in these Central American countries. You have no idea how much recession and its tailing fear have negatively impacted practical missionary work as we try to help all those we can.
I know the heartache of families here separated from loved ones gone to the States. Believe me, most of those that go up there would really rather be with their wives, parents, and children back home, if only conditions were better and they could make an adequate living and enjoy peace with just a touch of prosperity. Are you aware that some of those leaving here in the last 10 or 15 years heading your way have been SDA pastors? Have you met a few of them? In certain lands here there has been serious spiritual abuse by denominational leaders. This probably is not the place to go into that sad story.
So, dear tri-partite blogging North American Adventists (or not), prayers, patience, and practical beneficence is what I would like to lay on your great generous hearts. And while I am at it, I’d like to request fewer forwarded religio-political e-mails; almost every day I receive that sort of thing from Adventists in the USA. Good spiritual encouragement and helpful kindness of the tangible sort is what is really needed.
Mike Lynch
Sttephen,
OK , I will play in “your playground.” Please point out to me “explicitly” from what you are using as a source…EGW…where she implies it is known today as the “religious right.” Am I to assume the “liberal mainline institutions” of EGW’s day and the RCC & The Bishops view on the US economy are not interested in what you are likely appealing to, that is ,Sunday sacredness becoming law?
Please cite quotes that exlpicitly infer it is the “religious rt” which I have pointed out to you did not exist in her day…rather than the socially conscious mainline churches & RCC acting on state policy.
regards,
pat
To help you a bit Stephen how does the Federal Conciil of Churches of EGW’s day, The National Council of Chrurches and the World Council of Churches fit into this discussion? How does the religious right as a whole feel about these groups?
Trevor Hammond
Your posts have made a lot of sense to me, but this statement REALLY made my day!– =))
“If someone preached a sermon like this at my Church, I would have to be called to order for jumping up and down in my seat and shouting more than my fair share of Amen’s and Hallelujah’s and even my wife would do the same but in a more dignified manner of course.”
Fred Reinosa
How my heart resonates with your story!
My grandfather entered the United States as an illegal. This is how it happened: Grandfather’s older and younger brother were set to sail for the United States as immigrants from Bessarabia. But when the time came, Grandfather’s older brother got “cold feet.” My grandfather’s younger brother was only 17 and my great grandparents didn’t want him to immigrate alone. So my grandfather, then 19, said, “I’ll go!” Having no passport himself, he took his brother’s passport and thus entered the United States as an illegal.
For about 45 years, my grandfather worked in a farming community in Eastern Washington. Eventually, the family lawyer suggested that my grandfather establish U.S. citizenship in order to be eligible for social security. I am very grateful that even though my grandfather had no “papers,” my government, the United States of America, successfully identified him through affidavits from neighbors, employers, and the schools where his children attended. My grandfather took the requisite tests and became a citizen of the United States. My government could have deported my grandfather, but they made the compassionate choice to allow him to stay and become legal, and I’m glad.
I’m also glad for the privilege of living in the United States, where government intervention makes sure (usually!) that my water is clean, my food is safe, driving is regulated, and most of all, that there is a separation between church and state that insures religious liberty. Not all persons who currently hope to be the next president of the United States also hope that the United States continues to keep church and state separate.
For the clarification of the candidates’ positions on church/state separation, listen to minutes 60-66 of the recent New Hampshire debate.
Not everyone who prays pretty and invokes God-speak is a Christian in the Christ-following sense of the word. (See Matthew 7:21-23; Matt. 25:3-46, Micah 6:8)
I echo Stephen Foster’s recommendation that we take another look at the 36th chapter of The Great Controversy.
“As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all.” Galatians 6:10
Hi Cindy,
Perhaps you could help Stephen identify from EGW’s writings that she is referring to the present Rel. Rt. I certainly would like to see what explicitly refers to them. As to the “whole US” and not just the south or isolated pockets, the “rel. rt.” is odious…much more to the world as a whole.
Stephen and Cindy,I am a “theological conservative” but have issues with certain areas of the “religious rt.” I also have issues with the “religious left” and the likes of Jim Wallis and Tony Campola. I also have issues with “Liberty Mag” from the time of Hegsted to the present making the “Chrisitan Rt.” the strawman for SDA’s feared eschatological fulfillment. I suggest, “It ain’t so!”
You two also are eisegeting your “political views” and expectations on to EGW, who I suggest is more opposed to “liberal theology” and it’s outcomes in the political sphere. You folks should realize the “mainline churches” are already onboard with most of the RCC agenda. The “rt.” opposes much more of the “common understanding” of ecumenicism,labor unions, and larger government for socio-economic use of the churches understanding of treating society as if it were the church in the present age.
Pat Travis,
I’m not sure who is showing a willingness to “play” on the playground of whom here, but you would do well to note the fact that the “religious right” terminology is of relatively recent vintage; and that EGW had the proper attitude toward partisan politics: suggesting that we cannot have confidence in any political party.
Her exegeses of scripture such as Daniel 7:25, 2 Thessalonians 2: 3, 4, Revelation 12 and 13:11-17, 14:9-12, 17:13,14, and 18:1-5 can be found particularly in Chapters 25 and 36 of GC. Her prophetic interpretation of attitudes and movements, and their subsequent actions and events in the United States are much more descriptive of what we refer to today as the “religious right movement” than anything else. Knowingly or not, she was talking THEN about attitudes and movements prevalent NOW that will lead to actions and events in the (near?) FUTURE. Remember, these events culminate in the enactment/enforcement of specific religious observance of a particular day of the week. EGW traces the scenario in which this is to occur.
For (“explicit’) example:
“The wide diversity of belief in the Protestant churches is regarded by many as decisive proof that no effort to secure a forced uniformity can ever be made. But there has been for years, in churches of the Protestant faith, a strong and growing sentiment in favor of a union based upon common points of doctrine…”
“When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce…
In the movements now in progress in the United States to secure for the institutions and usages of the church the support of the state…”
“It has been shown that the United States is the power represented by the beast with lamblike horns, and that this prophecy will be fulfilled when the United States shall enforce…”
“Since the middle of the nineteenth century, students of prophecy in the United States have presented this testimony to the world. In the events now taking place is seen a rapid advance toward the fulfillment of the prediction…”
“The assertion that God’s judgments are visited upon men for their violation of the…”
“Let the principle once be established in the United States that the church may employ or control the power of the state; that religious observances may be enforced by secular laws; in short, that the authority of church and state is to dominate the conscience…”
“Prophecy represents Protestantism as having lamblike horns but speaking like a dragon. Already we are beginning to hear the voice of the dragon…”
“When the Protestant churches shall unite with the secular power to sustain a…when the state shall use its power to enforce the decrees and sustain the institutions of the church—then will Protestant America have formed an image to the…”
“When the legislature frames laws which exalt the first…”
“The leaders of our nation will, by legislative enactments, enforce the…”
These statements point to the church influencing American legislative powers to specific action on its behalf—for particular religious observance. While no political party or accompanying ideology is identified, a willingness and ability to influence the legislature on behalf of religion is undeniably implied. One has to willfully suspend belief in what one currently sees in order to avoid connecting the dots.
PS. Mt.25 is one of the Bishops favorite text supporting the church state influence in the US economy. Actually contextually the “least of these” are the followers of Christ…and not “society at large” though Christians are as individuals to be “good Samaritans.”
Pat
Would it be correct to say that you also have issues with The Great Controversy?
Who’s definition of the GC? :>)
The understanding of EGW by Andreason,Maxwell,Douglass,Ford,Yours? There seem to be as many understandings of the “controversy” as there are SDA’s.
It seems you often speak in generalities rather than specifics. Can you be Specific? For example one of Satan’ methods in GC according to EGW is to focus on love, charity and compassion as a benefactor of humanity and a more exalted system of belief for deception.pp.554,558.
PS. Your grandfather came in simpler times…but still broke US law which I don’t believe that would be WWJD or encourage as it was not in violation to His law.
regards,
pat
PS. Meant to add p.589 and the exalted religion to bring in the long expected Millenium.
Ok I’ll say it! Since most of the politically conservative right wingers won’t. It’s called Xenophobia! Yeah, Xenophobia! That’s what all this boils down to – it seems?
Whenever certain people groups have been ostracised and alienated as a result of Xenophobic tendencies from within Mainstream Society – they are persecuted and oppressed in one form or another.
This kind of ‘reactionary’ behaviour is further provoked by the ability of foreigners/aliens to work harder, offer cheaper labour and also upset the cultural ‘apple-cart’ of mainstream society, thereby resulting in unwarranted aggression against them. Hence the need to ‘cull’ the prospects and aspirations of these ‘outsiders’ who seek a ‘better’ life. Well, the question posed in this article is clear: “What would Jesus Do?” …”What should the Church Do?” …”What should Christians Do?”
When a society via its Government or its Cultural bias, subscribe to this kind of mutated racism or bigotry, then we can be rest assured that the poor are despised, marginalised and oppressed by default . That’s just the way it is…
At least (from a Christian perspective) we should be able to start somewhere as this Hymn admonishes us:
In Christ there is no East or West,
In Him no South or North;
But one great fellowship of love
Throughout the whole wide earth.
In Him shall true hearts everywhere
Their high communion find;
His service is the golden cord,
Close binding humankind.
Join hands, then, members of the faith,
Whatever your race may be!
Who serves my Father as His child
Is surely kin to me.
In Christ now meet both East and West,
In Him meet North and South;
All Christly souls are one in Him
Throughout the whole wide earth.
T
Stephen,
Those most willing to sacrifice points of doctrine for unity and “inclusive theology” are none other than…”theological liberals” and the Christian left.
Which of the earlier “moral” positions of the “rel.rt.” you mentioned other than prayer in public schools do you disagree with? The liberal left and Obama are ok with “faith based initiatives.”
I disagree with both regarding public policy. Come on, you gotta do better than this to identify “the religious right” as the great apostate Stephen.
The fact is excepting those two unless of course the “faith based aide is coming to the SDA church and ADRA” most of the “Pol.Rt’s” beliefs are shared by “official SDA’s.”
How does the SDA church feel about abortion on demand…barring rape or incest AND homosexuality?
regards,
pat
Might I refer you to an earlier blog of mine (“Confessions of a Conservative Liberal”) in address to your questions of my policy positions?
You should perhaps contact the General Conference office for the church’s official positions on some of these topics.
Again, I am obviously using a different paradigm than you in evaluating who might most likely seek to accommodate religious influence over the state for the imposition of laws mandating religious observance. As such, I come to different conclusions about what’s happening.
Maybe I overestimate the level of your denial that the American religious right movement is a reality, or that it is somewhat purposeful. Here are two brief excerpts from recent articles (from the left wing media) about Texas Governor Rick Perry and Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann.
Perry has sparked controversy with his recent call for a Christian gathering of prayer and fasting at Houston’s Reliant Stadium on Aug. 6. He has invited all US governors as well as “national Christian leaders,” according to the website of the event, called The Response.
“Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters,” Perry writes on The Response’s home page. “As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/0610/Texas-Gov.-Rick-Perry-for-president-Why-he-could-have-a-hard-time
Bachmann honed her view of the world after college, when she enrolled at the Coburn Law School at Oral Roberts University, an “interdenominational, Bible-based, and Holy Spirit-led” school in Oklahoma. “My goal there was to learn the law both from a professional but also from a biblical worldview,” she said in an April speech.
At Coburn, Bachmann studied with John Eidsmoe, who she recently described as “one of the professors who had a great influence on me.” Bachmann served as his research assistant on the 1987 book Christianity and the Constitution, which argued that the United States was founded as a Christian theocracy, and that it should become one again. “The church and the state have separate spheres of authority, but both derive authority from God,” Eidsmoe wrote. “In that sense America, like [Old Testament] Israel, is a theocracy.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/14/michele-bachmanns-unrivaled-extremism-gay-rights-to-religion.html
Would you say that these politicians, among others, would have little aversion to the church influencing the state for its purposes?
If you do not, could it be simply because you don’t want to?
Stephen,
That there are a limited few “politicians” running on a “Christian Theocracy” agenda their likelihood of being elected by a party OR the American electorate is about as good as “NY City being covered by water by anthopogenic global warming.”
By the way, the cheif “player traditionally of SDA’ism”, the RCC wouldn’t touch either. I suggest you are looking at “motorcycle” on the rt. while a “socio-political-economic view including the RCC ‘official view’ for public policy” is the train approaching from the “left.” :>)
Give me the specifics from EGW identifying the “Christian rt.” Stephen and not some coalition including the RCC…which theological conservatives do not embrace.
Cindy appears to disappear when asked for “specifics.”
regards,
pat
Once again Pat, EGW did not label or categorize the actions of the religious right (as the religious right), she simply described or delineated their current/future actions and often misguided motives. The labels are of relatively recent origin.
There are more than “a limited few politicians running on a Christian theocracy agenda,” my friend; there is an entire well-funded, and objectively focused political movement that regularly delivers up to tens of millions of U.S. voters to the polls.
The ability, the desire, and the willingness of church-related entities to influence legislative action enforcing religious observance are absolute prerequisites in order for the chapter 25 and chapter 36 GC scenarios to unfold. Surely you acknowledge that a political movement with a desire and willingness to enact religious observation legislation currently exists.
Now, please show me evidence that there is such willingness and desire on the American religious left; especially among “Protestants,” who EGW repeatedly identifies.
We do share a different understanding Stephen and I suggest, respectfully, you view is too narrow concerning the big reality picture.
The reilgious right most certainly does exist and holds popularity among a limited group of americans. The nation’s and world zeitgeist desires a much more inclusive position.
regards,
pat
PS. Thanks for the dialogue Stephen. It seems Cindy dissapears when asked specifics.
regards,
pat
As I hve attempted to point out to you Stephen the religious “left” has been using gradualism for 100 yrs. so that you really don’t notice the “common puposess” of it and societies goals in it. The Americam Republic and constitutional understanding is completely different now than 100yrs. ago.
The socio-economic-political goals of the “left” combining the religious and secular kingdoms in the “present” have almost been realized and they are in harmony with traditional RCC understanding…that is a strong central government willing to carry out the churches traditional socio-ecomnomic purposes.
Again, I am playing in your playground of the GC.
regards,
pat
The SDA playground is the one on which I play. If you play on it, you will recognize that state enforcement of religious observance is what we are simultaneously looking toward and guarding against. Apparently you want to develop another playground based on your political take on what you perceive to be traditional RCC socio-economic purposes.
However if you play on the SDA playground, and use the Adventist eschatological model swing set—including the GC—and see the stated purposes and philosophies of certain religious and certain political leaders (a number of whom we have attempted to identify for you), and note their increasing prominence and influence, you will come to the same conclusions that I have.
If, for whatever reason, you don’t like the historical SDA playground, you will of necessity come to other conclusions; as you clearly have.
Stephen,
I am NOT saying there will never be a spiritual/religious combine with the state…the “10 kings” that will make war with the lamb. I beleive that is spoken of in Rev.13-18 culminating in Christ the warrior king delivering His people in Rev.19.
What I am saying Stephen is that the “rel.rt.” is simply to small and not identifyable as that “spiritual” group that is the major player that unites with the civil powers. The power will be much more religiously pluralistic and inclusive of all religious spirituality excepting “true Christianity” that recognizes Christ as our only savior.
That is the new “and more exalting” form of religion that focuses on “love and compassion” that has become sentimentalism and seeks to bring in an earthly millenium. Forgotten is Christ our only savior and the justice of God defined by the parameters of His law.
regards,
pat
regards,
pat
I wroote the following article “Peace on Earth?” in Ministry in Dec.1975 in Ministry. pp.24,25.Keep in mind this was written in the “cold war” when most were fearful of a nuclear extermination of the planet.
http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1975/
Dec.pp.24,25.
regards,
pat
Pat
Stephen Foster has answered your question ably; thus, I see no warrant for repetition. I repost his reply to you below:
I’m not sure who is showing a willingness to “play” on the playground of whom here, but you would do well to note the fact that the “religious right” terminology is of relatively recent vintage; and that EGW had the proper attitude toward partisan politics: suggesting that we cannot have confidence in any political party.
Her exegeses of scripture such as Daniel 7:25, 2 Thessalonians 2: 3, 4, Revelation 12 and 13:11-17, 14:9-12, 17:13,14, and 18:1-5 can be found particularly in Chapters 25 and 36 of GC. Her prophetic interpretation of attitudes and movements, and their subsequent actions and events in the United States are much more descriptive of what we refer to today as the “religious right movement” than anything else. Knowingly or not, she was talking THEN about attitudes and movements prevalent NOW that will lead to actions and events in the (near?) FUTURE. Remember, these events culminate in the enactment/enforcement of specific religious observance of a particular day of the week. EGW traces the scenario in which this is to occur.
For (“explicit’) example:
“The wide diversity of belief in the Protestant churches is regarded by many as decisive proof that no effort to secure a forced uniformity can ever be made. But there has been for years, in churches of the Protestant faith, a strong and growing sentiment in favor of a union based upon common points of doctrine…”
“When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce…
In the movements now in progress in the United States to secure for the institutions and usages of the church the support of the state…”
“It has been shown that the United States is the power represented by the beast with lamblike horns, and that this prophecy will be fulfilled when the United States shall enforce…”
“Since the middle of the nineteenth century, students of prophecy in the United States have presented this testimony to the world. In the events now taking place is seen a rapid advance toward the fulfillment of the prediction…”
“The assertion that God’s judgments are visited upon men for their violation of the…”
“Let the principle once be established in the United States that the church may employ or control the power of the state; that religious observances may be enforced by secular laws; in short, that the authority of church and state is to dominate the conscience…”
“Prophecy represents Protestantism as having lamblike horns but speaking like a dragon. Already we are beginning to hear the voice of the dragon…”
“When the Protestant churches shall unite with the secular power to sustain a…when the state shall use its power to enforce the decrees and sustain the institutions of the church—then will Protestant America have formed an image to the…”
“When the legislature frames laws which exalt the first…”
“The leaders of our nation will, by legislative enactments, enforce the…”
These statements point to the church influencing American legislative powers to specific action on its behalf—for particular religious observance. While no political party or accompanying ideology is identified, a willingness and ability to influence the legislature on behalf of religion is undeniably implied. One has to willfully suspend belief in what one currently sees in order to avoid connecting the dots.
Blessings!
Pat, as we look at the so called explicit examples it is pretty clear they are not at all explicit but rather one has to read into them to make them fit the religious right. Now I won’t deal with EGW much since she has proved to be wrong on a lot of things other to say that in her view Protestants, were apostate, she did not divide them into liberal and conservative, they were just Adventist remnant and the protestants who were to align with the Roman Catholics and the state. But let us assume she was correct in this view. Which form of government would work best for this consolidation of power. A limited government favored by conservatives or the ever expanding government which intrudes into individuals lives more and more favored by the political liberals/progressives?
The answer is pretty obvious that a big government would assert their ways into the lives of religion. Stephen gives examples of conservatives calling for prayer as if that is somehow abnormal, or it is somehow a call for religious control of everyone. Yet Stephen ignores that Jim Wallis is an adviser to Obama and also a consultant for the Democrat Party and he is actively attempting to push for various legislation and government activity based supposedly upon his liberal christian views.
The problem here is willfully ignorant people. Newsweek publishes an article after President Obama’s election, “we are all socialists now” and somehow they can’t see how that kind of socialism was the precursor to communist atheism and repression of religious freedom. But maybe they will answer the question of freedom being more consistent with limited and smaller government versus larger government. I would be interested in hearing their answer.
Ron,
I agree with your asessment. I too have read the GC book. It is simply “premature” and irresponsible to categorize “the religious rt.” as the spiritual power combining with the state so that one “might not buy or sell.”
Scripture definately does not make any such “explicit claim” of such…and I suggest even in “the playground of EGW’s writings” there is no such specificity from pp.433 forwards.
The secrets to the US proseperity according to EGW is “Protestantism and Republicanism.” The “political right”, I suggest best understands those principles AND they “mostly” accept scripture as God inspired. Now elsewhere she says described that “higher criticism” causes disbelief in scripture and that falls in the lap of “liberal Protestantism” that generally also follows a “progressive/liberal” political stance because they view the state as just an extension of establishing their socio-economic understading for their perceived benefit of society. I consider them to be the epitomy of “apostate Protestantism” with the rejection of the majority of “classical Protestant beliefs.”
The governmental socio-economic positions held for the first 150 yrs of the Republic are most recognized by the political right.
Excepting “faith initiatives” which ADRA also receives the moral convictions of the “political rt.” very closely mirror SDA moral positions. As to school prayer, I disagree with them based on the 1st. Amendment…however it had been practiced from the time of the formation of the “public school system” until the last approx.35 yrs hardly a cause to see the rt. as the developing “apostate church”
It is inferred by “Liberty mag et al.” that since some are interested in “general moral” values it follows that this will ultimately lead to forced “sunday observance.”
Left out of the dicussion is the effects of “spiritualism’s concepts’ that undermine law with the substitute sentimentalism focusing on “love,charity and compassion.” This also as a rule is not embraced by most conservative Christians.
Any explicit claim from EGW, I suggest are simply not availiable…and I would suggest it is “the progressives” that most undermine scripture as well as “progressively see the Constitution as a ‘living document’ to be undermined as may seem to be politically a neccesity for “social purposes.”
The big picture, I suggest, is a spirituality embracing religious pluralism and inclusivism creating laws that are fealt to lead to a common desired world peace and global household of faith. Those rejecting this tower of Babel and Image of Daniel will receive the same acceptance as did the 3 worthies. The state and it’s “religions” are the idolatry of the masses…rather than the Creator who obviously “doesn’t exist.” This world household will war against the Lamb …but He shall overcome them.
regards,
pat
Of course, if the Bible (and EGW)about economic and environmental chaos preceding the final days, the whole issue of conservative/liberal, right/left may become irrelevant. When your world is collapsing around you, the belief that getting rid of those who are causing the collapsing will save everyone can trump any former bickering over theology. Just look at how the Sadducees and Pharisees found their differences to be small matters when the need to get rid of a troublesome Galileean preacher became the most pressing matter. All forms of government contain the seeds of oppression. And in a crisis, desperate people are often more than willing to take desperate measures that they would not otherwise consider.
There should be the words “are right” above after “if the Bible (and EGW)”
Kevin Riley
I couldn’t agree with you more.
The point of my blog, however, is how can we best serve the immigrants and the poor that are among us right now, in days of relative religious freedom? There are some who feel that since Jesus is coming soon anyway, we might as well exploit the earth’s resources, and thus they care little about environmental stewardship of God’s earth in the here and now. Likewise, others use “The poor we will always have with us” as an excuse for not exercising benevolence today.
Though I totally agree that soon “the Sadducees and the Pharisses” will unite against what they will perceive as a common enemy, that time is not yet. And it will be easier to “work for the night is coming” in times of religious freedom. I find some of the observations made on this thread highly relevant to issues of religious freedom, as well as care for the poor and marginalized.
I come from a country with a long tradition of social democracy, which has only recently been corrupted by foreign (mostly US) ideas. I therefore do not understand at all the objection that many US citizens have to government involvement in social welfare. We would consider it one of government’s main obligations, along with education, health and defense. OK, many don’t agree on the ‘defense’ part, but it does seem logical.
When it comes to illegal immigrants, that is a huge debate here, and I see no easy answers. I do believe as individuals we are all bound by God’s command to take care of the poor and the alien among us. As most governments are bound by various agreements they have signed to do the same, I see no moral or theological problem with Christians being active in calling for those agreements to be kept.
I personally believe that environmental stewardship is a biblical command also, and that it takes precedence over any commitment to any economic theory. But I am one of a very few Australian SDAs who have ever voted for the Greens, so don’t take my views as being representative on this issue 🙂
Kevin,
I feel you comments are very valid and all the more reason not to ascribe any certainty in “judging” any “present” group. Economic crisis as well as anything that may “cause the the whole nation/world” to perish as was ascribed by the “high priest” to Christ creates drastic responses and the seeds of strong central government to supposedly “solve” the problem.
The bottom line is not simply socio-economic or political preference per se…but who is Christ…who do “you” say He is…and how do you respond to Him as Lord.
“ But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” Rom. 10:6-11.
regards,
pat
Ron Corson wrote: “But let us assume she was correct in this view. Which form of government would work best for this consolidation of power? A limited government favored by conservatives or the ever expanding government which intrudes into individuals lives more and more favored by the political liberals/progressives?”
I will take yes for an answer, and run with the assumption that “she was correct in this view.” Let me repeat for you that which you may have missed in an earlier response to Pat. Social conservatives do not favor limited government into individual lives. Instead they favor strong government in areas of personal behavior and what they view as individual Biblical morality. Only libertarians—in the tradition of classical liberalism—actually favor limited government in all spheres of life and commerce, individually and corporately (and socially). Thus, the premise of your question is fatally flawed.
In this context, perhaps the following observations, though admittedly anecdotal generalizations, bear some consideration: politically active social conservatives who unabashedly espouse an agenda of bringing our nation back to God, and/or winning America for Jesus, have a little more on their minds than government regulation of commerce, and how and who the government taxes, or on what and where tax revenues are allocated. Socially liberal Judeo-Christians in America are generally not much concerned with doctrine, or individual behavior, or individual obedience (or belief) in the Bible.
Please remember that here on the Adventist playground, the Sabbath will be at issue. Can you see a Jim Wallis-type or a Barry Lynn-type advocating on behalf of an official recognition and observation of the “first day;” with say, a Pat Robertson-type or a Franklin Graham-type vehemently opposing such legislation, for example?
Nevertheless, a careful reading of Chapter 38, entitled “The Final Warning,” (particularly page 610) suggests that as highly unlikely as this very example may seem, it is perhaps a remote possibility—however contradictory that may sound—because as the issue is joined, and everyone is confronted with it, individuals will be affected in varying ways as some will yield to the Spirit’s leading and obey God’s law rather than man’s. The point, of course, is that the above scenario seems very highly unlikely for a very good reason. While EGW does not identify left versus right, she mentions movements and attitudes and philosophies which lead to actions.
“Now that Satan can no longer keep the world under his control by withholding the Scriptures, he resorts to other means to accomplish the same object. To destroy faith in the Bible serves his purpose as well as to destroy the Bible itself. By introducing the belief that God’s law is not binding, he as effectually leads men to transgress as if they were wholly ignorant of its precepts…
…as the only way to free themselves from a duty which they are unwilling to perform, many popular teachers declare that the law of God is no longer binding. Thus they cast away the law and the Sabbath together. As the work of Sabbath reform extends, this rejection of the divine law to avoid the claims of the fourth commandment will become well-nigh universal. The teachings of religious leaders have opened the door to infidelity, to spiritualism, and to contempt for God’s holy law; and upon these leaders rests a fearful responsibility for the iniquity that exists in the Christian world.
Yet this very class put forth the claim that the fast-spreading corruption is largely attributable to the desecration of the so-called ‘Christian sabbath,’ and that the enforcement of Sunday observance would greatly improve the morals of society.”
Now those who currently advocate legislative remedies to “improve the morals of society,” and who advocate for a return to traditional and family values as a means to improve the economic and moral conditions (so as to assuage the wrath of God—so as to possibly avoid future natural disaster), and who advocate for the teaching of Biblical creation and the recitation or rendering of prayer in public schools, or who advocate for the public funding of parochial elementary and secondary schools, or who argue that the state need never be protected from the church, etc., are simply not considered left wingers.
Here on the Adventist playground, we do not believe that the enforcement of specific religious observance will come out of nowhere.
Stephen wrote:
“Please remember that here on the Adventist playground, the Sabbath will be at issue. Can you see a Jim Wallis-type or a Barry Lynn-type advocating on behalf of an official recognition and observation of the “first day;” with say, a Pat Robertson-type or a Franklin Graham-type vehemently opposing such legislation, for example?”
Ok I see it is all based upon your suppositions of what people will do not on what they actually have said. Because neither Pat Robertson or Graham have threatened to restrict anyone from their Sabbaths. So basically you are working from a completely faulty view where your assumptions are the truth. No wonder much of what you say makes no sense to the reality we actually see. It helps you maintain your stereotypes and prejudices. Even though I would imagine you know better, but since you believe so strongly it matters little what people actually do or say. Another Adventist damaged by wooden literal adherence to Ellen White.
You may want to read more carefully Ron. As I was aware of the probability that “neither Pat Robertson or Graham [sic] have threatened to restrict anyone from their Sabbaths,” I purposefully wrote “a Pat Robertson-type or a Franklin Graham-type;” meaning a socio-political-religious conservative.
I have attempted to use real people, actual quotes, current events, and authentic sourcing for examples of contemporary movements and personalities of concern to me in my colloquy with Pat Travis; and have sincerely attempted not to misquote anyone in the process.
If I’m not mistaken, and forgive me if I am, I think it was you who, for sake of argument, wrote “but let us assume she was correct in this view…” Again, forgive me for daring to proceed under that very assumption.
I think it is safe to say that I have, at some point in the past, personally offended and angered you; for which I now apologize.
Stephen,
Do you think it is wrong for governments to base laws on general principles of the “last 6 commandments” that shared in common by various religions not specific to just one?
Some of these arguments against the “desired morals” of the “religious rt.” seem to be reductio ad absurdum as relates to both Christian and national values. Of course these efforts need to be contained to those general principles shared by not just one faith to be consistent with the first amendment.
It seems strange that it would be wrong for churches to desire that moral principles be part of society that in fact encourage individual responsibility and an orderly society. Long ago Baptist Roger Williams said the First four commands are for an individual and God and that government could properly consider the last 6…thus Rhode Island and religious liberty.
Was the SDA chuch an oppressor for their position on Prop.8 in Calif?
The first US President George Washington stated in his farewell adress,”reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
So one might properly consider if a nations general morals are better would that not possible require less government in the maintenence of it’s populice. Does not individual responsibility and general morality somehow promote the general welfare?
Oh, but the argument goes you can’t enforce morality.I would suggest that most laws are framed to do just that including stop lights.It is true you can’t change the heart by laws but you can promote an orderly society through sound principles of law.
It seems that due to the fear of “a national sunday law” all practical sensibility is sometimes lost by some and those promotong general moral principles become “public enemy #1.”
regards,
pat
Clearly, for the maintenance of orderly civil society, laws against killing, stealing, and bearing false witness are absolute necessities, no matter what their origin.
Abortion and the death penalty aside, when was the last time—or the first time—you ever heard anyone argue against laws which prohibit killing, stealing, or the bearing of false witness? Please correct me, but would it not to be much more problematic and unwieldy, if not inappropriate or impossible, to enact and enforce laws mandating the strict observation of the fifth, seventh, and tenth commandments?
This is not Iran or Saudi Arabia. Some of us do not want a “Christian” version of either of these nations.
This excerpt below from http://www.religioustolerance.org/habeas.htm reveals that the US is well poised to inflict a reign of terror for whatever if and whenever whoever chooses and Sunday Law Enforcement will be a just ‘piece of cake’:
“Habeas Corpus” is a Latin phrase which means “you have the body.” It is the right by which a person can go to court and challenge the validity of his/her imprisonment.
“According to Utah State Courts, it is:
“A civil proceeding used to review the legality of a prisoner’s confinement in criminal cases. Habeas corpus actions are commonly used as a means of reviewing state or federal criminal convictions. The petitioner alleges the convictions violated state or federal constitutional rights. State habeas proceedings start in state District Court; federal habeas proceedings start in federal District Court.” 1
The right of habeas corpus is the oldest human right in Anglo-Saxon law. It even preceded the British Magna Carta of 1215 CE. The latter confirms the right by stating:
“No free man shall be taken or imprisoned .. except by .. the law of the land.” 2
In 1679 CE, the British Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus Act i. According to Nat Hentoff of The Washington Times, It extended the “Great Writ” to any citizen arbitrarily imprisoned “beyond the seas” including the American colonies. While the U.S. Constitution was being written Thomas Jefferson insisted in a letter to James Madison that habeas corpus be imbedded in the body of the Constitution. He even wanted the right of habeas corpus to continue even during times of insurrection or invasion. He won his main goal but failed in his second.
Habeas Corpus suspended:
A fundamental human right guaranteed for eight centuries can be denied, both for both citizens and non-citizens at any time.
Robert Parry of the Baltimore Chronicle wrote:
“Under the cloak of setting up military tribunals to try al-Qaeda suspects and other so-called ‘unlawful enemy combatants,’ Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress effectively created a parallel legal system for ‘any person’ – American citizen or otherwise – who crosses some ill-defined line.”
He is referring to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which was signed into law during 2006-OCT. It strips federal courts of the authority to hear habeas corpus suits by those persons who have been classified by the government as “enemy combatants.” The law contains a section stating that:
“… any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States … shall be punished as a military commission … may direct.”
The phrase “any person” would seem to include everyone, whether they are a citizen of the United States or a non-citizen.
Once a person is detained:
“… no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever … relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.”
The phrase “any claim or cause of action whatsoever” would seem to include a writ of habeas corpus.
Happy Prisoner in Christ
T
T,
Respectfully traditional war tribunals have been prosecuted without a claim to the constitutional rights offerred citizens of the US to trial by jury. Were the Nuremberg trials done in the US court system?
I feel you are comparing apples and oranges when our discussion is related to religious liberty and whe parameters of religion involvement with the civil and visa versa.
regards,
pat
I would like to edit to vice versa
Hey, Pat…
Those concerns raised in the excerpt I posted above are not war tribunal concerns but rather the ‘opportunity’ for detention without trial as a ‘terror’ tactic that can and has been used against civil society as well, by many oppressive regimes even today.
I’m not a US Citizen and have been ‘listening’ to your political debate with Stephen. My vote will have to go for Mr Foster from the Adventist Playground Party. Maybe you should consider crossing the floor? 😉
T
I share your concerns Mr. Hammond; and appreciate your vote. Adventist Playground Party…pretty funny!
Without wading into the details, I just want to applaud your courage, Cindy, to begin a discussion on this topic. Social issues with theological, economic and political implications are minefields, important minefields. Long live healthy debate.
Jeff Boyd
I appreciate your support, Jeff, as well as what you do for the marginalized.
Trevor,
I had no doubt of which view you would accept. :>)
It actually points out the dangers of a strong central government quite separate from any specific religious issues.
Jeff,
I figured you would show up at some time. :>)
My issue is with identifying the “rel.rt. as public enemy #1.” The big picture must be much more “inclusive” of other religious thought which also is not explicitly specified in the GC and definitely not scripture.
It seems to me paranoia makes sound thinking impossible and some things must be dealt with on an issue by issue basis rather than everything through the lens “of a future national sunday law” which has not occured neither is it clear exactly what circumstances are parties may be associated with it. One thing is clear to me…it does not spring from “limited Constitutional government.”
As some Christian economist point out the issues regarding “socio-economic” have more to do with a vision of Marx vs.Adam Smith than explicit biblical morality.
We’ve discussed that before relating to the interface of the civil and religious.
regards,
pat
We can agree that an enactment of laws requiring religious observation of any kind in the United States would not come from “limited Constitutional government.”
Obviously the principles of limited Constitutional government would have to be blatantly breeched in order for such legislation to be enacted (much less enforced).
The question is who is most likely to breech the principles of limited Constitutional government in order to enact and enforce religious observance for the “good” of society?
You were right, Pat. I’ve been on the road away from Internet for 2 weeks, so it was “fun” to get back online and see this conversation. Peace
Stephen,
I think you will find many laws based on the concepts of the 5th,7th and 10th. Until about 1960 you could not get a divorce and legally remarry without a consent of the other party.
Laws concerning private property are based on the principles of the 10th as well as the 8th.
I certainly am not in favor of a “Christian theocracy.” That does not preclude the use of the Judeo-Christian thoughts where they are also in alignment with other commonly held thoughts in other religions on moral issues deemed for the benefit of society.
You failed to answer, Was the SDA church oppressive and a threat to religious liberty by their stand on Prop 8? How might those moral views be that much different than “the general moral views” of the “Christian rt.”?
What seems to be promoted is that it is wrong for the “church” to suggest moral opinions as to behavior…but it is not wrong for the church to promote “moral” legislation for government social provision of services.
It is okay to promote WWJD to violate immigration law but look out for the politicalization of morals by the “rel.rt” those guys who will bring the “Sunday law.”
regards,
pat
I didn’t follow the Proposition 8 issue closely, and still do not know much about it, but I would say that the church should define and sanction marriage, and the state should define and sanction civil unions; and that all church sanctioned marriages should qualify as civil unions, but not all civil unions may qualify as marriages—depending on the church.
So in my view, the state should not be in the marriage business, and the church should consequently not be in the civil union business.
Adventists should not be excused from this in my opinion. Then again, I’m a strict separationist. If it were my call, the church would be too. I am in general agreement with doctrines of the church; not necessarily with every policy position (or even every working policy).
Stephen wrote:
“So in my view, the state should not be in the marriage business, and the church should consequently not be in the civil union business.”
This is rather the classic progressive thinking, well if one can call it thinking. The state should not be in the marriage business. So for example when the state created Social Security in 1935 they should not have defined the benefits to the widow of someone receiving Social Security. Why how dare the state use the common definitions of our time and culture to write entitlement legislation! This is the kind of foolishness that the political progressives put forward as if they have thought about things. They have not.
We have veered off track from Cindy’s blog here, but my “thinking” is based on the idea that marriage is actually an institution established by God; and as such, has often been referred to as “holy matrimony.” Call me crazy, but it does not seem that a state function should include deciding what is holy and/or ordained of God, and what is not.
State classification of all such arrangements as “civil unions” for (benefits/”entitlements”) would be appropriate.
The state defines marriage as a legal contract not holy matrimony. Talk about getting off track, no wonder you are so confused.
Well then, there should be no problem with changing the governmental nomenclature of this contract from “marriage” to that of a “civil union;” and those who have entered into such contracts would have to get the sanction of a religious authority or institution in order to be considered “married.”
Again, this is academic, and off topic.
It is off topic but it demonstrates the short sighted thinking of much of the political left. You assert that the government should change the meaning of marriage to civil union. As if marriage did not previously have a meaning and civil union has some common accepted meaning that marriage had. But government is not made up of just your opinion and what you think should be a simple matter of changing meanings is not a simple matter because words do in fact have meanings. To change the meaning you have to pass new laws through the legislator which means they must be voted on instead of granting the government unconstitutional authority to simply change the meaning of laws and words.
Which gets us back to Cindy’s article, what is she suggesting. We have no idea, she wants to change laws supposedly, we don’t know exactly how or what she wants to change. She just wants it to be more compassionate. So ignore the laws in favor of compassion or at least her version of compassion. Rather like Stephen who thinks his method of word replacement is all that needs to happen. This king of arrogant self centered view where by simplistic and vague ideas are simply assumed to be the wise and compassionate choice. When all they really are is simplistic, and trite statements that they are fed by those on the Political left who have a far different agenda then compassion.
Ron,
You may have missed it again, but the Proposition 8 issue was raised by Pat Travis in an attempt to make a point about Adventists taking a stand on an issue of public morality, but being fearful of others who do. I addressed it only because he repeatedly asked me to comment.
I answered with my own individual and highly theoretical approach to the subject of marriage definitions. I cannot emphasize that it is an academic and/or theoretical approach; and that I am fully cognizant that state laws at a minimum, and perhaps even a constitutional amendment, would be have to be passed and ratified before my personal solution of separate authorities of church and state (for marriage and civil unions respectively) were to occur.
And again, may I offer my apologies?
No need to apologize if you realize your answer was foolish, I just wish the realization had broken through a bit sooner.
Again Ron, you missed what I had written earlier. Perhaps we can blame it on the new format. I am apologizing for having offended and angered you at some unknown time in the past.
Clearly, this has caused you to lash out angrily in personal vitriol toward me. I am aware that opinions are not universally held, so I am not apologizing for an opinion; but for possibly contributing to whatever is causing such ad hominem responses.
I would think that it is more than the foolishness of particular responses or posts that have caused such obvious vitriol.
Stephen,
The case did not concern “civil unions” but the definition of “Marriage.” The SDA church was in favor of “marriage” being defined only as between those of the opposite sex…both in Calif. and as I remember Canada. So was the church oppresive with such a stand and violating religious liberty by their “moral position?” Must it follow that other churches thus fear a “future saturday law?”
In the past was the church by it’s “moral” view & position oppressive and denying religious liberty in the “Temperance” legislative positions?
The point I am making Stephen is that people should be careful to accuse the religious rt. of pressing moral issue when they themselves have done it…and I guess it’s ok for SDA’s moral positions because obviously the SDA won’t be pushing for sunday laws.
Again the point is to make statements concerning morals in society by any group does not create the necessity that one will then push for national sunday laws.
I suggest a simple test for “separation” is to follow the money. If the state pays for education or anything else then it can not respect an establishment of religion…thus no prayer in tax supported schools.
Other “moral issues” can be approached by churches with the state if they are commonly held by not just one religion therby not by definition respecting an establishment of religion.
Likewise Cindy’s WWJD “alone” would be in violation of the 1st amendment as it would be preferential to the Christian faith for public policy if the issues were not shared in common by other faiths.
Am I therfore to assume Cindy chooses to violate other individuals “religious liberties?”
I suggest that citizens and churches do have the right in the US to pursue their understanding of morality in legislation poviding the view is not unique to their specific faith.
regards,
pat
Pat,
The question of the definition of marriage should be wholly left up to churches. This is why my proposal of separate authority for church and state— with regard to marriage and civil unions respectively—is a libertarian, limited government solution; echoed by Ron Paul in the recent New Hampshire Republican Presidential Debate, I might add.
This Proposition 8 thing and my personal solution for it, can—and perhaps has—taken on a life of its own on this thread; so I will attempt to address the larger points you are trying to make.
First off, the fact that the General Conference or any department or organizational entity therein, may take a seemingly contradictory public policy position on any issue (however nuanced), or that the corporate organization may not always practice what it…uhm, recommends in terms of taking government funding at its convenience (and its peril), makes for an interesting study in hypocrisy or double standards, no doubt; but is immaterial to what we have been discussing. (Except to the extent that the hypocrisy may one day be embarrassingly inexplicable.) A preacher, for example, who preaches against that in which he is occasionally indulgent, may be a hypocrite, but it doesn’t make that which he preaches against any less wrong, does it? An oncologist may regularly smoke cigarettes, but this doesn’t change the nature of the tobacco, the tar, or the nicotine.
Your apparent position on the Establishment Clause is troubling on at least a couple of major fronts. You assume the Constitution means something other than what it says (with regard to this clause). You would like it to mean that Congress cannot make laws respecting the establishing “a single state” religion. However the Constitution is a contract in which the actual words matter. (This is allegedly the most conservative rendering of judicial approaches to interpreting the document.)
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…;” that is to say, “religion” means religion, and is inclusive of any and all religions and faiths, individually and collectively. Perhaps I misread you; but to suggest, in effect, that as long as more than one “religion” agrees with a “law” then its provisions meet Establishment Clause muster, is absolutely outrageous!
This mentality, of course, also dovetails perfectly with the EGW GC scenario in which “the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions…and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.”
I may have done you a somewhat of a disservice by failing to focus your attention on Chapter 25 in GC, as particularly pertinent to our discussion and to my approach of this subject matter.
An article I wrote in Spectrum defining what I consider to be the appropriate historical balance of church and state.
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2008/02/01/ethical-standards-mores-and-violation-religious-freedom
regards,
pat
There is an amazing amount of naivete demonstrated here regarding the U.S. constitution and state laws.
Changes, whether in marriage, health insurance and the laws most clearly affecting individuals have aways been difficult to change. Remember, it took more than 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation to enact civil rights for all citizens and equal access to the same facilities as all citizens.
Reproductive rights were not finally made effective in the late 1960s and abortion rights have been hampered in my many states by gradually encroaching upon this law guaranteeing women’s access to abortion.
For those who are so aggressive in promoting limited government, it seems to stop at individual’s bedroom and doctor-patient relations. It is surprising for most other first world nations to discover that U.S. citizens have no universal health care or education. The main reason: the U.S. spends an inordinate amount on wars which have only cost money and lives and no improvement on the enemies or its own citizens which have been deprived to pay the costs of war. It is skewed values that easily find money for war, but cut education and health expenses.
Elaine,
May I suggest to you “limited government” means what it did to those who wrote the federalist papers and other founding documents…and the US Constitution. The concept is contemporary that citizens would be looking to the federal government under the “general welfare” for access to the treasury for provision from the federal government through taxation.
Contrary to that in the Constitution it is specifically mentioned that funds are to be made for the defense of the nation. Madison argues that pure democracy is the most unstable form of government and thus we have a “Constitutional Republic” form of government.
Only a revisionist understanding allows what is occuring today. The “vision” of mankinds last great hope has failed.The path is downward from here.
regards,
pat
You have a revisionist view of history that it is quite convenient to your political ideology, Pat. Elaine probably knows that the Federalist Papers were written largely by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison who, on occasion, fundamentally disagreed.
Uniformity of ideology, approaches, and opinions among the “Founding Fathers” is pure mythology. Many of the founders often disagreed with each other, thus the almost immediate forming of political parties and factions. The varying approaches to the Constitution and the government that we see today existed at the time of the nation’s founding.
“…in the Constitution it is specifically mentioned that funds are to be made for the defense of the nation.”
What about the (costly) Iraq invasion? There was no need to defend ourselves since we were not being attacked. Everyone knows the lies behind that war. Should those who wasted our money be prosecuted?
Stephen,
Please demonstrate to me in the first 150 yrs. of the Republic where federal monies were provided for use of individual citizens in the form of benefits in the US under the concept of “general welfare.”
Also regarding the Hamiltonian Central Bank, both “federalism” and the bank did ultimately win…Jefferson thought central banks were more dangerous than standing armies. Now we have a central bank without “coin” thuus no basis of money value but fiat money which can be printed infinitum till complete debasement.We have a congress that for every 1 dollar spent in deficits 40 cents is borrowed in deficit spending…thus I feel the “last great hope has failed” and as Hayek once posited we are headed for “planned Chaos.” The path is downward and in Chaos bad things happen.
regards,
pat
PS.
I speak of economics and political theory here…but never at church. There the discussion “for me” the discussion is on the “kingdom of Christ” rather than “the kingdoms of this world” that are passing away. That sustains my soul and is WWJD.
pat
Pat,
The SCOTUS decides how the Constitution is interpreted and those who seek to return to the original signers intent can never faithfully interpret it when it has grown to 50 states and over 300 million citizens, with many states larger than the entire U.S. at that time.
Change, reflected in the many amendments have not abrogated the Constitution, but have sought to recognize that former slaves and their descendants should be accorded the same rights and privileges of the Caucasians, many of whom were also immigrants. The amendments gave more rights to the accused, to women,and a whole host of other amendments. Had the Constitution been perfect, there would have been no need to continually amend it. It will continue to be amended to meet the societal changes reflected in the people.
It is not perfect, and many are constantly seeking to make changes, which reflect growth, not stagnation. Any institution that is not open to change will eventually die. One voice, one vote.
Elaine,
That sounds amazingly like the “progressive” view on scripture. :>)
I asked Stephen to produce evidence of the Federal government providing for citizens under “the general welfare clause” since he accused me of revisonism. At least you acknowledge how the original document has been changed.
The issues on “race” simply were not addressed but they were inherent in the original document in that all “citizens” would be treated equally under law. When citizenship was granted so should “equality” under law be granted.
As far as “provision” it is certainly a contemporary interpretation. Those powers were granted to the states. That occassion waited for the 16th Amendment AND “progressive taxation”, the formation of the Federal Reserve and “progressive” interpretation not followed previously in an understanding of “the general welfare.”
This is “the revision” of the orignal document. A new age of government growth was then started under FDR. Under Nixon the gold standard was removed and your off to the races of our present system. Concentration of wealth through tax policy,centralization of the financial system power, unbridled deficits and debasing of the currency/inflation resulting in “price rises”…all ultimately most hurtful to the poor and aging have been the results.
regards,
pat
Pat, are you suggesting that no amendments should have been made to the Constitution?
The Constitutional preamble specifies that it “establishes domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, and promote the general welfare.”
That is certainly open to interpretation, isn’t it? Otherwise, how would you interpret it?
Elaine,
Provision is made in the Constitution for Amendments.
As to the “general welfare” clause both Madison and Jefferson wrote to individualls that those were to the powers specifically enumerated in the constitution and delegated as such in Art.I, Sec.8. All other powers were to be left to the States as stated in the 10th Amendment.
Jefferson and Madison both wrote that to do otherwise would give unlimited power to congress and not restrict them as had been the purpose of the Constitution vs.State rights and Amendment 10.
—————–
regards,
pat
Rgardless of what either Jefferson or Madison wrote, they are long gone, and the Constitution stands. Yes, there have been many interpretations, and some of the most recent have been galling and seemed headed toward fewer individual freedoms and more to corporations and large vested interests: i.e. WalMart and recent Miranda rulings that youngsters have no such rights.
Yes,
They are gone but there knowledge of government and “limited government” were immense…likely not matched in history.
Federalist #10 points out Madison’e fear of “pure democracy” and also a “paper currency” vs. the understanding of coinage as granted in the Constitution to congress.
Why do Americans see their constitution as some sort of ‘inspired’ document that must be interpreted literally and according to the writers’ understanding? I know of nowhere else where citizens have such a view of the constitution. Most view it as a ‘living document’ that is open to interpretation according to changing circumstances. Perhaps it goes along with the insistence on a literal interpretation of the worlds of the Bible that also seems to be stronger in the US than anywhere else? I briefly perused a book on this once, I must find it again. It is fascinating (in a scarey sort of way) for outsiders.
Kevin your question is good.
The reason for “covenant” or written documents are that they define what is expected and governs both sides of an agreement. Some historians have called the US “Calvinist America” for the insistence on a written covenant document.
Regarding SDA’s and the GC book, EGW referred to the greatness of America being based on Republicanism and Protestantism. “Republicanism” is a nation of constitutional law.
As Israel of old had a covenant defining both God’s and Israel’s responsibility, some look at the written document as definig both Governments and citizens responsibility…and limitations.
This is why the US declaration also states certain rights are endowed “by the creator.” The views and rights previously thought to come from kings…in the US are “from the creator” and defined and written in law.
regards,
pat
Rgardless of what either Jefferson or Madison wrote, they are long gone, and the Constitution stands. Yes, there have been many interpretations, and some of the most recent have been galling and seemed headed toward fewer individual freedoms and more to corporations and large vested interests: i.e. WalMart and recent Miranda rulings that youngsters have no such rights.
I mentioned in an earlier post that between the First and the Third World, there is the JS WORLD. Nobody asked about who they are – but I’ll explain. This JS WORLD group of people represent a large segment of people living in the US as well. These people desperately need Jesus and the Salvation He freely offers. They need self respect, love and care and also forgiveness and hope.
Well I have a confession to make…
I HAVE WATCHED A FEW JERRY SPRINGER SHOWS. Distasteful, crude, crass…crazy, sleazy.
The JS WORLD I speak of are the millions of people in America and around the World who are in the doldrums of sin and are totally like crying out for help and searching in the wrong places for a way out. Talk about ‘social engineering’ at its worst. My heart goes out to them too.
By the way, there are many reasons why many GET poor. Some are:
1] The El Nino Effect phenomena which causes drought/famine in one area of the globe and floods in another. India, during British occupation in the 1880’s, was drastically affected by this El Nino effect. The colonialists, instead of assisting the subsistence farmers, they forced them to buy British products which millions couldn’t afford and directly resulted in death and abject poverty for the survivors, the results of which can be still seen today. (El Nino Effect starts with a very slight differences in ocean surface temperature which then results in this disastrous phenomena)
2] Social Engineering? When a society intentionally oppresses a certain people group by withholding economic freedom and opportunities or suppresses their freedom and basic human rights to the detriment of that people group, forcing them struggle to make ends meet and grovel their circumstances which limit educational and economic opportunities. Thank God, some make it out!
3] SIN, SIN and more SIN. Bad choices, dysfunctional family life and bad community or social environment only the sin trap from within. Drugs abuse, alcoholism, immorality and debased lifestyle compound this further. Governments can’t solve immorality or redeem sinners: only Jesus can.
4] Debt, divorce, poor by circumstances or default (born into poverty), single parenting, untimely death, illness, disease, crime, violence, WAR, bad laws, capitalist protection of private banks and favoured corporations or individuals, high taxes and rates, poor healthcare, no healthcare, pitiable healthcare insurance benefits, rat race lifestyles, godlessness, pleasure seeking, etc.
Question is: “Will the sanctimonious pompous progressives reach out to these souls with love and compassion (or are they waiting for the poor to get their degrees first and schooled in whatever), or do I just see the good old fashioned traditional SDA’s going into these low-ways and no-ways areas seeking and saving the lost within the masses who are crying out for help? Calling them to repentance and a new life in Christ; Lending a Helping Hand; Offering Hope; Caring; Sharing; Preparing people to meet their Maker. Preaching the Good News to set the Captives Free. The JS WORLD Captives, the First World and the Last World too, pointing them to JESUS the Lamb of God Who was for sinners slain.
T
Pat,
Surely, you are not arguing that the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18) was not viewed differently by several of our founders. The point is that the founders had approaches to government and Constitutional jurisprudence and interpretation that differed to the same extent that these differences exist to this day. The laws that have been enacted that have benefitted various members our citizenry in the past century or more, have been enabled because the Supreme Court has historically ruled that the Necessary and Proper Clause implies powers to the Congress, other than the “enumerated” ones (dating back to the days of John Marshall, at least.)
The fact is that as a whole, the founders, as compared to many of their European ruling class contemporaries, were arguably quite “liberal;” not only in the classical 18th century sense that we have referenced on this thread, but—again comparatively speaking—in the modern sense. Remember that colonial America operated without either the feudal system or the European system of social and economic aristocracy; and as such was more egalitarian than Europe. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were influenced in large measure by the work of (“The Father of Liberalism”) John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Founders such as Samuel Adams were clearly liberals in the modern sense.
The historical catalysts in the evolution (or undoubtedly from your perspective, the devolution) from classical liberalism to modern liberalism were on at least four fronts: slavery and its wake, the education of women, the increasing complexity of society, and universal suffrage. It would take a number of blogs, if not a book, to describe the impact of each of these, so perhaps I’ll just highlight those most prominent from a pragmatic political perspective.
“Liberalism” as we know it today is realized because the United States is governed as a constitutional republic in which the legislative branch is comprised of individuals who represent VOTERS. At the time of the nation’s founding, even though we were a revolutionary liberal experiment in self-governance, the only people permitted the franchise were land owning white men; and not all of them. In colonial America there had even been religious tests or hurdles for voting in some colonies at various points in time.
Slaves were of course considered to be property. For all practical purposes, black men could not vote at all until ratification of the 15th amendment was in 1870. Some states did not officially approve it until well into the 20th century; not to mention the history of the Jim Crow south, and the fact that the Voting Rights Act was not passed until 1965.)
American women were not educated to the extent that men were until the latter half of the 19th century, and of course, generally could not vote until ratification of the 19th amendment in 1920; and thus were not even recognized as full citizens.
The increasing industrialization and subsequent societal complexities eventually occasioned the passage of laws regulating business and commerce, having to do with workplace and food safety and child labor; and with social welfare, including food and medical assistance for the poor and elderly.
Frankly Pat, your stated implication that the American economic system, whatever you perceive it to properly be, represents “mankind’s last best hope” is absolutely telling. As for WWJD, there is no possible reading or spinning of the gospel wherein anyone can reasonably conclude that Jesus would argue against Caesar allocating some of his tax revenue for the assistance of the poor, the sick, the enfeebled, the widowed, or orphaned.
Stephen,
You accused me of a revisionist understanding of this country and it’s Constitution. I asked you a question to demonstrate in the first 150 yrs. where the “general welfare” clause was used by the federal government as today to make “financial provision” for individuals in society. You have NOT done so…so who is the revisionist?
I think I see your issues that seem to blind you to what most of everything else the founders feared and demanded of limited government. I feel that is the issue of slavery. I to feel that we both can say that is an unfortunate part of US history also shared elsewhere in “that” world.
That issue however doesn’t invalidate the other principles in the Constitution. Issues of equal protection under law did not mean “provision” under the general welfare until contemporary times as I had stated.
It was Lincoln by the way, referring to the American Republic, who said,”We shall either nobly save, or meanly lose, the last great hope of mankind.” We have our feet in two worlds and my eternal hope is grounded in Christ…but in the meantime I apreciate the original goals of our Republic.
So, I am saying that Madision, called often “The author of the US Constitution”
never envisioned a federal power as we have today with it’s tentacles in every aspect of human and “state life” and they desired to prevent it.
This I sugest, in SDA playground language, is the lamb like progression to the beast…weather this “lamb” actually has anything to do with the US or not. I bring all this up again because of yours and Liberty and likely Cindy’s fetish to make the religious rt. the future author of everthing feared by SDA’s.
I say it is a strong central government growing to be unhindered by constitutional law that uses in a utilitarian sense religion/spirituality to accomplish more central power and control so that…one can ultimately not buy are sell without agreeing to the powerful beastly agenda.
I asked and pressed you on Prop 8 because you inferred this was one of the harbingers of the religious rt in their movement…only to find out SDA’s also promote “moral” behavior to government without an equal fear of oppression. ADRA also receives government money as perhaps a “faith innitiative” action.
So I will repeat my claim that to a large measure the religious rt has a better understanding of the Constitution than most…and as such I feel that I can hope to have them appreciate the religious liberty of the first amendment as well as other aspects of the document. One who has a “living document” can change meaning at will with whom no foundational principle of law can be appealed to.
I also repeat that Cindy’s view on immigration is “lawlessness” and a “national health insurance” is in violation of the original intent of the “general welfare” clause. The latter left to the desires and funding of the separate states.
If I were a church “employed” and a member of the EGW estates, I would also make it clear the political opinions I state were my own and in no way were a representative voice of the collective orginization I represent and that they felt my opinions would be WWJD.
I would also never voice my “political opinions” from the pulpit.
That, I suggest, is WWJD.
regards,
pat
Pat,
Now you see, or maybe you don’t, why I wondered aloud who was agreeing to play on whose playground.
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I don’t recall ever having promoted/defended legislation such as Prop. 8.
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I don’t recall stating or implying that welfare or food stamps, for example, were in place during the first 150 years of the republic.
In both these instances, you set up the question, and I responded to them; despite the fact that I saw them as straw men.
I pointed out that the religious right intends to impose religious dogma on the larger society, and therefore is more likely to catalyze and support mandated religious observance that we, on the Adventist playground, anticipate; prompting one question. I also challenged your implication, as romantic revisionism, of the founders as monolithic in their approaches the Constitution and the government; prompting the other question.
As for slavery, you could just as easily dismiss all references to slavery and blacks from my previous post—and I now wish you to do just that—and the points referencing women, industrialization, and universal suffrage stand on their own. The dismissive attribution of my constitutional views to a preoccupation with slavery is a rather weak attempt at diversion; if not insulting.
I’ve stated the reasons for my positions, as have you. My concern now is for your implied censorship of Cindy Tutsch. The Adventist Today site is a place for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. She does not write in this forum for or on behalf of her employer any more than you do for yours or I do for any of the companies or organizations with which I am now or may have previously been affiliated. Indeed, she has previously made it clear that it is not a requirement that all of her colleagues think exactly alike. It is blatantly unfair for you to seek to abridge anyone’s right to voice/write a perspective that you do not happen to share, simply because of their association with a particular entity or organization.
Stephen,
This was your comment that brought my Prop 8 comment,
>>”What position of the Christian [C]oalition and political right” is “odious to the majority of [A]mericans,” Pat? Is it their position on school prayer, or state support of private parochial K-12 education, or their positions against gay marriage, or abortion? Which of their positions are sufficiently “odious to the majority of Americans” so as to prevent any who espouse such positions from enjoying electoral success on a statewide or federal level?”<< I would suggest that “the moral positions” as a “whole package” are perceived by a majority of Americans throughout the WHOLE country as an “odious” impingement and someone “telling me what to do.” While some would agree with individual issues… taken as a whole they pull back. I don’t think either most are in favor of paid parochial education or absolutely no right to abortion…both of those views are however desirable to the “non-rt.” RCC Bishops and church hierarchy. regards
Stephen,
You mentioned homosexuality as one of the issues the “religious rt.” is “pushing” on society. My point is the SDA church has likewise promoted “moral” issues as they see them in the circumstances of Prop.8/homosexual “marriage” and Temperance issues and issues related to “labor unions.” Does it follow that they will deny religious liberty because of these “moral issues?”
You said that I was revising the intent of the Constitution presumably related to my comments on the “general welfare” and provision. I then followed by asking you to give evidence of my error. You did not. Please don’t just limit it to food or welfare…what other provisions of direct payment of funds to individuals make my view revisionist as you accused?
I never implied there was monlithic agreement between the founding fathers. Hamilton the federalist and Jefferson/Madison the Dem.-Republican party(not to directly be associated with today’s meaning)
Madison and jefferson who SDA revere appropriately for the 1st amendment WERE anti-federalist. Anti-unlimited central authority and big government. To get the states to sign on it was necessary to create amendments guaranteeing the parameters and limitations of federal power.
I said nothing to insult you. If I were black I would despise also that part of US history. As far as the other issues they to do not alter the meaning of “general welfare” and it’s original meaning as defined by Jefferson and Madison as not giving unlimited power on that clause which would make the enumerated powers meaningless as to limitation.
Instead of making Cindy a victim, maybe she can answer for herself.Her statement her views were not political does not make them so…they were.
You simply do not know from the SOP it is the “rel.rt.” that will be the primary promoter of “religious observance.” It is not sufficiently clear at this point who the primary promoters would be and the circumstances at this point…assuming it does occur primarily as a religious issue.
I will stay “on point” issue by issue with you Stephen. Don’t accuse me of being a “revisionist” on any issue unless you can produce the facts. I have accused you of nothing. I have asked you for supporting issues to your positions which I suggest are not explicit…as you feel.
regards,
pat
Cindy and Stephen,
Let me give you an example of an issue in which I participated in 1974 while Jimmy Carter (D) was the Govenor of Ga.
The act was called “The common day of Rest act of 1974.” The act provided for either from friday midnight to Sat. midnight OR from Sat.midnight to Sunday midnight” for businesses to be closed. The local SDA conference and Rel. LIberty had no problem with the bill…as it declared it did not violate the rights of any group but was intended for the “rest” of society for social well being.
I was on the Neil Bortz program and also the Harry Davey radio program as well as a public broadcast TV net work objecting to the bill on the basis it obviously had religious origins as it favoored both Sunday keepers as well as Saturday keepers.
Keep in mind the “given cause” was for social well being of society. Keep in mind this was supported by the “non-religious rt.” Jimmy Carter.
The approved legislation was overturned by the Ga. Supreme court on the same grounds I had argued it’s illegality on readio with the support of both guest hosts.
The same points I am trying to make that “societal beenefits” can be pushed by either rel.lt. or rt. as well as government representatives that might feel that rest for solidarity of society for social purposes might have value on it’s own merits…without a religious caused given. The effects help government and supporting parties for the solidarity they produce…the “whore rides on the beast.”
regards,
pat
Pat,
If we are “playing on the EGW” playground, her writings clearly and explicitly point to a convergence of RELIGIOUS powers with secular, governmental powers.
The secular left may encompass atheists, evolutionists, and other religious minimalists and opponents. Some of the same folks may be hatching anti-religious or religion-constricting plans. However, they do not fit the descriptions of EGW in her book, “The Great Controversy.”
EGW points to religious people who seek to employ the powers of the state to move their agenda forward. Presently, the “religious right” are seeking to do this very thing on the issues of abortion and gay marriage. EGW specifies that it is the removal of the “restraints now imposed by the secular government” that will open the door to the codifying of Sunday observance:
“Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed and Rome be reinstated in her former power, and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution.” GC pg. 564.
EGW points to Rome (RCC) as the “most dangerous foe to civil and religious liberty.”
“Men are closing their eyes to the real character of Romanism and the dangers to be apprehended from her supremacy. The people need to be aroused to resist the advances of this most dangerous foe to civil and religious liberty.” GC pg. 566.
EGW points to religious activists as those who seek to procure governmental power for religious ends:
“In the movements now in progress in the United States to secure for the institutions and usages of the church the support of the state, Protestants are following in the steps of papists.” GC pg. 573
EGW points to the danger of using secular laws to accomplish religious ends:
“Let the principle once be established in the United States that the church may employ or control the power of the state; that religious observances may be enforced by secular laws; in short, that the authority of church and state is to dominate the conscience, and the triumph of Rome in this country is assured.” GC, pg.581.
EGW points to the integration of religious doctrines in legislation (BTW, the primary argument against gay marriage):
“God’s word has given warning of the impending danger; let this be unheeded, and the Protestant world will learn what the purposes of Rome really are, only when it is too late to escape the snare. She is silently growing into power. Her doctrines are exerting their influence in legislative halls, in the churches, and in the hearts of men.” Ibid.
You may argue the accuracy of these predictions. You can debate the validity of EGW. However, it is clear, from her writings, that the protagonists in the marriage of church and state in the U.S. will be politically active religious people.
I don’t see the religious left holding much sway, here . . .
Stephen,
Yet… you have Wallis, Campola, and Cindy supporting WWJD as far as immigation and health insurance. The mainline churches are still there my friend that “worship on sunday” and certainly could be on board wtih many issues of liberal solidarity for the benefit of society.
Again my point…your religious right fettish is too small.
regards,
pat
PS. Rome is “liberal” in the socio-economic realm if you bothered to read the Bishops letter on the US economy that I provided.
Pat,
Getting anyone to believe that Pope Benedict XVI is a liberal or the head of a liberal organization is a bit of a tough sale to make.
Satan will use forces from the left (anti-creation forces from outside and, especially, within the church) and the right (church/state blenders) to do his work.
In terms of the church/state blending, I’m no detective, but if I were to hold an investigation, looking politically active persons (i.e. Jay “there is no constitutional separation of church and state” Sekulow) who are likely to partner with government officials to adopt their agenda, I would start with those who control the base of a major political party. Like any good investigator, I wouldn’t stop there.
But, before we look for more exotic scenarios, I would, first, exhaust the obvious.
Call me crazy.
Within the RCC Benedict XVI is not a conservative, and he still holds to a number of liberal ideals that he held as a young theologian at Tubingen. In some major areas – economics, social welfare, origins – he is more liberal than any SDA leader could ever be and still be elected. He has spent a considerable amount of effort to bring the RCC back to the centre, rather than take it to the right. He is more conservative than I would like if I were a RC, but that does not make him a conservative. If you believe he is a conservative, I would suggest you peruse one or two conservative RC websites and see what they think. Neither the right, centre, nor left in the RCC have any problems with working with the state to achieve their aims.
Spot on Kevin…just saw your post.
pat
Hi Preston,
Is Stephen of the same last name related?
What you consider the “obvious” is not to me. If your talking of someone who “in SDA lingo” will join hands wiith Rome…why not consider those who agree with them on most socio-economic issues…the mainline churches. They have no real problem with large government for social-economic purposes…nor does Benedict now that he is no longer Ratzinger. He used to oppose “man made global warming environmentalism” for example in the church till he became Pope and mellowed to the previous popes affection along with the Cardinals.
As I told Stephen, I’ll take my chances on those who are not revisionist and do not think the Constitution is “a living” document to be interpreted as socially the need may be felt.
By the way what ever became of “Evangelicals and Catholics Together?”
oops…some are also still interested in the Protestant doctrine of JBF…and sola scriptura.
regards,
pat
Pat (and Kevin),
According to Newsweek:
“In the past 30 years, the Vatican has moved strongly to reassert the authority of a traditional, even orthodox Roman Catholicism – to bring the notion of a “one true church” to Europe and then the larger world. The intent was to reverse the “open” or liberalizing trend of the church represented by Vatican II.
In the Catholic Church, conservatives have been riding high since 1978, when Karol Wojtyla was elected Pope John Paul II. Five years ago, with the election of Benedict XVI, their power was reaffirmed, and conservatives have benefited, as noted above, from appointments to crucial posts and bishoprics.”
The Christian Science Monitor:
“In the past three decades, the Vatican has cracked down on liberation theology, affirmed traditional sexual morality, and is now quietly supporting ultradevout Catholic groups such as Opus Dei and the Legions of Christ – while curbing ecumenical outreach and describing Protestant churches as not authentic.
The most constant, diligent, and serious champion of these moves is a shy but brilliant German theologian, Josef Ratzinger – now Pope Benedict XVI.”
Is it not obvious that the base of the conservative wing of the Republican Party (pardon the redundancy) is the religious right? Is it not obvious that the unlikely alliance of Catholics and conservative Protestants has been formed around the issue of abortion and virtually defines the Religious Right? Is it not obvious that the religious right sees no appropriate separation of church and state, and proudly says so?
Even if you deny that seemingly obvious facts, whom do you believe is more likely use the state to enforce Sunday worship (on the EGW playground), Jim Wallis and his friends or Pope Benedict and his?
BTW, I am Stephen’s little brother.
Jim Wallis and his friends or Pope Benedict and his?…yes, along with some segments of “the rel.rt.”…as I’ve told your “big brother” his view is not big or inclusive enough.
These on commonly held social agendas…though Wallis and friends are likely to be around to see the next pope…as Ratzinger is getting up there…
The RCC has always been in favor of the state providing for their “social agenda.”
Can’t you guys see that linkage with “progressive” government. Why did the RCC cooperate in the beginning at least so well with Mussolni and Hitler? There commonalties in the social agenda.
The offical doctrine of the Roman Church is outlined in the encyclical Quadragismo anno of Pope Pius XI (1931). The Anglo-Catholic doctrine is presented by the late William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the book Christianity and the Social Order (Penguin Special, 1942). Representative of the ideas of Eureopean continental Protestantism is the book of Emil Brunner, Justice and the Social Order, trans. by M. Hottinger (New York, 1945). A highly significant document is the section on “The Church and Disorder of Society” of the draft report which the World Council of Chruches in September, 1948, recommnded for appropriate action to the one hundred and fifty odd denominations whose delegates are member of the Council.
The commonalities between Hitler and the Nazis were around fascism, not some amorphous “social agenda” — unless that is defined as dictatorship. This is (with the possible exception of Fox News) the only place one is likely to find the term “progressive government” linked with Hitler. Surely you can do better than that.
Regarding the RCC, two things can be true simultaneously. They can be in favor of both feeding the poor — and, also, establishing their agenda (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc) by state fiat.
Indeed, on the enforcement of Sunday worship, there will, likely be collaborators from both sides. However, it seems to me the protagonists and champions will be from the right.
Correction: that should be “Mussolini and Hitler . . .”
Pat,
You: “You mentioned homosexuality as one of the issues the ‘religious rt.’ is ‘pushing’ on society.”
This is an illustration of the straw man appearing out of nowhere, and an example of how we are not communicating too well to each other. Of course, the fact is that other than a vague and general reference to “the government being in the private morality business,” and within the context of asking you to elaborate on what positions of the religious right do you consider to be “odious to the majority of Americans,” I did not mention homosexuality or gay rights. My point in asking the question was simply to isolate the reality that the various positions of the American religious right—which, by the way, very much includes “conservative” RCC and even some “conservative” Jews—are not sufficiently “odious” to enough American voters to prevent them from electoral success; as if the electoral successes of the last generation on all levels were not already probative of this.
This is important because in the Adventist paradigm, the church will influence the legislature/government to enact laws mandating religious observance. Those legislators, whoever they will be, will be beholden or accountable to their respective constituencies; that is to the people—the voters—who sent them there. These legislators, Pat, will not have been elected in a vacuum; or under circumstances where they will not have taken positions on church and state or related issues, be they termed “values” or “traditional” or “family,” or whatever.
Despite their rhetoric as relates to taxes and business regulation, the social conservatives who currently champion such issues are not limited or small government types; because they want the government active in promoting and enforcing their personal religious social concerns (not to mention their views of police and military power).
As I have repeatedly stated, EGW does not identify political affiliations. She, for one, mentions philosophies and movements and events. If it makes you more accepting of this reality, we can dispense with the right/left labels and perhaps classify such individuals and movements as political religious activists or church/state unionist activists; or something to that effect.
Stephen and Preston,
One must ask how so many were first deceived by these men.
In the forward to Bonhoeffer’s “The cost of Discipleship” comments this way concerning the German situation. “Both modern liberal theology and secular totalitarianism hold pretty much in common the message of the Bible has to be adapted more or less to the secular world. No wonder the process of debasing Christianity by Liberal Theology led in the long run to the complete perversion and falsification of the essence of Christian teaching by National Socialism.”
Later Bonhoeffer wrote in the book “Ethics”, “If evil appears in the form of light, benefit, loyalty and renewal, if it conforms with historical necessity and social justice, then this, if it is understood straightforwardly, is a clear proof of it’s abysmal wickedness.”p.65.
These things I suggest come from primarily from the social vision of “the religious left” and “secular left” in cooperation with whoever will embrace this state vision…including some from all areas in the continuum of “political-religious” activity…including some used in a utilitarian way from the rt.
regards,
pat
Pat,
So connect the dots for us . .
How would all this adaptation of the liberal theology (from the left) to the secular world (to the left) result in in the state codifying Sunday worship?
EGW connect the dots (we think) from the religious right to the political right (as itemized in earlier posts).
Thanks.
Thanks for your response Preston.
May I first respond by saying scripture says the final deception is not just in the US/not explicitly mentioned, but by the whole world by the leading of the beast & false prophet. So, while the rel.rt.you describe may work “as a whole concept” in isolated US states especially the south, it becomes basically meaningless and a “nutcase” to the world at large.
A commonality in that which deceives the whole world by the 10 kings that unite in common purpose it seems implicit must be associated by some concept of world governmental common effort to “save the planet” presumably along with a more “pluralistic & inclusive” form of spirituality associated with it. “If it indeed was” a putting forth of “sunday” it would be for solidarity of this more exalted belief system…as in the mere spiritual-state image of the image in the plain of Dura. It will indeed, I suggest, deny the creator, Christ, who created and sustains all things by His power as this “exclusive God.”
Those denying the “more exalted system” by remaining faith to Christ and “the faith once delivered to the saints” will be the peoples of the world’s enemies.
Those denying that faith will be subject to the plagues “because the repented not.”
My objection to the common understanding of EGW and more importantly scripture is the limitation of the final apostasy “to the religious rt”…that I suggest is an absurd reading of scripture.
regards,
pat
Pat,
I’m interested to see how you would quote Bonhoeffer concerning “modern liberal theology and secular totalitarianism hold pretty much in common”, and yet turn his observation to fit your particular view point. His observation is concerning opposites, that have the same principles at heart. Liberal theology in Nazi Germany was not equal / synonymous with what is identified as “the religious” / “secular left.” When the church in Germany began to support Fascism, it was truly swinging to the liberal side from the theological perspective. Totalitarianism is a hybrid conservative program of oppressing those who will not march in step with the leadership at hand. The German Church became liberal in the sense that it was departing from the foundation upon which it had been built. To this end Bonhoeffer gave his life.
Pat,
I’m interested to see how you would quote Bonhoeffer concerning “modern liberal theology and secular totalitarianism hold pretty much in common”, and yet turn his observation to fit your particular view point. His observation is concerning opposites, that have the same principles at heart. Liberal theology in Nazi Germany was not equal / synonymous with what is identified as “the religious” / “secular left.” When the church in Germany began to support Fascism, it was truly swinging to the liberal side from the theological perspective. Totalitarianism is a hybrid conservative program of oppressing those who will not march in step with the leadership at hand. The German Church became liberal in the sense that it was departing from the foundation upon which it had been built. To this end Bonhoeffer gave his life.
laffal,
Actually the Memoir contains this thought in the abbreviated biography and the times of Bonhoeffer by G. Leibholz.
“Both modern liberal theology and secular totalitarianism hold pretty much in common the message of the Bible has to be adapted more or less to the secular world. No wonder the process of debasing Christianity by Liberal Theology led in the long run to the complete perversion and falsification of the essence of Christian teaching by National Socialism.”
G. Leibholz no doubt is referring to the German scool of thought and it’s effects which were ultimately manifested by some in the form of “positive Christianity” which negates orthodoxy for a preferred “social application.”
The “theological liberal left” in the US generally likewise does not focus on orthodoxy but the more “practical” social application. Todays secular left’s realm is in the realm of increasing the size of central government rather than the economic limited government understanding of the conservative rt. In that sense, I suggest the theological left and secular left unite in common purposes for socio-economic application. I also suggest a “economic social agenda” through more centralized government powers is the traditional choice of the RCC. These are the commonalities that I see that don’t match any “conservative understanding” held in the US.
Have I been clear or is more desired.
regards,
pat
Tell ‘ya what Pat, I’ll stick to chapters 25 and 36 of GC as predictive descriptions of the players and the plays prophesied in Revelation 13. How you, or any other SDA can read those chapters in their entirety, and come to any conclusions other than that those who are most concerned with legislating religious values, or those whose advocacy for national repentance (and/or revival) is most fervent (because they are also among those who are on record as having attributed the cause of certain natural and manmade calamities to God’s displeasure), or those who do not want the state beyond the reach of influence of the church, or those who deny that there should be any separation of church and state, are the very sorts of that people about whom we should be most concerned and vigilant with reference to the enforcing of religious observance; is ALMOST beyond comprehension or explanation.
Heaven help us if the people described above are also among those who are most comfortable with state authorized torture (whatever anyone thinks qualifies as such).
The following may give you pause to reconsider your denial of the self-evident.
A U.S. poll by the Public Religion Research Institute and Religion News Service, conducted between March 17 and 20, 2011 (based on telephone interviews with 1,008 adults revealed, among other things, that 53% of white evangelicals believe that God punishes nations for the sins of its citizens. Previously televangelist and former Republican Presidential aspirant Pat Robertson “had exclaimed that Haiti’s earthquake in [2010] earthquake was a curse for its voodoo history. Robertson made similar remarks about the 2005 hurricane that devastated the Gulf Coast [Katrina], linking the tragedy to abortion.” (Christian Today website post, March 26, 2011 “Majority of evangelicals link natural disasters to end times”)
Here is a link to another interesting poll: http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Evangelicals-seem-unfazed-by-torture-Why.aspx
A brief excerpt from beginning of this article (by Greg Warner of the Religion News Service): … new numbers from the Pew Research Center that show white evangelicals are more supportive of “torture to gain important information from suspected terrorists” than any other religious or political group in the survey. Less than half of the general public (49 percent) say government-sponsored torture can “often” or “sometimes” be justified, compared to almost two-thirds of white evangelicals (62 percent). That view is almost identical to the view of Republicans (64 percent), giving fuel to the charge that evangelicals’ views on torture are rooted more in politics than their faith.
Sadly, I would submit that some Adventists’ calling into question historical Adventist eschatology is likewise “rooted more in politics than their faith.”
How’s this for explicitness, in this context: “But the beast with lamblike horns “spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed; . . . saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.” Revelation 13:11-14.
The lamblike horns and dragon voice of the symbol point to a striking contradiction between the professions and the practice of the nation thus represented. The “speaking” of the nation is the action of its legislative and judicial authorities. By such action it will give the lie to those liberal and peaceful principles which it has put forth as the foundation of its policy. The prediction that it will speak “as a dragon” and exercise “all the power of the first beast” plainly foretells a development of the spirit of intolerance and persecution that was manifested by the nations represented by the dragon and the leopardlike beast. And the statement that the beast with two horns “causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast” indicates that the authority of this nation is to be exercised in enforcing some observance which shall be an act of homage…
Such action would be directly contrary to the principles of this government, to the genius of its free institutions, to the direct and solemn avowals of the Declaration of Independence, and to the Constitution. The founders of the nation wisely sought to guard against the employment of secular power on the part of the church, with its inevitable result–intolerance and persecution.”
Once it has been decided that a propecy explicitly identifies a particular nation, all evidences are conveniently lined up to confirm that belief.
There is nothing in Revelation’s description of the beast to identify with certainty that it must be the U.S. A prophecy made nearly 2000 years ago could have been one of many nations during that time.Even at the time it was written, the Romans were actively persecuting Christians and demanding allegiance from all citizens. Such a vague description is not limited to a particular nation at a particular time in history except for those who have
The history of Rome bears this out that it describes it very well for the time it was in power. Today, neither the temporal power of Italy nor the papal power has little attention from its members. It is largely ignored. To believe that it will at some future time gain this ability to demand the entire world’s obedience is no less possible than that we will be transported to Mars next week. A 19th century prophet was writing out of the contemporary situation. This interpretation may have had credence when it was written, but it has no legs today except for a very few dedicated EGW fans.
Stephen,
So the “religious rt and evangelicals” accept theosophy and “modern spiritualism” that believes in “Love”, sentimentalism and not justice. They exalt the “god within.”
They “deify nature” more than the God of nature.
Papists, Protestants, and worldlings will . . . see in this union a grand movement for the conversion of the world and the ushering in of the long-expected millennium. {Mar 260.1}
They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. Jer. 6:14.
“The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” 2 Peter 3:10. When the reasoning of philosophy has banished the fear of God’s judgments; when religious teachers are pointing forward to long ages of peace and prosperity, and the world are absorbed in their rounds of business and pleasure, planting and building, feasting and merrymaking, rejecting God’s warnings and mocking His messengers–then it is that sudden destruction cometh upon them, and they shall not escape. 1 Thessalonians 5:3. {Mar 260.2}
Sure My friend, just keep on believing that. :>), :>)
Regards,
pat
PS.Oh, those were Thoughts from the Adventist playground. :>)
Or Stephen, Preston and perhaps laffal you might consider this to be a more probable “confederacy” of church and states.
http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2001/May/the-environment-created-and-sustained-by-whom.html
Elaine,
As I’ve stated before, those who do not evaluate current events, history, and prophecy from the same paradigm will not come to the same conclusions. As this is certainly the case with us, your views are understandable.
What is less understandable is why Seventh-day Adventists concoct private interpretations of “the closing scenes” so as to comport with their personal political ideologies or their individual worldviews; in contradiction/contravention to its church’s teaching on what we call eschatology.
Perhaps I just answered my own question.
So do you Stephen…have a private interpretation ofescatology shared by Liberty Mag? We shall perhaps one day see the finer print of that which is in reality but a broad brush non-explicit view.
How private can it be when (and if) 1) it is indeed shared by a periodical, published by the denomination, which monitors public affairs generally, and church and state issues specifically, and 2) when those religious and political individuals, organizations, and associations who do and say things that EGW pointed toward specifically, do so very publicly?
For the third or fourth time, EGW did not label particular political identification; so feel free to dispense with left and right, if it makes this more palatable.
…that is “in contradiction/contravention to THEIR church’s teachings on what we call eschatology.”
“of eschatology”
…of what we call eschatology.”
Did you bother to read my article in Ministry Stephen on the environment? How might those confederate voices deify nature while ignoring natures God? How might that exalted spirituality guide the world forward? Peace, Peace where there is no Peace!
Anyone who advocates a political position, and then seeks to validate it by the Bible, in WWJD? is interpreting politics by the Bible, and fraught with danger and the accusation of private interpretation. But, when one is a denominational employee, and especially a paid shill for EGW, it should be contained within that parameter and not so widely disseminated as though it was a denominational position–which it is not.
Cindy what gives you the right to say that these issues which you speak of are not “political”? You have simply given one perspective based on your ideological leanings. Those who have responded on here have likewise responded based on their own ideological leanings. The statements you made are very much in line with the beliefs of a certain political party in the United States. Those who agree with you have also spouted ideas in the same political vein. It’s naive to think one can discuss some of the most “politicized” issues and then deny that they are really “political”. It’s even more naive to ascribe them as “WWJD”. There are plenty of good-hearted Christians who frankly disagree with what Cindy wrote and disagree with those who’s comments support her statements. Cindy and those who support these ideas are probably also good Christians just with a different perspective than what they allege are “the Fox News” or “racist” or “intolerant” crowd. Cindy as a church leader you should be careful about pushing your political opinions on others. I personally am one who wishes we could get politics out of the church. Let the individual members discuss the issues, but in church forums and positions we should keep our political opinions largely to ourselves. The only issues I think we should act on that could be “political” in nature are the ones our church has a strong history of involvement in (temperance issues, noncombatantcy, etc.). Politics in the church creates far too much division and strife to be worth much ultimate good. Oh and I would say the same to a church leader who advocated for the opposite issues. If a church leader were pushing capitalism, immigration crackdowns, etc. I would have the same advice. Let’s discuss the issues, but let’s be honest about our biases and careful not to use our position to become religio-political bully pulpit.
austudent,(edited)
May I support you astute view and perception that “just because Cindy says her view is not political does not make it so.” It is a frequently used journalistic ploy to take off guard the observant. Basically, Deny that you are saying what you really are. The sophisticated deception of this is…much less than simple transparancy.
regards,
pat
Sorry about the double posting. Hopefully that won’t happen again. I can’t believe it but I’m actually somewhat agreeing with Elaine here. I have certain political positions myself and I believe they are influenced from my religious beliefs but I would rarely say my politics are WJWD (What Jesus Would Do). I can agree with advocating certain issues if one is working for the White Estate as Cindy obviously is. Those issues however would be the same that the namesake focused on or that the church has official statements on. When it comes to the health care and immigration debates the church doesn’t exactly have an official stand. For good reason. The issue is too divisive for any church committee to muscle it’s view as “the law”. If the church wants to involve itself in “politics” it should come from PARL (Public Affairs & Religious Liberty) or NARLA.
edited,
austudent,
By politicising the religious rt. as the “future possible beast” they are just as political as they…but don’t comprehend it.
Take a thorough look back at the first 150 yrs. of the Republic. The “church” before adventism always had a firm commitment in the moral behavior of the Republic. The area they missed at…properly seen… was when dealing with the first four. Our religious liberty dept and above commentators forget the legitimate activity of the church in a common understanding of morality as members of the republic in a non-partisan way…it seems. SDA’s, seemingly, can choose moral action but it seems no one else can without being associated with the beast…and yes, that is really how I feel about the duplicity of it!
Rodger Williams, a Baptist had it correct. The state has proper diligence in the principles of the last 6. Leave the first 4 to God!
Yet, anyone daring to remind us of the last 6 is associated with the beast…and may I say “this is the spirit lawlessness” defending a paranoia of sabbath observance when held this way.
regards,
pat
True Pat, but we have to be careful about aligning with either side. The Religious Right are neither the full solution nor the problem. They do some good and they do some evil, pretty much like every other organized group. Truthfully the traditional SDA view of the end of the world throws in pretty much every group(Apostate Protestantism, Spiritualism, Communism, Catholicism, “Mohemdians”[Islam], etc.) as Babylon. I’ve heard one person describe the 3 party city as the dragon (secularists/communists/atheists/other major religions), beast (RCC)& false prophet (other Christian churches). You’re right though that the church has traditionally supported enforcing certain moral standards of behavior. EGW’s work on temperance reform even with the Sunday law supporting WCTU is relevant example. I actually think that PARL &NARLA understand this as they still engage in certain issues like restrictions on tobacco. The issue of marriage is more tricky but the church does have a clear stand on the issue therefore in a way that provides a license for denomination employees to speak out on that issue and (somewhat) advocate politically. I still like the idea, however of keeping pastors and other church officials out of politics except in very clear cut cases. Yes you’re right. The last 6 commandments give the state permission to involve itself, though personally I’m happy if it stays out of the bedrooms and focuses on public behavior. You however are definitely right in that paranoia of certain political ideologies has reached the points of hypocrisy.
austudent,
I am not onboard with any religious political group…and neither to I label any religious political group the sure and primary source that will bring all SDA’s have feared. That’s my point!
Every item and every issue must be judged by it’s appropriateness. If any group chooses to make an issue of the 1st four commandments the law of the state…at that time address it. To infer now exactly who that might be now affecting the whole world, as i.e the religious rt, is ludicrous.
It makes the sabbath of higher priority than how we treat fellow professing Christians who often times don’t know what in hades our problem is other than we don’t like sunday keeping and eating unclesn foods and they are complicit in the “mark of the beast.”
regards,
pat
Pat, good point. Though as Seventh-day Adventists I can understand how we come to prioritize the Sabbath, possibly even to the point of overemphasis. It’s like our key doctrine and one of the main things that makes us unique from just about every other Christian religion (excluding Seventh-day Baptists which gave us the doctrine).
I think our focus on the religious right stems from our history in being “protesting Protestants” as Dr. Nick Miller describes. We’ve always in some ways been “against” the other Evangelicals historically and that seeps into our treatment and way we talk about them. At the same time as we modernize many young people and some more “open” types in the church are beginning to take advantage of the benefits of the Evangelical world from music to media to who knows what. At the same time those in the church who are more “progressive” both religiously and politically can connect to the religious right bashing because it goes along with their ideology. Bashing of the religious right is something that can unite both “progressives” from Spectrum and “conservatives” from Adventists Affirm, Our Firm Foundation, etc.
aus,
Bashing other Christian to create “unity” among SDA’s over the sabbath just may bring God’s response of the past…I am weary of your sabbaths…new moons..offerings…foods. First, You must be born again and Rom.10:6-15.
regards,
pat
How few know that the sabbath was initially dependent on the phases of the moon? And how many realize that most of the time sabbath is mentioned in the OT that it is connected to the moon?
In Gen. 1:14 “Let there be lights…to divide the day from night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years.”
With no calendars, the ancients “clock” was dependent on the sun and moon, and to a lesser degree, the stars, which is why the moon was so important in their calculations of sabbath.
Psalm 104: “He appointed the moon for seasons.”
Becauseit is well known that the lunar month has 29 or 30 days, the normal lapse of time between sabaths was six days, although sometimes even or eight; and six working days.
2 Kings 4:23: “Why are you going to him today? It is neither the new moon nor the the sabbath.”
2. Chron. 24:31: “And at every presentation of a burnt offering to the Lord on the Sabbaths and the new moons and on the set feasts.”
2 Chron. 2:4: “Behold, I am building a temple for the name of the Lord….for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, on the new moons and on the set feasts of the Lord (see Lev.23 for the “set feasts”).
2 Chron. 8:13: “According to the daily rate, offering according to the commandment of Moses, for the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the three appointed yearly feasts.”
Neh: 19: “For the showbread, for the regular grain offering, for the regular burnt offering of the sabbaths, the new moons, and the set feasts” (vs. 33).
Is. 1:13, 66:23: “Bring no more futile sacrifices, incense is an abomination to me, the new moons, the sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies.”
“And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.”
Ezek 46:3 “Likewise the people of the land shall worship at the entrance to this gateway before the Lord, on the sabbaths and the new moons.”
Finally, (Amos 8:5), “When will the new moon be past, that we may sell grain? And the sabbath that we may trade our wheat?”
Both Babylonians and Herews appear to have derived from a common Semitic antiquity, the flood.
A similar association of the weekly sabbath with the moon’s course is set forth in a seven-day period found in a Babylonian text which specifically indicates the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty0eighth days as those of Sin, the moon-god.
In the Babylonian “epic of Creation,” traced in its original form to the close of the third millennium B.C., the god Marduk created and set in order the heavenly bodies, then placed the moon in the sky to make known the days and divide the month with her phases. This epic also has disctinctive creative acts that coincide with the Genesis account, concluding with the seventh day on which the gods rested.
Finally, the new moon is still recognized as a special time:
Col. 2:16: “Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths.
The weekly sabbath with the new moon is a common eature in all these verses. The weekly sabbath depends on it for its very existence since it is counted from the day after the new moon. The writers of the Bible obviously understood the new moon and weekly sabbath had the same requirements under the law and that the sabbath was related to and in coordinated succession with the lunar seven-day cycle. To even think that two different calendars or reckoning were used–one for the new moons and annual feast days, and another for the weekly sabbath–is preposterous.
God’s weekly sabbath days fall on the phases of the new moon and not on a day in man’s humanly-devised calendar.
Of course this topic of what religio-political movements and entities should we be concerned with insofar as the SDA/EGW/GC interpretation of Revelation 13 is concerned is not what Cindy wrote about in her blog, and I take my share of responsibility/blame for shifting the conversation in this direction.
That said, it is a most important topic for discussion; and I am not at all sorry that we are discussing it. My only regret is to the extent that my posts and opinions are reckoned as those of Cindy, since we are so often in agreement.
I have suggested to Pat that, for sake of this discussion, he consider dispensing with the right/left, conservative/liberal labels, and instead focus on what current statements, attitudes, philosophies, and actions from whom are most in line with the Adventist prophetic interpretation (GC chapters 25 and 36) of a religious observance becoming mandated by U.S. law for purposes of assuaging God’s wrath and securing His blessing (among others).
I have used non-Adventist, non-partisan sources and data to document statements, attitudes, philosophies, and actions that are unquestionably in line with this mindset. I have also cited a scheduled (near-future) event hosted by a possible presidential candidate, and quoted another (active) presidential candidate in this context.
It is now understandable that those who have perhaps routinely or historically voted for candidates of a particular political party would find it “natural” to defend elements of that party who have “carried the water” in the culture war of moral and social values (in the public arena); and likewise find it hard to swallow–or even imagine–that these individuals would ever promote an enforcement of any of their religious values.
Stephen,
So now you wish to drop Rt.& Lt. labels
Earlier you said this, ” that the theological right is at issue here only to the extent that it is also the political right—and then thinks and acts as the “theocratic “right.”
Cindy also says that the “present religious rt.” conforms most in her opinion to EGW.
Liberty continuously imples the “religious rt.”
All politicians attempt to “enforce” their moral undestandings on society. That is why there is this thing called legislation. Are they enforcing their amoral positions.
The issue is are their efforts in the area of being unconstituional…and as I said I would opposes a “sunday law weather secular or religious in nature” and have publically done so when the Religious liberty dept. showed no alarm.
regards,
pat
Stephen, though you may want to see yourself as unbiased or not “political” or even “non-partisan” you are nevertheless espousing a partisan view. I am not here to say what you or Cindy any other person is saying is wrong so much as it is politically charged and should be discussed in the proper context with biases admitted rather than denied. It is impossible to dispense with the labels which merely provide a better context for the pseudonyms and we try to use.
As for the Adventist interpretation I can see individuals of both political parties and across the entire spectrum engaging in the activities are predicted by SDA prophecies. The left through a compromise of tolerance and the right through faithfulness to a moral standard. It is an error to assume that only one ideological group will bring about the last events such as Sunday law. If we want to use Ellen White she clearly describes how the Sunday law type actions will come not from Jesuits and republican congressman meeting behind closed doors in the Capitol, but rather from a general outcry of “the people” clamoring for their legislators to act.
Anyone who knows enough about American politics should know that major legislation only succeeds through compromise and bi-partisan agreement. One reason health care reform is still controversial is because it was passed by only one party, in contrast to civil rights, Social Security, etc. This has nothing to do with defending “natural” political inclinations. Rather it is supporting a more honest and academic reading than what is sometimes sadly the typical SDA political prophetic view. At least people like Keith Burton and Alan Reinach are balanced enough to include both right and left political criticisms in their writings.
Pat is right when he says that all politicians try to enforce their moral understandings. That’s the definition of political convictions.
Both the right and the left are guilty and will remain guilty. We must therefore bob and weave between both camps choosing the best based on the issues.
In the light of austudent’s comment: “the Sunday law type actions will come … from a general outcry of “the people” clamoring for their legislators to act.” With this quote in mind, the following link of an interview between Charlie Rose & Ralph Reed 16 years ago is insightful as to the agenda of the Christian Coalition who claim to represent the religious right. You will find the interview beginning at the 34 min mark.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6725
I’ve already seen that kind of stuff and much more laffal. I refuse to believe that a secret conspiracy of only one ideology can successfully control this country. Study politics and you will know that no matter what the right wing/Christian Coalition, American Family Association, etc. want to do they can only succeed with support from both parties. Sure they may be able to pass bits and pieces of their agenda (restricting abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but a national Sunday law will require a united front. The way Ellen White describes it there will only be a few brave legislators who stand against it. I could easily see these being both conservative Republicans like Ron Paul or Justin Amash and liberal democrats like Bernie Sanders or Pete Stark. It’s sad but sometimes our apocalyptic views ignore the political realities we live in. Ralph Reed will never win unless he gets support from some on the left as well.
austudent,
I’m not in disagreement with you. Ralph Reed makes the case for your argument in the interview. The politicians will do what the people want them to. But we cannot dismiss the massive propaganda machine that is / will drive the effort.
Peace
… To be honest, as far as I’m concerned, when the lights go out, the right & the left drink at the same watering hole. Much of what we see and hear is designed to lead us (the people) to make the decisions that will lead to the prophetic fulfillment here is question. And in this I can agree with Stephen, washing out the right / left in the discussion is not a bad idea.
Peace
Ralph Reed makes the case for which argument of mine? That the people will clamor for “moral laws”? If so then he’s just saying the same thing as Ellen White and the rest of our pioneers. That’s also how the Bible describes it with “the whole world marveling” and following the beast. And last I checked “the whole world” probably includes more than 50% of the US congress. As for the “propaganda machine” both the left and the right utilize it depending on which “moral” issue they care most about. It’s good to wash out the right and left, but talk is cheap. Both you laffal and Stephen claim you are doing away with the “right/left” discussion, yet both of you have repeatedly only castigated or spoken against one side (and in some ways in defense of the opposite side). To be truly balanced we need to speak against the errors of both sides.
The only reference I have actually have made one way or another when it comes to right & left is when I responded to Pat’s application of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s statements from Cost of Discipleship / Ethics. Personally, I see both sides working to the same end, but as for public perception, according to the propaganda machine, the right has tended to be the face / voice of morality, and the left likewise when it comes to unfettered liberties in terms of morality. What’s been the result? Chaos is unfolding before us all… to which I believe at some point people will clamor for their public representatives to do something about it… hence legislated righteousness… aka National Sunday Law. But behind all of this is the right wing religious doctrinal / political orientation. Without the liberal agenda as seen / heard, the conservative right would have nothing in which to use for leverage. Again, I do believe that when the lights go out, the all drink at the same watering hole, or the same cistern if you will.
Peace
Because Adventists are so convinced that a future Sunday Law will usher in the “end,” it should be considered that it may be something entirely different that will cause people to enact other laws destroying our liberty of freedom of thought and worship, some are already beginning to tear away the fabric of freedom. There are many forms of tyranny that can more effectively produce this than any Sunday laws.
laffal & Stephen,
Thank you Elaine and austudent for your rational responses in this thing we call the US Republic. To judge presently every political action though the “lens of a future sunday law” does exactly what has occurred. One party & group…the rt.wing religions…have been isolated as the future problem.
I would ask those holding the views only of “moral” input carefully examine the foundations of this country. One should consider peoples positions such as Jonathan Witherspoon. The only clergy that signed the declaration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Witherspoon
Witherspoon was clearly conservative theologically in today’s world. He was also the Professor of James Madison who authored the 1st amendment and numerous later representatives.
The congress had a “Christian” chaplain. The congress conducted no business on Sunday as defined in the constitution. The congress indeed did make “moral decisions” by your definition that seems to eliminate any religious understanding and a complete “separatist view.”.
What Madison and others did was to define what was inappropriate church state religious activity. The government could not place restrictions on religious test for office. The federal government could not respect one religion thus creating Christianity or any other as the national state religion or prevent freedom of religion from the standpoint of rules originating from the federal government on the states.
That no moral laws of common religious sensibilities were not part of the original government actions will not stand investigation. That laws against bigamy as an interest of the civil power were not established overriding the “free exercise of religion of Mormans” should be considered.
Thus I ask, who is pushing the original activities of “religion” being not acceptable in society excepting the enumerated limitations on our constitution as dangerous activities. Who may be pushing the concept of “lawlessness” on society demanding no religious input? Who amy be causing some of societies disorders by such a “separatist view?”
Regards,
pat
The above comments should be edited as such…”That laws against bigamy as an interest of the civil power were established overriding the “free exercise of religion of Mormans” should be considered…NOT is being removed.
regards,
pat
laffal, I feel like you’re trying to speak out of both sides while purposely choosing one side. I could be wrong but here’s what I see. You begin by stating that you only made “one reference” to the left and the right. You then offer a balanced example against both the right and the left. However, you immediately close with an attack on the “right wing religious doctrinal / political orientation” and essentially admit your bias by saying this is “REALLY” the cause behind all the madness (including that of the left). So basically from my understanding you’re saying that the right and the left will eventually end up together (at the same water hole) but the right is more at fault as it’s “doctrinal / political orientation” is really what is “behind all of this”.
If so then I have to disagree, as human nature is really the cause “behind all of this”. The right and the left both have humans and therefore are prone to make human mistakes. There is no “vast right wing conspiracy” or “left wing conspiracy” uniting to push a national Sunday law at the moment. Elaine thinks it could be other issues while more traditional (Conservative) SDA’s think it will be the Sunday law. Whatever it is, the momentum will have to cover the ideological spectrum. I finish by saying kudos to Pat for defending one of the sides against attacks by the other side. Both have good points and both have trouble spots. We should be wary of speaking too quickly about the specifics of hypothetical future events.
austudent,
I am merely trying to prevent SDA’s from being historically uninformed should the SDA scenario possibly occur. If the moral restraints of society are actually being unleashed is it necessarily uncalled for that religions and citizens might appropriately attempt to institute general “moral” legislation not specific to just the Christian faith? I suggest that moral effort in itself “proves” nothing not allowed in the Constitution.
regards,
pat
Shouldn’t the correct name be “Seventh-day Eschatologists”? Adventists are so positively sure that their prophet, more than 100 years ago, was able to foresee all that would occur in the U.S. and the world. In reality, she could see ahead no better nor worse than anyone who had the temerity to predict the future, the future they would not live to see and be condemned for being so wrong.
Only God knows the future and humans who think to do his work would do well to let him be the prophetic voice, not themselves who are completely fallible. What one sees in her lifetime as indicating far-in-the-future events is sheer speculation based on things as they are at the time. Rapid movements may completely obliterate those prophesied events, and no doubt will prove to be very wrong.
“For the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7 ESV)
To be clear, I have suggested to Pat that if it will help him see the reality of the mindset and philosophy (as opposed to, let’s say, the “ideology”) that is most amenable to influencing legislation mandating religious observance—for religious reasons, might I add —it would probably be useful to dispense with the right and left labels. The reason I suggested this is because he appeared (to me) to take an almost reflexively defensive position with regard to the “religious rt.,” as he often abbreviated it; with almost total disregard to the well-documented statements, positions, and actions that some of the individuals and organizational entities (often associated with the so-called “religious right”) have made or have taken. His position, and that of austudent, seems to be that my focus on this segment of the body politic (and its rhetorical leadership) should be widened to include others, including those who want the government to carry out an activist egalitarian liberal agenda.
Their position, if I have characterized it fairly, comes off as somewhat less than credible if only because of the willful ignoring, denial, and occasional defense of those who are on record as admitting that they are actively seeking to gain ever-increasing political power in order to influence, promote, and enact a religiously based legislative agenda.
I am on record as describing myself as a theologically conservative Protestant Seventh-day Adventist who completely (not partially) “buys into” the historical Adventist eschatological take on Revelation 13 and The Great Controversy narrative; and (therefore) a civil libertarian with socially liberal instincts—having written a blog on this site (“Confessions of a Conservative Liberal”) to this effect. I am not hiding from these labels, but am suggesting that to the extent that the labels stifle communication, those with whom I am engaged in discussion might be better served focusing on statements, positions, and actions than with the labels.
Our friend austudent, states what appears to be a truism. Like many truisms of course, it is not necessarily true that “Ralph Reed will never win unless he gets support from some on the left as well.” While this may very likely be the case, it has certainly been demonstrated in the past 20 years that it is entirely possible to pass controversial legislation with single party congressional control (of both houses) and the Presidency; and without a single vote from the other party—be it a large tax increase on upper income households (1993) or health insurance reform (2010)—if given sufficient congressional majorities.
Besides, the statement that Ralph Reed will need “support from some on the left as well” in order to “win” is a tacit endorsement of my basic position.
Stephen of wrote of himself:
“and (therefore) a civil libertarian with socially liberal instincts”
That is funny,as if libertarians are in favor of large governmental, e.g. government as charity. I must admit I have rarely seen such a strange rationalization of one’s political views as Stephen presents. As we read his writings we see him make bold claims about what he has demonstrated but then when we go back to look at what he said the quotes have nothing to do with what he claims they show. He has no evidence that the religious right is out to produce religious legislation but he constantly reads it into everything they say.
And probably worst of all is that this is all attributed to Ellen White and her 19th century eschatology which has no semblance to present reality. She has had no track record of accurate predictions, look it up even the SDA believes book on the 27 fundamental beliefs notes only 2 predictions and neither one has actually occurred. (the rise of spiritualism and joining of protestants and Catholics)But Stephen and others hold to it as if it is literal truth and they use it in prejudicial ways against other Christians. In the main giving their support to the political left which seeks to remove christian moral ideas from society and who favor expanding the power of government. It is such a complete disconnect with reality that it is hard to believe. No wonder they want to play on the Adventist playground…it is totally artificial and no matter what the results will be what the historical/traditional Adventist wants it to be. No point in using logic or facts because their faith in their interpretation trumps everything.
I actually dealt with this on my blog over the weekend
http://cafesda.blogspot.com
Stephen,
I am curious how many of the persuasion of the group you feel most consistent today with fulfilling that foretold in EGW’s writings have stated they wanted to institute a sunday law?
Aside from that is it wrong to desire moral actions one desires to influence public behavior that are not specific to Christianity only. Did that ever occur in the early Constitutional Republic?
regards,
pat
Stephen,
In case I wasn’t clear…have the groups you describe ever taken a position for a “national/federal” sunday law?
Pat,
The National Reform Association instituted in 1863 has always had, and still has as it’s primary agenda item, the establishment of religious legislation as being necessary for the US Govt. It failed in it’s 2 previous attempts in 1888 (Blair Bill) and in 1893 (Chicago Worlds Fair). And there has been documented oppression in the early 1900’s of those who would work on Sunday. There are Sunday laws on the books of every state in the union as we speak. So it’s not a reach that a constitutional amendment to legislate a “National Sunday Law” is within reach at any point. There are preliminary matters that must precede any such legislation. And with all of the issues that are arising before us as a nation: political, social, moral, economic, environmental and so on, neither do I see it being a reach that the people could be convinced and some point and time that all of these circumstances are due to not honoring the Lord’s Day (Sunday). Silence does not indicate / conclude that the RR is not interested in such a move as legislating a national day of worship.
I would also like to know when has anyone but SDAs mentioned a possible national sunday law? Is it wishful thinking in order to fulfill EGW’s prophecy? What are the signs that political forces are interested, or even are concerned about such a law? What are the signs pointing to that happening?
Ok check this out…
New York the third most populous US State, will become the sixth to approve gay MARRIAGE after Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont. NY Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a bill legalising gay marriage – the Marriage Equality Act.
How’d they get the 33-29 win in New York? 29 Democratic Senators were JOINED by 4 Republicans thereby acquiring one vote more than the minimum needed to approve the bill. New York is a Republican controlled State Senate yet some got into bed with the Democrats.
This speaks volumes as to how Social/Cultural issues can have a direct impact on political decisions and laws: not forgetting how opposing factions can get together and change laws via political legislature.
Moreover, is not the Civil Government simply overstepping church/state boundaries in terms of civil unions granted to homosexuals by calling this said union MARRIAGE thereby encroaching on Church turf regarding morals and the principles of the Bible regarding the definition of marriage?
If the homosexual community can lobby and sway the vote then what’s stopping the Christian community from doing the same to enforce Sunday Sacredness. This blog however challenges us to acknowledge our Christian duty to the widows, infirmed, orphans, aged, children and the oppressed.
What’s wrong with using one’s vote to uplift the downtrodden and supporting a benevolent gesture towards providing a better life for those less fortunate than yourself? Like the many others that came to the shores of the USA seeking asylum and a better life…and those too who were brought in as captives to provide the cheap labour fodder for the ‘lamb with two horns’.
T
Before you get too carried away bemoaning the state’s encroachment on the church’s ‘turf’, you might want to read an account or two about the history of marriage. The entry of the Christian church into the marriage game came late, and almost entirely by default rather than plan. As far as I know, Judaism still does not need a Rabbi to make a marriage legal, nor has the Christian church ever demanded that a priest/pastor perform the ceremony. Marriage has always been a civil institution, it has occasionally been/included a religious ritual. It is strange that so many SDAs argue for marriage being a ‘sacrament’ when we don’t actually believe in sacraments.
Neither Jesus not Paul seem to have held marriage as the greatest good, or said anything about it being the foundation of all social life. Both seemed to see a great deal of value in the single life devoted to God. Whether we argue for or against any proposed change to the law, it is a good idea to have our history and our theology in order before going public.
Stephen of wrote of himself:
“and (therefore) a civil libertarian with socially liberal instincts”
That is funny,as if libertarians are in favor of large governmental, e.g. government as charity. I must admit I have rarely seen such a strange rationalization of one’s political views as Stephen presents. As we read his writings we see him make bold claims about what he has demonstrated but then when we go back to look at what he said the quotes have nothing to do with what he claims they show. He has no evidence that the religious right is out to produce religious legislation but he constantly reads it into everything they say.
And probably worst of all is that this is all attributed to Ellen White and her 19th century eschatology which has no semblance to present reality. She has had no track record of accurate predictions, look it up even the SDA believes book on the 27 fundamental beliefs notes only 2 predictions and neither one has actually occurred. (the rise of spiritualism and joining of protestants and Catholics)But Stephen and others hold to it as if it is literal truth and they use it in prejudicial ways against other Christians. In the main giving their support to the political left which seeks to remove christian moral ideas from society and who favor expanding the power of government. It is such a complete disconnect with reality that it is hard to believe. No wonder they want to play on the Adventist playground…it is totally artificial and no matter what the results will be what the historical/traditional Adventist wants it to be. No point in using logic or facts because their faith in their interpretation trumps everything.
Pat,
State and local blue laws that have been passed in the past came from somewhere, somehow, and were voted on by actual people.
As for those contemporaries of ours who have as yet played no part in such legislation, perhaps we should keep in mind that we are talking about prophecy; and therefore the future.
May I suggest that in terms of the eschatology which informs my thinking that we think in terms of “trends,” and whatever trends dovetail most closely with it?
Elaine,
As much as I enjoy engaging with you, I must say that if you reject out of hand the SDA eschatological paradigm from which I operate, which you do, you will likewise reject its conclusions and draw no parallels to any current events and/or religio-political trends or occurrences. We would therefore be talking about parallel universes, wherein never the twain shall meet.
If you were of such a mind as to be open to the SDA eschatological paradigm, I would strongly encourage you to prayerfully and carefully read Revelation 12-14 and chapters 25 and 36 of GC in their entirety; and THEN READ the following conversation which was part of the Charlie Rose interview with Ralph Reed some 16 years ago whose link was recently posted by laffal. Ralph Reed and his colleagues, for your information, haven’t gone anywhere and are still very much on task.
If you were open to the SDA eschatological paradigm Elaine, I would then say to you that legislatively mandated religious observance is not likely to come out of nowhere, with no groundwork having been done, wittingly or unwittingly, to pave the way for its possibility.
REED: Yeah but the difference is this. I have no intention and no do not aspire to occupy that kind of institutional role in the Republican Party. I do not want to be, nor does Pat Robertson want to be, the Lane Kirkland of the Republican Party. We’re not going to overplay our hand…
ROSE: What do you want to be?
REED: What I want to do is encourage people of faith to get involved in the civic process so it’s their voice that is heard, not mine.
ROSE: Alright but you may very well I understand that and, and but you are the vessel that will deliver their voice. You want to come to the table and have enormous political power; because you want to be able to change America in the way that you think and your constituent and your people and members of the conservative, the Christian Coalition believe ought to be the America.
REED: Well that wouldn’t be, that wouldn’t be the way I would phrase it…
ROSE: How would you phrase it?
REED: …or characterize it. I think what I want is to ensure that these folks, these voters, pro-family evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and frankly a growing number of orthodox Jews, are represented in the highest council of government, commensurate to their numbers. And let me just tell you what their numbers are in the Republican Party. We did a survey that was co-commissioned by Frank Luntz, Luntz Research, and Marketing Research Institute. 42% of Republican voters are born again evangelicals, 53% go to church four times or more a month, and 71% are pro-life. Now are view is…
ROSE: Of Republic-of the, these are people
REED: Of Republican voters…
ROSE: These are people who voted Republican in presidential elections? Or these are people who voted…
REED: They voted Republican in ’92, ’94 and they say they will vote in ’96. So it’s likely Republican voters. And all I’m really saying is that it would behoove the party to have its national platform and ticket reflect the views of the grass roots of its party. That’s all, but that’s their decision; they have to make their decision. I’m not going to endorse a candidate; I’m not going to tell them what to do. What I am going to do is say “here’s our agenda,” which is what we did with the Contract with the American Family, “here’s what we’re for.” We’re encouraging them to endorse our agenda, not the other way around.
Grammatical/spelling correction to one of Reed’s responses: “Now our view is…”
Until such people as Reed have more significance and following, he will be no more given credence than every other poltician in the marketplace who spouts such stuff. Who believes politicians anyway, especially such unknowns and failed ones? Reed has a chance a few years ago and evidently still wants to make changes, but who’s listening?
Crying “wolf” has nothing to do with reality, only based on fear, and that is what much of this is about.
No, I cannot accept the eschatology you have accepted as it does not meet with
what is actually taking place in our world today which is becoming much more tolerant (notice above the ruling for gay marriages in New York). Society has so radically changed in the few years that it should be a wake-up call to anyone, particularly a politician, who would propose restricting anyone’s freedom, which is what a sunday law would effect.
The only way one can project a possible sunday law is to completely ignore the political climate today and focus only on Adventist prophecy: prophecy which was made more than 100 years ago in a very different world and society than today. If anyone believes that America will turn to intolerance, restrict religious liberty and propose such laws, he must ignore all the world around him today.
Elaine is right. Stephen keep trying to set up all these straw boogeymen such as Ralph Reed, who has been discredited even within his own party. Remember his campaign for LG in GA? That went up in smoke by a long shot. What has Reed actually does that is so scary or so productive? To me he’s just another political activist, albeit one that is increasingly less and less influential. Elaine is dead on about “crying wolf”. While I do ascribe to most traditional SDA eschatology views, I am not so blind as to make them absolutes. Stephen look at the political climate. In spite of the fear mongering and attacking of the right, they have not really succeeded except at imposing a few restrictions on abortion and gay marriage. I might add restrictions that when it comes to the latter are increasingly being lifted (can anyone say DOMA?).
If you were truly standing by what you have said (that labels should be removed) then yes Stephen you would acknowledge the errors of the left as well as the right. A failure to do so puts you in with an ideological camp irregardless of your desire to be balanced and objective.You say my position is “less than credible” only because I am willing to both attack and defend both sides simultaneously. I do not defend the religious right so much as I trivialize their current importance. Yes they played a role in 2004 and still involves themselves in the political process but political evidence shows that their influence is waning. Right now the issues are economic which the religious right is not happy about. And if you want to say that the right sees this as a “moral issue” then I will remind you that today Obama’s spokesperson called Republican budget ideas “immoral”. Moral issues are in every part of the political spectrum. I do not deny that the religious right MAY LIKE to gain power/influence, etc. the same as any other pressure activist group. That still doesn’t justify making them the sole focus of our political eschatology. Jim Wallis I might argue is in some ways just as bad as the religious right in terms of uniting religion and government. It seems Stephen that we pick and choose our nemeses based on our ideology. I have yet to see you attack or speak negatively of anything other than the right wing or their ideologies on here.
Ralph Reed probably will not win, but if he does it won’t be only with support from the right. You are correct in that controversial legislation CAN be PASSED with only one parties support, but it very hard to actually sustain popularity for it. That was the example of the Health care legislation. For all we know it could be repealed or struck down by the Supreme Court. Such is the nature of actions that lean partisan in nature. While the tax increase was an important economic issue, it fizzled out because it had no where near the repercussions the Health care reform will have or a National Sunday law would have. Seriously do you honestly see the Republicans passing a Sunday law while the Democrats sit on their hands and only protest? Or maybe the Left will join with the Seventh-day Adventists? I’m sorry but such a scenario is rather laughable. I don’t see many of the left wing secularist types joining a “Conservative Christian” denomination because it opposes a “national Sunday law”. Now I believe that eventually a Sunday law could be passed but given the political climate something drastic would have to happen. The fact it’s not even a political issue demonstrates it’s lack of importance to anyone but Seventh-day Adventists.
PS Don’t forget that 1/5 of the US Senate is Jewish. While some are secular I can’t exactly see Lieberman real happy about a National Sunday Law.
Stephen,
You help me make my point. When these “blue laws were made” they were not consdered to be unconstitutional and only the “mainline churches existed.” What makes you sure that the religious rt. will not embrace the first amendment regarding a specific worship day…have you shown that to be their present position? The group you want to focus on is criticised often for being -pro-Israel. How might that relate to a national sunday law?
Since you are hypothesizing let me give you one. Why not a weekly day of rest to save the environment as chosen by various countries that show’s solidarity with the world to save the planet? What religions and political preferences might that resonate with…and appear secular? Would that be legit in your eyes?
regards,
pat
Pat,
The National Reform Association instituted in 1863 has always had, and still has as it’s primary agenda item, the establishment of religious legislation as being necessary for the US Govt. It failed in it’s 2 previous attempts in 1888 (Blair Bill) and in 1893 (Chicago Worlds Fair). And there has been documented oppression in the early 1900’s of those who would work on Sunday. There are Sunday laws on the books of every state in the union as we speak. So it’s not a reach that a constitutional amendment to legislate a “National Sunday Law” is within reach at any point. There are preliminary matters that must precede any such legislation. And with all of the issues that are arising before us as a nation: political, social, moral, economic, environmental and so on, neither do I see it being a reach that the people could be convinced and some point and time that all of these circumstances are due to not honoring the Lord’s Day (Sunday). Silence does not indicate / conclude that the RR is not interested in such a move as legislating a national day of worship.
Elaine,
Of necessity you ignore some of what’s happening in “the world.” Here is a link from the recent Faith & Freedom Conference and Strategy Briefing, held a few weeks ago in Washington, D.C. You may want to do a little research into who the founder and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition is (the sponsors of this little event). http://secure.ffcoalition.com/civicrm/event/register?reset=1&id=7
Apparently, some people are listening to them, and some notable people are talking to them too.
To austudent,
Again, I am not advocating that we get dispense with labels OTHER THAN to the extent that the vision of the eschatology forest is obscured by the labels of the trees. While it may be absolutely true that I see the GC narrative playing out largely due to the sustained and persistent political efforts of the so-called religious right; if you or I were ever to dispense with the labels and instead focus on the statements, actions, and stated motives of certain individuals and entities—within the context of Adventist exegesis of Revelation 13 and the GC narrative—the picture becomes clear.
The problem, or your problem with me, is that the individual statements, actions, and stated motives that I have identified as coinciding directly with the GC narrative are all from the religious right. The shoe fits, and they are evidently comfortable wearing it.
To Pat,
As a self-proclaimed theological conservative, why would you concoct or devise a scenario that is at variance with the EGW GC narrative? If you are not a theologically conservative SDA, then I fully understand. Otherwise, are you claiming some proverbial “new light” in this area? Or is it that your political ideology “forces” you to reject current event implications as juxtaposed to the GC narrative? Finally, why would I entertain as plausible a proposed scenario of your devising, as opposed to that which I believe current events are revealing to have been elsewhere inspired by God?
austudent,
Anything is possible in politics. Actors and black guys get elected president, wrestlers and body-builders are elected governor. Seems nutty, until it happens.
Regarding the unlikelihood of Jewish Senators partnering with conservative Christians . . . is not that presently occurring? The protection of the State of Israel has, in post-modern times, made the marriage of formerly strange bedfellows. Fifty year ago, many southern Christian pastors (and churches) and politicians were openly anti-Semitic. Now, as they have see benefit of the blessings promised to those who bless Israel, the protection of Israel is a staple of conservative Christians — and conservative politicians. It is not inconceivable that, in a state of war, terror, or (on EGW playground) a false appearance of Christ, pragmatic compromises can be made within this relatively new alliance.
The abortion issue has made allies of other former foes: conservative Protestants and conservative Catholics. Again, 50 years ago (or less), this was unthinkable.
As the old saw goes, in politics there are no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent interests.
The political reality is that the unlikely seems so — until it happens, and then, after the fact, appears to have been obvious (“The Black Swan” syndrome). The Patriot Act — the biggest restriction of personal rights in a generation and an anathema to libertarians and liberals alike, passed the Senate by a 98-2 margin. When times get tough, politicians get soft. The present-day combination of these formerly unlikely alliances, overlayed with Adventist prophetic narrative, has me looking right — first.
So Stephen is my scenario a possible biblical occurence and yes even EGW or not.
This new “exalted religion” diefies nature rather than natures God.
In F.E p.409 it says men try to explain the events of nature. “When in difficulty, philosophers and the great men of earth desire to satisfy their minds without appealing to God. They ventilate their philosophy in regard to the heavens and the earth, accounting for plagues, pestilences, epidemics, earthquakes, and famines, by their supposed science. Hundreds of questions relating to creation and providence, they will attempt to solve by saying. This is a law of nature. {FE 409.1}
There are laws of nature, but they are harmonious, and conform with all God’s working; but when the lords many and gods many set themselves to explain God’s own principles and providences, presenting to the world strange fire in the place of divine, there is confusion. The machinery of earth and heaven needs many faces to every wheel in order to see the Hand beneath the wheels, bringing perfect order from confusion. The living and true God is a necessity everywhere. “
What might that mean in calling humankind back to the creator? How might men worship creation more than the creator in what I hypothesized. Why may not man’s wisdom over the creator be the image of the plain of dura and “Babylon.”
Why is my hypothesis any less valid than “your light?”
regards,
pat
“Of necessity you ignore some of what’s happening in “the world.” Here is a link from the recent Faith & Freedom Conference and Strategy Briefing, held a few weeks ago in Washington, D.C.”
I regularly read three newspapers daily, five news weekly, and so am not totally ignorant of world events. The one you mention may have relevancy to your position, but as far “big news” it did not make the cut except for those who are on the lookout for such esoteric events.
The recent ruling in New York permitting gay marriages, DID make all the news channels and is indicative of the population’s fast-changing sentiments toward more toleration. Any ruling that appears to be denying another individual or many individuals, even though in the minority, may be far less successful in the future. Equality of all was first insituted by Brwon vs. Board of Education and until every individual has the same rights as everyone there is not true equality.
Spot on Elaine. Thanks for you rationality on this point in an issue I know you favor.
Where on earth was the powerful “Christian Coalition.”
Stephen, you’re still trying to have it both ways. You want to dispense with labels and yet include them if they fit a certain ideological framework. Your problem is that you persistently ignore the very valid example Pat and Elaine provide. Pat’s example about the Sunday law and environmentalism is very nice hypothetical to fit in with SDA eschatology. If you notice EGW never specifically says “which” religious leaders which push the Sunday law. Will it be the Christian Coalition or will it be Sojourners? Both are actively involved politically in DC on a religio-political level. I can see fine what is happening and right now the religious right is on the run. They are scoring very few victories and racking up many losses. Currently they are on the defense. Even in the Republican party the big issues are the economy. That explains why someone like Romney or even Herman Cain is doing well and not Santorum who is essentially a Catholic Ralph Reed is barley making it in the polls. You have a very narrow view of the GC narrative and an expanded one. Remember that Ellen White says the people will clamor leading “their” political leaders to act. Oh and she didn’t specific a party or even a political ideology. Yes you have identified the religious right, meanwhile ignoring the religious left or any other group that is different. If the religious right were really such a threat to our Sabbath freedoms then 1-Why do some of our Adventist lawmakers vote with them on key issues, and 2-Why have they never advocated for much that would harm our religious freedoms (I’m not talking about 100 years ago either).
Preston,
Yes you are right that “anything” is technically possible in politics, but politics are also extremely predictable. Especially these days we’ve got really good at predicting who will win what race, and which issues will be a focus. Personally I knew Obama was guaranteed President at least 2 weeks if not longer before the actual election date. Your examples are not exactly that “nutty” because they have easily sociological or political explanations.
Yes Jews and Conservative Christians have united over CERTAIN issues, but that is where they shared a common bond (i.e. Israel). How in the world would a Sunday law be a common bond between Evangelicals and conservative Jews? A national “Sabbath” law with Sabbath and Sunday? That’s definitely a possibility but it goes against the SDA eschatology narrative. Yes change does occur but it doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Something has to occur to create this change. Right now there’s no good reason for Jews to vote for a “national Sunday law” or even to support one, let alone many secularists (unless you accept Pat’s hypothetical “environment” day of rest…but that messes with the right wing boogey monster myth). Sure things could change but right now there’s no evidence for such a situation.
The abortion issue has made allies of other former foes: conservative Protestants and conservative Catholics. Again, 50 years ago (or less), this was unthinkable.
Permanent interests! Exactly. And that is why there is no foreseeable way that Conservative Jewish will push a national “SUNDAY” law.
As for the Patriotic Act, sure it had some restrictions, but again I ask what REAL effect did it have on each of us personally? Most Americans have not really been affected by it yet. To look “right” for the Adventist prophetic narrative is to blind oneself by ideology under the guise of religion. Ironically doing the very thing that you accuse the religious right of.
Remember Preston, EGW says it will unite the nation with only the “remnant” in opposition. I’m sorry but I don’t see the democratic party as “the remnant”.
I know what Stephen is talking about with the “Faith and Freedom Conference”. The religious right always has meetings plotting political strategy (much like the left). It was news, but definitely you’re right it was not “BIG” news. And the evidence for toleration (at least with respect to minority actions or viewpoints) is definitely increasing. In fact we Adventists have always had some success using the “minority” tag to defend against the big bad apostates. With minority rights on the rise we have more ammunition to use against those who wish to subject us to their day of worship, rather ironic since church attendance, belief in God, and any other correlate with the religious right is on the downhill. Maybe that why explain why the religious right is less relevant? Nah, it’s only because their taking a break to make even more sinister plans, eh?
austudent,
In addition to Sojourners and Wallis the is “Creation Care” with Ron Sider.
But after all that is not “political” as it is in humankinds best interest. But will not “humanity” be hailed as God by Stephen’s light?
regards,
pat
Politics is predictable? This is news!
Six months before Obama won the Iowa caucus, Hillary had be virtually sworn-in by conventional thinking — and polls. In 2007, Rudy Giuliani was leading the polls for the Republican nomination. Rudy won zero states and a corresponding number of delegates.
Politics may be predictable in the very near-term micro level, but not at all in terms of sea changes. Predicting Obama’s election 2 weeks in advance hardly qualifies as prescient. Did you see Arnold becoming governor 18 months before the election? C’mon, man. Political predictions are plentiful until they, finally, become accurate.
The Patriot Act only affects those who are targeted — at a given point in time. Given the unpredictable nature of the 9/11 attacks, who can tell where or from whence the next game-changer will come — or who will be targeted as a result? You might ask some older Japanese Americans about how capricious a surprised American government can be.
The present trajectory a political continuum has no bearing on where it will be in 15 years. Think about it: 12 years ago, the U.S. government had an operating surplus. Given the trend at the time, it was predicted that, by now, we would be close to retiring the national debt. Things change — quickly. It renders your term, “the foreseeable future,” meaningless.
BTW, who ever said a conservative Jew would be the one to “push” a Sunday law? The point of that example was 1) to point out an example of unlikely political/religious alliances coalescing quickly, and 2) in response to you contention that you couldn’t envision a scenario where Senator Lieberman could countenance a Sunday law. The point is that in such an (formerly unlikely) alliance, all a Lieberman-type would have to do is nothing (i.e., refuse to filibuster the debate, allowing the vote to move forward). Note: even if all 13 Jewish senators voted against such a move, 13 votes is a long way from 60 — the number needed to end a filibuster.
Stranger things have happened.
The Adventist narrative speaks explicitly about apostate Protestants (image of the beast) teaming with Vatican interests to accomplish the codifying of Sunday worship in a church/state alliance. Those alliances exist now (as outlined earlier).
Is it not Jay Sekulow, representing the Protestant conservatives on the right, who claims no constitutional separation of church and state? Is it not the Supreme Court (with a 6 RCC and 0 Protestants) who would determine if that view is, in fact, the correct interpretation? Were not the existing Sunday blue laws championed by conservative Protestants and politicians? It is not about being blind. It is about looking for something that fits the description.
@Mrs Nelson
You say: “Only God knows the future and humans who think to do his work would do well to let him be the prophetic voice, not themselves who are completely fallible.”
–>”Only God KNOWS the future” is what SDA’s have always taught. Neither do we teach that we “think to do His work”. He works in us when we fully surrender to Him and allow Him to. He is also NOT limited to what means He chooses to reveal Himself. One has to also understand that God is a Revealer of that which He wishes to reveal including eschatological information whether we like it or not. The numerous prophecies in the Bible ‘reveal’ that God DOES provide ‘end time’ reproofs, warnings and information in the Scriptures.
–> I have found that the modus operandi of Ellen White detractors in their effort to disrespectfully scoff and hiss at her writings, leads them into distorting the Scriptures and the interpretation thereof. A good example of this is that Sunday is a Biblical based day of Worship which couldn’t be further away from the truth especially within the Protestant Churches who have sadly TRAMPLED on God’s Seventh-day Sabbath in bowing down to Rome and the embracing of the ‘you shall not surely die’ lie.
–> “The Bible points to God as its Author; yet it was written by human hands; and in the varied style of its different books it presents the characteristics of the several writers. The truths revealed are all `given by inspiration of God’ (2 Tim. 3:16); yet they are expressed in the words of men. The Infinite One by his Holy Spirit had shed light into the minds and hearts of his servants. He has given dreams and visions, symbols and figures; and those to whom the truth was thus revealed, have themselves embodied the thought in human language. {RH, August 30, 1906 par. 5}
–>[Dan 2:28]but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries. He has shown King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in days to come. Your dream and the visions that passed through your mind as you lay on your bed are these:
–>[Amos 3:7] Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.
–>[Jeremiah 25:4] And though the LORD has sent all his servants the prophets to you again and again, you have not listened or paid any attention.
T
Before I get lambasted for my previous post, here is the MACRO take on what Ellen White has said concerning [Rev 16:13,14].
And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Rev. 16:13, 14.
By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation [the United States] will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {Mar 190.1}
Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome. The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience. . . . {Mar 190.2}
Papists, Protestants, and worldling will alike accept the form of godliness without the power, and they will see in this union a grand movement for the conversion of the world and the ushering in of the long-expected millennium. {Mar 190.3}
When our nation [the United States] shall so abjure the principles of its government as to enact a Sunday law, Protestantism will in this act join hands with popery; it will be nothing else than giving life to the tyranny which has long been eagerly watching its opportunity to spring again into active despotism. {Mar 190.4}
Blessings
T
The classic example of “stranger things” happening is how it was that the Jews of Christ’s day found a way to go to Rome, their most hated enemy, for assistance in the judgment / crucifixion of Christ. Not only so, they also declared to Pilot, “we have only one king, Caesar.
I’m not so sure that the next game changer is not already developing right before our eyes. The state of the economy hss the potential to shift everything quickly. Right here in Sacramento, the city is presenting it’s budget and the necessary cuts. Mandatory laying off of police officers for the first time in the cities history. Mind you, they have not filled any vacancies for the last 3 years, so peace officer staffing in the city is going to be a critical level. The county sheriff doesn’t have it any better. What are people going to do when crime rises exponentially? What are people going to do if / when medicare goes the way of the budget? It’s not just about our right to privacy anymore. They are stripping our society of all that it has been accustomed to for the last 7 decades, in the name of fiscal responsibility. And yet the Federal Reserve is making money hand over foot receiving payment for the interest / principle on the bonds they buy for the US Govt to do it’s business, Republican / Democrat.
When it all falls out, the people will panic… And how will they respond? Not according to the politicians, but according to their spiritual leaders, who by the way do / will have critical political connections, right or left. This will precipitate the ultimate unholy union of church / state… the image of the beast will be formed along with it’s mark… Sunday as a national day of worship. The only answer will be the 3rd angels message of Revelation 14 with the attending angel and His power of Revelation 18.
It doesn’t really matter how it exactly happens, what matters is what will we do when it happens?
Peace
I couldn’t agree more laffal; the all important bottom line question is what we will do when it happens. It seems to me that for some of us, to some extent, what we will do when it happens might be predicated on whether we think it is going to happen.
For those of us who believe that the church will influence the state to enact and enforce laws mandating religious observance, it may be less difficult to accept the realities and implications of such action when it happens precisely because we accept the reality and implication of such action in advance.
I have challenged some of us to read chapters 25 and 35 of GC because it is clear that, at best, it has been a while since we have done so. The motivations spelled out in the GC narrative of prophetic events (in those chapters); do not include, for example, an environmental catalyst for religious observance legislation. That is unless perhaps you conclude that the Al Gores and Jim Wallises of the world will convince the Rush Limbaughs of the world that an increasing frequency of tornadoes and floods are caused in large measure by global warming, and that by observing Sunday as an environmental rest day we will alleviate these disasters. Or that the Tony Camplos and Barry Lynns of the world will convince the Chamber of Commerce types that in order to solve our economic problems, one less day of commerce will result in more economic growth, much like lower taxes results in more tax revenue.
These laughable scenarios are much more far-fetched it seems to me than is that wherein the religiously motivated influence the secular powers.
“In order for the United States to form an image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends.
“Whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines. Protestant churches that have followed in the steps of Rome by forming alliance with worldly powers have manifested similar desire to restrict liberty of conscience.”
As for the just-passed gay marriage legislation in New York, “the Bible declares that before the coming of the Lord there will exist a state of religious declension similar to that in the first centuries.” (See 2 Timothy 3: 1-5, 1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Thessalonians 2: 9-11) “When this state of ungodliness shall be reached, the same results will follow as in the first centuries.”
“The wide diversity of belief in the Protestant churches is regarded by many as decisive proof that no effort to secure a forced uniformity can ever be made. But there has been for years, in churches of the Protestant faith, a strong and growing sentiment in favor of a union based upon common points of doctrine. Too secure such a union, the discussion of subjects upon which all were not agreed—however important they might be from a Bible standpoint—must necessarily be waived.”
“…When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.”
“…The ‘image to the beast’ represents that form of apostate Protestantism which will be developed when the Protestant churches shall seek the aid of the civil power for the enforcement of their dogmas.”
Stephen,
I have made my point to my satisfaction that to limit the adventist scenario to the Religious Right “glove” as some do doesn’t possibly fit all the adventist playground material and the glove is to small “so we must acquit.”
My main concern is the broader brush of biblical prophecy that a future confederacy somehow deceives the “whole world.”
My conversation has been for others open to a different understanding as I have known from the beginning you had but one set of glasses… That is “one view” of EGW shared by Liberty Magazine.
Back to the original premise and dispute, WWJD and what Jesus did was to focus on His Kingdom and stay out of Caesars realm with and his political kingdom “with the church body.” Go and do thou likewise as you and Cindy would advise the “apostate rel.rt” to do setting “moral” objectives.
regards,
pat
Edit…stay out of Caesar’s realm and his political kingdom “with the church body.”
Pat,
We may have reached one point of agreement: that we both are satisfied with the points that we have made in each of our respective cases, and can now let the jury decide.
In closing (perhaps) I should like to point out that as the issue of mandated religious observance hits the fan, so to speak, there will of necessity be an unpredictable realigning of political and religious bedfellows. As EXAMPLES, there are any numbers of politically liberal RCC in the media and in politics who may well decide to (re-)align in orthodoxy with their religious training. There likewise may be any number of politically conservative SDA who may well decide to align with those who they (may) view as promoting morality and the public good by supporting legislatively mandated religious observance.
Finally, allow me to take the liberty to kindly remind you that the Adventist Today site is supposed to be a safe place for the free flow of ideas and information relative to Seventh-day Adventists.
I should have previously recommended Chapters 25, 35, and 36 in GC for reading.
Stephen,
>Finally, allow me to take the liberty to kindly remind you that the Adventist Today site is supposed to be a safe place for the free flow of ideas and information relative to Seventh-day Adventists.<< I would not want it to be any other way…however,Cindy or any employed church official should “make it clear” that any ideas they express are their own and in no way reflect the organization or other members of the organization when discussing political matters and inferring WWJD. Only if a declared policy has been made should this in rare exceptions be done. A disclaimer that something is not political when it obviously does pertain to the political scene is not adequate. I hope you will read my article in Ministry on “the environment” and the common linkages with political and religious organizations. regards,
pat
regards,
pat
>
What is so funny about reading Stephens position is that it is all taken from the idea of a Sunday law, not a historical blue law but a law that says you must worship on Sunday. The reason he sees for this is because the nation will want to in-act such legislation so that the nation will be protected by God from natural disasters or I suppose they would think that the disasters are caused by God. In any case the idea is if the nation can act corporately and do something to appease God everything will work out OK.
In this conversation Stephen completely ignores the idea of corporate salvation…everyone doing something to save people from the disaster. All the while right now we have a President who actually believes in corporate salvation! It would seem reasonable to assume that the corporate salvation idea is far more dangerous as it is the prerequisite to forced legislation.
Just one more area where logic flies out the window in the traditional Adventist playground. And yes this is a safe place for Adventists but not sacrosanct for traditional Adventists.
Ron,
You have pointed to an important point. “Liberal Protestant Theology” has historically visualized a “corporate” salvation of society. “Society and community is saved” rather than the “traditional gospel” of saving individuals with it’s leaven changing society over time. As such it’s goals are easily mingled with the state that basically has a socio-economic policy understanding similar to theirs.
This was the “similar function and purpose” and prevailing attitude of the Bishops letter previously mentioned and Vatican historical policy. They are historical enemies of “laissez faire” that was a componant of the founding principles of this country as opposed to federalism and the constitution was meant to limit those federal powers previously given to the states. They prefer a “modified socialism/economic fascism paradigm” while disclaiming communism in which to accomplish their social vision through the state and “their view” of WWJD.
regards,
pat
For the record Ron (and this is why my “closing” was in doubt), I do not recall providing a single reason for such future legislation; although I did point out that Pat Robertson, for one, is on the record as having cited God’s displeasure as a reason for certain natural disasters.
You may want to note that I have not defended any liberal politician in this particular context, nor have I stated or implied that no liberal politicians will play roles or take part in the enactment of such legislation; although I have pointed out that it is entirely possible to pass obviously controversial legislation with votes entirely from one political party.
Stephen wrote:
“For the record Ron (and this is why my “closing” was in doubt), I do not recall providing a single reason for such future legislation;”
OK Stephen, forgive me, all those repetitions about you believing the Great Controversy and the numerous attempts to have people refer to specific chapters. Silly me I thought you actually believed that. But apparently not else why would you even have made the above comment. If you didn’t give a reference for why and you don’t want us to get the idea from the Great Controversy book then I guess it was just my thoughout knowledge of the Adventist thought. Oh yea and the book the Great Controversy:
“While appearing to the children of men as a great physician who can heal all their maladies, he will bring disease and disaster, until populous cities are reduced to ruin and desolation. Even now he is at work. In accidents and calamities by sea and by land, in great conflagrations, in fierce tornadoes and terrific hailstorms, in tempests, floods, cyclones, tidal waves, and earthquakes, in every place and in a thousand forms, Satan is exercising his power. He sweeps away the ripening harvest, and famine and distress follow. He imparts to the air a deadly taint, and thousands perish by the pestilence. These visitations are to become more and more frequent and disastrous. Destruction will be upon both man and beast. “The earth mourneth and fadeth away,” “the haughty people . . . do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.” Isaiah 24:4, 5.
GC.590.001
And then the great deceiver will persuade men that those who serve God are causing these evils. The class that have provoked the displeasure of Heaven will charge all their troubles upon those whose obedience to God’s commandments is a perpetual reproof to transgressors. It will be declared that men are offending God by the violation of the Sunday sabbath; that this sin has brought calamities which will not cease until Sunday observance shall be strictly enforced; and that those who present the claims of the fourth commandment, thus destroying reverence for Sunday, are troublers of the people, preventing their restoration to divine favor and temporal prosperity. Thus the accusation urged of old against the servant of God will be repeated and upon grounds equally well established: “And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim.” 1 Kings 18:17, 18. As the wrath of the people shall be excited by false charges, they will pursue a course toward God’s ambassadors very similar to that which apostate Israel pursued toward Elijah.
Edit. “…one solitary reason for such legislation…”
Preston, politics is predictable to those who follow them and study them enough. I’m not talking so much about people as much as about issues. Yes it is unpredictable which “person” may take power, however the issues they will focus on or will face can easily be predicted. Sure the financial crises was somewhat not expected that soon, but there were plenty pointing to the danger of the housing bubble. All one has to do is follow the news. You’re right that sea changes occur, but take Giuliani for example. He didn’t win but the next moderate and strong law and order Republican did, John McCain. Now if some strong social conservative had won that would have been shocking and sure enough they didn’t. But again I’m taking about “the issues” not about the people. Who comes to power matters less than what issues they focus on and what legislation occurs or projects the focus on. People can change far more than the issues. In American politics there are always a limited number of issues on which people vote. The economy is almost always a big one, social issues sometimes crop up (2004), and education or health care can play a role. The other X-factor is foreign policy such as if America is at war or not. Other than those main issues (and demographics) politics is rather predictable.
As for the Patriot Act and Japanese internment, yes there was wrong done there but for a short term. In the US we don’t have anything close to a history describing the typical SDA apocalyptic view. It could happen but A LOT needs to change.
“The present trajectory a political continuum has no bearing on where it will be in 15 years”….WHAT? Did you really say that what happened 15 years ago has no bearing on today? Dude if that’s the case then please take history. One reason we study history is so we can learn from the past. The idea that history repeats itself is a decently verifiable concept (and one easily accepted no matter which ideological persuasion). If you think the term “foreseeable future” is meaningless then I invite you to truly live your life that way. Don’t engage in any planning (financial or otherwise) since, hey you never know what could happen in 2 years? Maybe the Sunday law will be out and my money will be stuck in the bank, eh?
You underestimate the political power of various Jewish leaders in the US if you think they would simply lie over and let a Sunday law occur. Remember in the Senate any Senator can hold up a piece of legislation. But again, you know exactly that the religious right will work through the political right to accomplish their wishes of national Sunday law, even though this is contrary to what Ellen White says. Read it again. “Papists, Protestants, and worldling will alike accept the form of godliness without the power”. I think that last description pretty much describes EVERY ideology…not just the right wing. The Adventist narrative (through Ellen White) speaks about “the WHOLE world”. That includes the dragon (secularism) the beast (RCC) and the False Prophet (Protestants). You like to harp one 1 or maybe 2 of these while ignoring the other half. To me this is rather intellectually dishonest. You are looking for a description, but only part of it. Look at the whole picture and you can see the answer to “the Sunday law”. It will be from the entire world (minus the remnant). Again is the remnant simply the left and the Democrats that won’t go along with the religious right? If so then I’m sorry but my view of the remnant is based on theology, not ideology.
Laffal, thank-you. I actually agree almost entirely with your last post. Yes as noted I actually believe the SDA eschatology view of history, but don’t see the present political conditions creating it. Economically though you are right that if things go downhill and the people turn to their spiritual leaders we COULD have an emergence of church/state. I might ask however, how this squares with current events. As Elaine has pointed out the example of gay marriage in New York challenges this thinking. There the church was powerless to stop it. Sure they could protest and issues statements of denunciation but then they’d be as successful as they were in Massachusetts and Connecticut. We are right now moving towards a more secular and “tolerant” society. Nevertheless thank-you for acknowledging that this “unholy union” will be more than simply a unity of the religious right.
laffal & Stephen I have read those chapters in the GC as well as Final Events and a few other places where Ellen White describes the end of our world. My views are based on off my reading there. I used to have the “preston” conspiracy idea that the religious right and the Jesuits would unite to push a Sunday law. That was back before I learned more about religious and politics. As I read Ellen White and I saw the way American politics work, I could see clearly how her statements about a mass movement encompassing nearly everyone could come true. To me this was a better explanation than the “vast right wing conspiracy” model that some like to preach. I will say though Stephen that you deny a very plausible scenario of Barry Lynn, Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh uniting on a Sunday law. To me that would be the only kind of situation that could give it enough push to be popular law. Otherwise I ask Stephen are the Democrats and the left the only part of the remnant? Is Al Gore going to join the SDA church or will he “compromise” and become part of the right? And what about gay marriage? Will the “equality” activists join the SDA church in opposition to the religious right? Are they part of the “remnant” or also part of the “conspiracy”? Where will people like Elaine end up? Last I checked she’s not exactly a big fan of the religious right, and yet she rejects the view of them as the new threat. You deny that you have “defended” liberal politics and yet all your examples demonstrate otherwise. I did not see (except with maybe one exception) a place where you gave the left the same treatment as the right. In fact you even argued that the right is to blame for being the facilitator of the events we are discussing. When you admit that Al Gore or Ed Schultz has just as much chance of being on the wrong side of the Sunday Law as John McCain or Rush Limbaugh, then you might be able to admit that your arguments are not ideologically based. Nevertheless, the problem with your view is that you have just as many implausible scenarios as you accuse your opposition of having. The only difference for you is that your scenarios are plausible because they fit your framework. Those on the other side, say the same thing.
Hey, Mr Kevin Riley…
When God created Adam and Eve (not Steve – and certainly not Madam and Eve), His crowning act was in joining them together in the first union where can be seen a significant theological basis for what actually constitutes marriage. There were NO Senators in the house that day taking a vote on what God had ordained to be the sacred ordinance of Holy Matrimony. The falling away of this Theocracy much later on brought in a host of civil evils which obviously can even be seen today. About 500 Old and New Testament references to the words “marriage,” “married,” “husband,” and “wife.”
[Gen. 2:18, 21-24] The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’…and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Here’s Paul’s inspired take on this: Eph 5:23-32
For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; he gave his life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything.
And you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the church. He gave up his life for her to make her holy and clean, washed by baptism and God’s word. He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man is actually loving himself when he loves his wife. No one hates his own body but lovingly cares for it, just as Christ cares for his body, which is the church. And we are his body.
As the Scriptures say, “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.” This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.
For better or worse…
T
austudent,
I will be brief, as the focal point seems to have gotten lost:
– The point is not that the right is evil and the left is good (much less “the remnant,” which I nor anyone else here — beside you, ever claimed). The point is that, given the descriptions of types in TGC and the roles they will play, I believe that the political protagonists in the joining of church and state to codify Sunday will come from religious conservative and political conservatives. There is evil all around — including the left. Had the question been, “Who are the protagonists of spiritualism in entertainment?” I would answer, “Probably the secular humanists who run Hollywood.”
– Again, the point about Jewish leaders in the senate is not about their leading the charge, or even “rolling over” on a Sunday law. The point was to provide examples of unlikely religious / political alliances. laffal’s point regarding that dynamic is a good one. To repeat, even if all 13 Jewish senators fight the fight, it is not nearly enough to successfully filibuster the issue and keep it from coming to the floor.
– We will have to agree to disagree about the predictability of politics. I have seen politics at a very high level and studied it from some of the best. In general, the people in politics merely follow the issues — and leverage them. The issues and the importance of those those issues change — radically and quickly. What is important today may be tertiary tomorrow. What is no issue at all may be primary tomorrow. History repeats itself; politics is non-linear. That is what opens the door to opportunism. The political compromises surrounding the Sunday law will be borne out of opportunism, leveraged from an unexpected event (i.e, the War in Iraq).
Preston,
Politics is non-linear, largely because it is cyclical. It goes in patterns. In this way political and history are very much tied together. While the specifics make change the basis progress. Take minority rights. First it was Black Americans, and also Native Americans, then women, and now we’re moving into gay rights. This is a trend that easily be predicted. The blowback to it is also easy to understand.
Preston, so if you think the right will unite and push a Sunday law where will the “spiritualism” types of Hollywood end up? Will the join “the remnant”?
I have yet to see any good example that would demonstrate the US passing a National Sunday Law anytime in the near future. Currently it isn’t even discussed (except among us Adventists). By contrast pretty much every major issue currently in the political sphere has been around for a while. While it’s true the specifics could change (i.e. Iraq) the idea that the US would at war in the Middle East against terrorism is not a new idea. It’s only “new” in the extent that we are better understanding the realities of the situation.
A National Sunday law could eventually occur, but it will need a whole different set of issues than our currently in the political mainstream. Until the religious right does more than complain about gay marriage and try to restriction abortion, their warnings against “conservatives” will fall on deaf ears (outside of Adventism & some on the political far left).
Unless the economy takes a major upturn, a sunday law is dead before beinning.
People are eager to work anytime they can find it, makes no difference the time. Only those foolish enough to believe that: either the economy will suddenly become vibrant and grow at a magical rate, will such a law closing businesses ever be viable.
Regardles of what Adventists may claim, Observing Sabbath from sundown to sunset is more sacrosanct than any other doctrine. Touch that and all the dominoes fall.
Just as there are many businesses and services that must operate 24/7 in this modern world, unlike most of the world’s history, it would be turning the clock far back to imagine such an archaic law could ever get out of committee.
Ah, just when I think I’m out, they pull me back in.
I don’t know, austudent, how carefully or thoroughly you are reading the posts or the GC chapters (25, 25, and 36) to which we have referred, but suffice it to say that my previous post was in part designed to serve as a reminder that I have not defended any liberal politicians, nor have I denied that individuals may align in surprising ways when everyone is finally confronted with the legislatively mandated religious observance issue.
My point in this context is that now, as of a generation, those who have an expressed desire to gain political power, and a willingness to organize for that purpose in order to exert maximum religious influence in the political and legislative arena—and thus implement a religious agenda—have been particular individuals who, in some cases, represent particular organizations.
That is essentially the way that I have identified, labeled, and/or described them, other than describing some of these individuals as functioning as the “theocratic right.” The reason for my concern is the fact that “the ‘image to the beast’ represents that form of apostate Protestantism which will be developed when the Protestant churches shall seek the aid of the civil power for the enforcement of their dogmas.”
When they admit to such an agenda, I have no choice but to identify them.
Hopefully, I’ll be among the first to point it out when Barry Lynn, in representation of his Protestant beliefs/dogma, does this—and let me admit that it is altogether possible that he will. If we both agree with Adventist/GC eschatology, it is PERHAPS safe to say to you that, while anything IS possible, some things are simply more likely to occur than are others.
As for Al Gore becoming an Adventist, let’s just say that when everyone is faced with the issue of obeying God or man, who knows? Ralph Reed and Al Gore could both obey God, while we could both decide to obey man.
Edit.– “…GC chapters (25, 35, and 36)…”
Stephen,
It’s not so much that you’ve outright defended liberals as much as attacked Conservatives. Basically you’ve pulled a double standard. Go neutral on the left and hard on the right. I’m willing to point out the errors in both. Yes political organizations have worked to implement specific agendas. It used to be the religious left in the time towards the end and just after Ellen White’s left that was pushing these kind of issues under the guise of “progressive social gospel”. Today it’s certain elements of right doing it. The religious left, however has attempted to influence, just less successfully. I can’t accept that only one side is guilty when I’ve seen the evidence firsthand. Both Sojourners and the Christian Right bombard my inbox with the same type of material (I purposely choose to receive their “updates). The only difference one is ideologically right the other ideologically left.
While the image to the beast may be “apostate Protestantism” don’t forget that “apostate Protestantism” includes many liberals and Democrats. The Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Anglicans and Lutherans are all Protestant churches that have moved liberal recently. They nevertheless are not viewed historically as part of the SDA “remnant”.
Yes it is possible that Barry Lynn will join our church, but hey it’s just as possible that Glen Beck could as well. Being a Mormon he’s not that far from Adventists in relationship to other religions anyways. Okay we finally agree on your last sentence. I think we will be surprised about who joins the truth. Al Gore could rally for the Sunday Law Legislation and Ralph Reed could end up working with NARLA. Stranger things have happened. Granted politics is decently predictable, but that’s more with the issues than the people.
Ron & others,
Something I have started doing is simply posting in chronological order at the bottom. While it may seem like a good idea to post in response to a previous comment it can get immediately “lost” to someone’s observation by the next post posted since often one does not go back to check previous posts…at least that’s the way I observe it. Someone can sign on and look at the last 10 post to see what is new in chronological posts.
That makes common sense, as one has to carefully search through all comments to find the latest.
That’s interesting. From what I see the posts show up to me in chronological order. Maybe that’s one of the A-today bugs…that or I’m being blessed by God for my faithfulness to “the cause”!
I somewhat agree Pat, however for those reading a conversation later, the way the reply works (right under the post being replyed to) would make the conversation flow better. What the program needs is a last day feature which is what those currently having the conversation would use and those later would just see the whole thing. The Discus program of the Atommorow used that and it worked out well.
austudent,
History — the what, is cyclical. Politics — the how, is not, and is a function of the uniqueness of the times, subject new or unexpected catalysts.
But let’s take your premise:politics is predictable. To quote laffal, “The classic example of “stranger things” happening is how it was that the Jews of Christ’s day found a way to go to Rome, their most hated enemy, for assistance in the judgment / crucifixion of Christ. Not only so, they also declared to Pilot, ‘we have only one king, Caesar.'”
The protagonists in this example were religious conservatives (Pharisees, High Priest), seeking the imprimatur of the government to accomplish their religious and political goals, They thought they were doing God a favor by protecting the status quo and persecuting a non-compliant blasphemer (in their view). To accomplish that, they cynically declared, “We have no king but Caesar.” What an unlikely declaration from a religious leader of that tribe!
If politics are both cyclical and predictable, why is it implausible that others, in the present day, might compromise, similarly, to accomplish their agenda?
For some reason, you seem to want to believe that I expect liberals to be the remnant and the conservatives to be the evildoers. I guess makes your argument easier, but that is not something I’ve posited, implied, or believe. Further, I am not the judge, so regardless of the roles that are played by those from both ideologies, I have no idea who, in the end, will claim Jesus and His salvation.
In regard to your view of the lack of evidence for or the likelihood of an eminent Sunday law, remember, big things happen fast: no rain, ever, then a world wide flood. Who’d a thunk it (even though a guy was preaching about it and building a boat for years)? The Great Controversy describes the scenario, where spiritualism will leveraged to deceive others into thinking that Christ has appeared and blessed Sunday worship. Such an event would be the catalyst for what you presently believe to be an unlikely outcome. Most won’t see it coming.
The gift of prophecy is that we have an opportunity to know.
With such inaccuracies as this about the flood:
“even though a guy was preaching about it and building a boat for years”?
That cliche has been said by so many for so many years that it begins to take on a Bible quotation. Please furnish a Bible text saying that Noah “preached” for years.
It’s the old Adventist trick: conflate EGW and the Bible so both the speaker and listener begin to believe it’s “in the Bible.” Now give the text, please.
2 Peter 2:5
So you’re trying to have it both ways Preston? You’re arguing politics are not predictable, and yet what the “religious right” will do is predictable? Politics and history go together. Sure they are different but they’re like mind and body. You can’t separate the two. They’re not equal but they are very much linked. Studying politics without studying history is like living your life as if yesterday never happened. The only people who that happens to, are those who have had some kind of brain damage and fall into a special category.
Yes the religious right in Christ’s time was involved in the crucifixion. As was the largely secular government of the time. The crucifixion of Jesus was the perfect uniting of secular liberals with theological conservatives. I agree such a scenario is very plausible. And if you want to go with only the Jews, you then have to include the Sadducees which I noticed you didn’t do. They appear to be the “religious left” and true at first they weren’t after Jesus but by the time the climax had hit they joined the “religious right” in crucifying Jesus. So the crucifixion was really a combo of religious right & left complete with the support of the secular left. Notice there wasn’t really a significant opposition to Christ’s death except among his few devout followers. That sounds very much like the SDA view of the “remnant”. And remember Nicodemus was still a member of the “religious right” who saw the truth. In other words he was like a Ron Paul, John McCain, however you want to classify him.
I know you haven’t said that liberals are the remnant and conservatives are the evildoers,however you’ve implied such based on your statements. For example you said that “the secular left do not fit the descriptions of EGW” (based on your beliefs). As I’ve noted EGW allows for the WHOLE world both right AND left to be involved in the final plots of the last days. you’ve clearly put the right (religious and political) in as the evil doers. You’re also on record stating that “he protagonists and champions will be from the right”. As for the left, you’ve pretty much ignored their role or as you said “not holding much sway”. As I noted earlier it used to be the religious left that was influential up until the 1960’s. It’s good though that you’re admitting that you have no idea who it will be in the end. This appears to be a change from your previous pronouncements that “it will be from the right” and other statements charging the right and guilty.
You are right that huge events could change what could happen. After all I believe the issues are predictable and therefore I know that one day the issue we are discussing will be at the forefront of debate in our nation. I just don’t see that being very very soon. If you want to think the religious right is secretly conspiring to push these things, that’s fine, but wait till you have more hard evidence (or a stronger indication like a Noah). In the meantime you have yet to explain how a whole half of the US (or world) fits into your equation. Please tell me where the left will end up in the end. Will the environmentalists unite with the Adventists? Will the SDA church unite with “minority rights” for example LGBT activists? Seriously, where in your scenario do you account for the left? I think that is one of the biggest flaws in your view. It’s interesting as both of us believe the spirit of prophecy and in Ellen White and both believe that church and state may/will eventually unite to push a Sunday law. I however can account for both the right and the left in my model of the future. Yours is only 50% complete.
Hebrews 7:11
austudent,
You either aren’t listening well or are choosing to listen selectively.
Obviously, history and politics are linked. As I specified in my shorthand, history is the “what,” politics is the “how.” They are related, but not the same.
I am not arguing (here) that the religious right will do what is predictable (though history is replete with bloody examples), I am saying that the religious right will do what has been PROPHESIED.
My objective is neither to be even-handed or to be partisan. My objective (here) is to identify the actors in the Adventist narrative (TGC) of the enactment of the Sunday laws. As I have outlined many times, the protagonists seem, to me, to be the religious right. Yes, the secular left do not fit the description of EGW — regarding this specific role in prophecy ON THIS ISSUE. That does not absolve them of other evils. But that’s not what we’re talking about here and now.
As I said earlier, if the question was expanded to include identify the protagonists of spiritualism in entertainment (also specifically mentioned in TGC) I would point left. There are many other evils cooked up and served by the left, but in terms of this specific discussion, they serve only to distract (and mollify those who feel the need for balance on every issue).
Again, there is evil on all sides. There are also evil roles that one side or the other is uniquely qualified to accomplish.
Finally, in terms of your advise that I “wait” until I have “hard evidence,” the purpose of prophecy is to warn people in time for them to do something about it. As I have said in another space, what good is a weatherman who tells you, “It’s gonna rain — yesterday?”
Correction: Hebrews 11:7
I ask the following out of interest as political debates like this chug along with increasing intensity towards next years US Presidential election. (Dr Tutsch is spot on in her remarks “unfortunately politicised issues” especially in terms of “where the crumbs fall from the table” and “how much falls”)
Maybe some of our admirable political ‘analysts’ on this blog may assist with my humble query. It may seem like a curve ball but I’m just curious to know where or how FREEMASONARY would fit in, in all this US politicking. Many from this fraternity come from both the left and right and maybe even within the Christian Church (in the quiet of course). Or what role or power do the Jesuits have in America with regards to the political climate?
Mr Preston Foster informs us of the “Supreme Court (with a 6 RCC and 0 Protestants)”… Is all this just coincidence? What about the Banks? Those who control them control the Government, political climate and society as a whole. The Bankers ‘Bailout’ by US Government shows that anything is possible when ‘crisis hits’ whether these ‘crises’ are synthesized or occur in the usual scheme of things. Even the subsequent stringent security measures at US airports after 9/11 came as a suprise to many…
So back to my query. What about the FREEMASONS, JESUITS and ‘other players’ in US politics (Bankers, Politicians and Lawmakers).
For example (without alluding to a conspiracy theory): The US dollar says “In God we Trust”. Then also we see on it some Ancient Religious symbols cherished by the aforementioned fraternity. There’s so much of Religious symbolism even right there in Washington DC – Mars Hill (Oops I meant Capital Hill.
So yeah! What about all this? Who does really control the US of A?
Free in Christ
T
And Preston I believe that all of the major leaders will do what has been prophesied. That is they will “make an image to the beast”. It won’t be only the right or only the left, instead it will be the whole world. My objective is also to identify the actors. Based on my reading of Ellen White & the Bible the actors include the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet. That incorporates not just the religious right but also the secular left. We are talking about the end times. How is the whole world going to marvel if the National Sunday Law gets turned into an ideological issue? It can’t unless it unites varying groups ACROSS the political spectrum.
Again where is the left going to go on the Sunday Law? How do they fit into the SDA eschatology beliefs? Please answer this one question. The Left isn’t just going to “disappear”. The traditional SDA view is that the Sunday Law is the culmination which unites the world in following after the anti-Christ leading to a final split between the remnant and the damned. Again if the right are the leaders of the damned, then where will the left fit in? You can’t just ignore this critical piece of the puzzle. If you were to admit they somehow accepted a Sunday law in the name of “tolerance” or “world rest day” that would at least be a hypothetical explanation. Personally I see Ellen White allowing for something along those lines based on a few of Pat’s statements.
When I say I advise you “wait” I’m not saying don’t warn people on prophecy. All I’m saying is be careful on the specifics of that which you do not know. Ellen White never says which ideology specifically. She talks about theology but not ideology. Who knows what is the religious right today could morph into a new “social gospel” movement. After all history is cyclical and what side a group chooses isn’t always so predictable, eh?
PS Still waiting for where the left fits in. It’s the key piece of the puzzle and you keep evading an answer. I’m curious where you fit it in.
As soon as I would love to announce, if only to myself, that you and I have found common ground—and I can go on to something else—you push the envelope. The image to the beast will be represented among Protestantism when Protestants influence and use civil, secular powers to enforce their dogma (in agreement with Rome, and in disagreement with the commandments of God).
“When the early church became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the gospel and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of God; and in order to control the consciences of the people, she sought the support of the secular power…In order for the United States to form an image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends.
“Whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines. Protestant churches that have followed in the steps of Rome by forming alliance with worldly powers have manifested a similar desire to restrict liberty of conscience.”
In what may go down in history as one of the great understatements of all time, you have observed that the “religious left…has attempted to influence, just less successfully.” What institutional role has the religious left played in American public affairs other than the Civil Rights and social welfare era leadership? Where is the religious left television network? Where is the religious left version of Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family? How many Americans could pick Jim Wallis or Barry Lynn out of police lineup, or have ever heard of either? The so-called mainline denominations have been on the decline for decades. What is the religious left version of the Faith and Freedom Coalition wherein all of the presidential aspirants of the left must appear for a cattle call? It is one thing to be an irritant to your political adversaries; it is quite another to be actually competitive with them in any real sense.
The point is that they are not equally influential by a long shot; so the “neutral” posture that you say I took should be viewed in this context.
The answer to your question as to where the left will go when the issue is faced by everyone is that some will obey God, and others will obey man; just as is the case with the right. The question that you must deal with is how can you know that “whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines,” and acknowledge that the right has been more successful in efforts to gain secular influence and power than the left, and yet not see (or acknowledge) more danger on the right?
Let me finally (hopefully) take issue with your stating that Mormonism is “not that far from Adventists in relationship to other religions anyways.” I am aware that the public confuses Mormons, Adventists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses; but an Adventist such as you should know that these sects or denominations now have practically no commonly held beliefs.
If adventism wishes to localize the future problem maker to the religious right and being “apostate” by their newly formed definition, then the religious right certainly is justified in calling adventism “apostate Protestantism” for their lack of “sola scriptura,The I.J. doctrine, and it’s confusion of the basic teaching of the Reformation of JBF.” After all…they are being judged by an extrabiblical source as apostate…according to Stephen.
Fair is Fair…so don’t complain of a cult status.
Perhaps the church should first look in the mirror before casting rocks as to who is “apostate” beforewhe previous methods were based on doctrnal understanding.
Pharisees, Sadducess, Herodians as well as the strong central government power Rome killed Christ…thus the whole world stood guilty. The religious leaders of all sides threatened by loss of monetary security and power loss ALL opposed Christ. They sided with government for stability. “One must perish lest the whole nation perish.”
The religious rt. issue is a “strawman” in the sea of issues that are likewise in opposition to God today.
Thanks austudent for continuing to press the envelope larger.
regards,
pat
May I suggest biblically the Dragon is Satan. The “beast’s” are those nations/kingdoms that oppose God’s people…and the “false prophet” is the harlot/religion that “rides the beast” by traditionally saying “peace,peace, where there is no peace.”
When the church makes “peace” with the world…then 1 Thess.5:3. That is the great falling away of 2 Thess.2:3.
…and what is that false “peace?” That Jesus is not the only savior. Jn.3:16-21…and “my peace I give, not as the world gives.”Jn.14:27.
regards,
pat
austudent,
I have answered your question, repeatedly, but your set mind may be disallowing you to hear and consider what I have said. Saying that the religious right is the likely protagonist in the formation of the Sunday law (without a corresponding role from the left) seems to offend your political sensibilities. Previously, and repeatedly, I pointed to the primary role of the left (though its role in the enactment of a Sunday law was not, at the time, the focus of the conversation). You seem not to hear it, so I will connect the dots.
There are actors — with roles. Roles imply different, usually complementary functions in the same drama.
In this drama (re: the TGC narrative), the major roles are played by actors. The actors are as you have identified. The roles are:
1) The Increase in Spiritualism (TGC pgs. 522 – 526; 552 – 562): In this, the secular left are the likely protagonists. Outputs: creating doubt about creation, confusing the state of the dead, creating doubt about the authority of the Scriptures, preparation of minds for false appearance(s) of Christ.
2) The Joining of Church and State in the US (TGC pgs. 563 – 581): In this, the religious right and conservative right are the likely protagonists. Outputs: Protestant alliances with Rome, employment of the state to accomplish religious purposes, codification of a Sunday law in the US.
3) The False Appearance(s) of Christ (TGC pgs. 624-625). This will likely be the catalyst for the whole world to accept the deceptions of the beast and the false prophet. Spiritualism and the undercutting of the Scriptures have laid the groundwork for the success of this deception.
Protagonists from the right and the left fill these roles. These actors will need conspirators (from the both sides) to accomplish their goals. The conversation was focused on the Sunday law, thus the focus on the religious right as the protagonists in that role.
Stephen, yes Protestants & Rome will make an image to the beast. And we Adventists believe it will be ALL the protestant churches, not just the “religious right” ones. The Religious left may not have as much influence now as the religious right, but as you’ve argued things can change quickly. I would argue that Ellen White foresaw the union of religious right and left under something like a National Sunday Law. Again, if the religious left objects to the Sunday Law wouldn’t that put them on our side? If so then you should see why my accusation of ideology has at least some validity. The Religious left is right now trying to influence American public opinion on all the issues. It is advocating strongly to remove troops from all kinds of places, it is pushing for a “moral budget”, environmentalism ,etc. If you are left wing ideologically you like these actions. If you are right wing you detest them. For me it’s in between. I care far less about which actions either side takes than the fact that they are taking them. The right is doing it under the guise of something good “morality” while the left does it the same way under “social justice”. The Religious Left doesn’t have a TV network because it operates in a different style. It does however have numerous organizations dedicated to it’s causes much as the religious right has. Currently neither one are arguing, advocating, or working towards a National Sunday Law. While the mainline denominations may be on the decline they are still some of the largest groups in this country. I would say that the religious left organizations such as Ron Sider’s, Sojourners, etc. are all the counterparts to the right wing groups you mentioned. And don’t forget who’s in the White House now. Seriously do you think the current President is listening more to Focus on the Family & James Dobson or Jim Wallis and his groups? If you need evidence to answer this question I’ll post some links and news stories. I still think a “neutral” position is better because it’s more honest if you are trying to argue that your view is not based in ideology. If you would admit (as you sometimes have here) that you see the right as a bigger threat and that you are more comfortable with the left’s ideology to me that would just about answer the question.
Just as some on the religious left will obey God and others obey man, so it will be the same with the religious right. On that we agree.
I know what Ellen White says, and I believe that too narrow a focus on her statements are you are doing is somewhat dishonest. She talks about more than just the church. She talks about the church uniting with secular powers. I again argue this is a union of the left and the right. It’s true the right will be big in getting a lot of the main churches to go along, however as I’ve noted the Bible and EGW demonstrate that the whole world will marvel after the beast. The religious left and ideological left is a part of this equation. For me the left is just as dangerous as the right. You are right that in a narrow and limited the way is more dangerous is certain fields, but then so is the religious and secular left. My point is rather than zooming in on only one specific group we should see our message in a much more broader light that cuts across ideology. By only focusing on the right we miss getting a chance to appeal to the good that is within that group.
As for the statement about Mormonism, I was merely comparing Seventh-day Adventism to it in relation to other beliefs. Of course they are different. I am NOT confusing Adventists, JW’s & Mormons. I am however arguing that they are in some ways related to each other in relationship to certain other churches. We are like the JW’s in our view on separation of church and state (except they take it further) and our view on the state of the dead. We are like the Mormons in that we have certain strict health guidelines that we have historically followed. Like both religious groups we are also rather active door to door such as in the canvassing & Bible Worker fields. Those are qualities which make us distinct from many other Protestant churches. While it’s true we Adventists could be classified as “Evangelical” we have more in common with those 2 groups than some are willing to admit. And as Pat noted if we are going to attack the religious right, it’s fair then to have the fire returned on us in some people’s view of us as “cult-like”. As he also noted just like in Christs’s day the powers of the world united. Unless you assert that only the religious right holds power, you have to admit that many on the left will be a part of the call towards Babylon.
Preston, the only thing that offends my “political sensibilities” is partisan attacks on one group, and denial about the other. I’ve repeatedly said that I agree that the religious right is a threat and will be a part of the final events that we are describing. I do not disagree with in that. What I disagree with is your characterization that they are the only or main threat that we should worry about. I argue your view is too narrow and ideological to fit the EGW & Biblical model of “GLOBAL” apostasy.
I agree with you about the 3 main actions that will occur. Our only difference however is that I see the religious left as going along with the Sunday Law whereas, you I guess see them as either “waiting it out” or just not existing. Yes they will be focused on their spiritualism, but what will the religious left do when a National Sunday Law happens? Or a better question might be, what will the political left do? I know and agree about the spiritualism part and the false appearance of Christ. That’s not where the debate lies. We both agree the right and left will fill various holes. I still want to know however where you still the left in relation to the Sunday Law. Ellen White describes everyone as following it (except for us Adventist remnant).
As an example, the opposite question you would be asking of me is where would I see the religious right fitting in with the spiritualism. My answer would be that I think they would tolerate it, rather than actively oppose it if they had become so corrupt and bent on taking power.
Notice the headline at A-today on the “European Sunday Alliance”. Read it and you will see that it includes “national Sunday alliances, trade unions, civil society organizations and religious communities which promotes fair and balanced work conditions”. Which group do you think the trade unions come from? The Religious right???? In Europe the trade unions are very much tied with the left and even the “religious left” and Social Democrat parties. This is more evidence that if/when there is a National Sunday Law it will come from both sides. After all “fair and balanced work conditions” is not exactly a mantra of the right.
This is my last try as this is a circular discussion.
austudent,
First, you put quotes around something I never said (“waiting it out”) about the left. Those are your words — and thoughts, not mine. You ignore what I said explicitly about the role of the left. Read it slowly. I said:
“The Increase in Spiritualism (TGC pgs. 522 – 526; 552 – 562): In this, the secular left are the likely protagonists.”
“The False Appearance(s) of Christ (TGC pgs. 624-625). This will likely be the catalyst for the whole world to accept the deceptions of the beast and the false prophet. Spiritualism and the undercutting of the Scriptures have laid the groundwork for the success of this deception.”
“Protagonists from the right and the left fill these roles. These actors will need conspirators (from the both sides) to accomplish their goals.”
The protagonist is the initiator. A conspirator aids the protagonist in the accomplishment of a goal. How do you get from what I have said that the left has no role in the end game? The increase in spiritualism prepares the world for the great deception, which will convince many that Sunday has been made holy — and should be codified in law. The codification is (has been) initiated by the religious right (i.e. local blue laws). The increase in spiritualism (creating doubt about creation and the verity of the Scriptures) has been initiated from the left. Both sides conspire to enable deception.
Satan is non-partisan.
Again, the discussion, at the time that your political sensibilities were offended, was focused on the Sunday law, specifically. The focus on the religious right was/is appropriate in terms of its source/initiator/champion.
It is the false appearance(s) of Christ that will, likely, convince the world that what we believe to be the deception is real. Again, the acceptance of that deception is a result of an increase in spiritualism. Acceptance of that deception also (politically and socially) enables the acceptance of a national Sunday law.
I never said that the religious right was the only threat to us. I said (and say) that they would be the catalyst/champion of the joining of church and state to enact a Sunday law.
In case you missed it, the specific answer to your question (what role will the left play in the Sunday law?) is that the increase in spiritualism (championed by the left) enables the deception of false appearance(s) of Christ, which convinces the world (the religious and the formerly unreligious) that Sunday is God’s ordained day of worship.
BTW, the religious right conspires in spiritualism by promoting an inaccurate religious spin on the state of the dead (i.e., “they are now in heaven, looking down on us,” etc.).
austudent,
Please allow me to suggest that it would help a lot if you would occasionally quote me when attempting to characterize and summarize my positions; and I should do likewise. This would facilitate more effective communication, and reduce the chances for misunderstanding and mischaracterization.
Along these lines, since you “believe that too narrow a focus on her statements [on my part] is somewhat dishonest [since] she talks about more the church uniting with secular powers;” I challenge you to quote EGW from GC as I certainly have (quite extensively) to demonstrate wherein my characterization of her view has in any way been dishonest. Again, my friend, it has been me who has repeatedly implored a re-reading of chapters 25, 35, and 36 of GC and have quoted directly from them in reference to Protestants uniting with secular power for the purposes of having religious power controlling the civil government so that the authority of the state is employed by the church to accomplish her agenda. EGW makes it clear that this very thing must occur “in order for the United States to form an image of the beast.” The “secular powers” that are referenced are the very “highest council of government” in which our friend Mr. Reed wants “pro-family evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and a frankly growing number of orthodox Jews,” to have an increasing influence.
It may be that since, as has been previously noted, you acknowledge that certain segments of the religious body politic has been more “successful” in seeking and gaining specifically such influence than others, and by any measure is better organized to continue to do so, it is you who is not being quite honest as evidenced your failure to admit that the danger from the right is more pronounced and more imminent at this time.
This is not to say, as has also previously been noted, that WHEN the issue of obeying God or man is faced by EVERYONE, there will not be a realignment wherein people from the right and left choose to obey God, other people from both the right and the left will choose to obey man and support the inflicting of civil penalties for doing so. However it is clear that as of now, BEFORE this issue of obeying God or man is being confronted by EVERYONE there is a political segment of the religious community which is quite determined to gain the kind of influence over the secular civil government that has been markedly more “successful” (your word) than have other political segments of the religious community. Hence there is a clear and present danger, from an Adventist perspective, from the more “successful” of these communities.
I have answered your question about what the religious and political left will do and where they will go (in terms of sides they will take) when everyone is confronted with the issue. Again, some will see it for the first time and decide to obey God, while others will decide to obey man and support the persecution of those who choose to obey God. The very same dynamic will occur with those who are on the religious and political right. Yet I notice that you somehow continue to ask this question.
Edit.- “…determined to gain this kind of influence over the secular…
austudent,
Your last two post were very good…and where is that “american religious rt.” in those European “Sunday issues?” Now Stephen is likely to say, oh that’s Europe where the other “hand is.” But most of the issues & supporters are in areas not linked to the US “right” but “religious and political left” positions.
To me, to attempt to point out the future “rel.rt.” as the primary cause considering the scope of the whole world is simply foolishness.I just can’t bear this vomit without responding.
Your pointing out the “moral agenda” of the religious left & secular left already for 100 yrs. in the form of the social gospel is simply accepted as ok. That’s why that is not an issue to Stephen of “controlling” a type of legislation from the “left.”
Yet the much more recent and contemporary “rt.” that oppose labor unions and spiritualism in it’s modern form and large central government and opposes many things commonly shared by SDA as “immoral” is castigated in it’s “moral efforts” in legislation as “apostate Protestant.” Go figure. They are no more likely to press for a “national sunday law” than Jim Wallis, Campola or Ron Sider IF the right issues were associated with it…such as labor work issues, the environment etc.as in the European mix.
If I were the religious rt. and was mindful of this position…I would say ok.who is “apostate Protestant” my friend? and, on theological issues we would be at a loss to supply a superior answer to most of their beliefs.
Thanks for “reality checks” aus in addition to those I have made…and additional ones.
———-
Timo O.,
That Cindy negates a political stance does not make it so…as this strand has made abundantly clear by the issues discussed. She caps “her moral opinions for legislation” with WWJD.
I cap my “opinions of legislation with” I am nor always sure but He certainly did not get involved with Rome in “politics” nor did the early church.
regards,
pat
By vomit I mean, “regurgitate,ruminate, spew” continuosly by Stephen and Preston.
Pat Travis writes: I cap my “opinions of legislation with” I am nor always sure but He certainly did not get involved with Rome in “politics” nor did the early church.
EGW writes: When the early church became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the gospel and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of God; and in order to control the consciences of the people, she sought the support of the secular power. The result was the papacy, a church that controlled the power of the state and employed it to further her own ends, especially for the punishment of “heresy.” In order for the United States to form an image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends.
I think Pat summed up a perfect reply of anything I could or would say to Stephen. He’s exactly right. Stephen (and Preston) continue to ignore the more agenda of the left or “accept it as okay”. As for quotes, I’m not using them always in context of quoting a person but more to provide emphasis or show that the wording is distinctly mine. I’ve read Ellen White and never seen her talk about “the religious right” (though I agree they are in there). From what I read of her (the same quotes you keep wanting me to post) she includes EVERYONE. The secular powers are not just those of the right. They are also of the left, as we are currently seeing in Europe.
Any yes Cindy may have tried to steer us in a specific direction, but she did a poor job. Anytime you bring hot button political issues to the table (especially from leaders in positions of power) you’re going to get a fight. If she doesn’t want issues to be “political” she should chose to lay off them, or else present them in a more objective manner allowing for the perspective of the other side. Perhaps she should visit the Midwest where she will see many good-hearted conservatives that just disagree with her. For me it’s not so much about right ideas vs. wrong ideas as it is about accepting the good and bad of each.
The fact that trade unions have joined with religious communities in Europe in a Sunday initiative is interesting and irrelevant to the churches in America seeking to obtain secular civil power “to accomplish her ends.”
The left in Europe may very well be playing an active role in that which is prophesied to occur; and may very well play an active role here in the United States. To argue however—and ignore—that what Ralph Reed, Michele Bachmann, et al are up to is, if nothing else, an attempt by the religiously motivated to “control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her ends,” is disingenuous at best.
When one is wedded to EGW quotations, all discussions return to her. This is circular reasoning and anyone who wishes to maintain rationality would do well not to even enter into discussions with such mindsets. She is the epitome of all SDA doctrines, religions and political and her prescience is not to be questioned. If one likes merry-go-rounds, be warned, this is the endless loop.
It is obvious Stephen that nothing can be said to you…and I suggest Liberty mag. to overide the vitriol of specifying specifically from GC that “it must be” the rel. rt.
You attempt to read their mind for desiring a future national sunday law, while all the time presently there are those from Europe from a “social perspective” similar to the secular and religious left in the US.
AUS and myself, especially myself are trying to get the vitriol against one political-religious ideology as to be recognized as inadequate since you have secret knowkledge of “what they are up to”, I guess the ultimate drive to create a national sunday law. Are they on record for a new push for sunday closings in the US?
This inadequacy of a larger scope is simply not acceptable by you or liberty mag. and I personally have never seen an article ( I no longer subscribe and read the mag. so if recent I will stand corrected) of activities by the religious left principles that in any way may lead to or be complicit to government in relation to a future national sunday law.
This is blatantly unfair in an non-explicit reading of the GC which is in a setting that describes issues surrounding the mainline churches who were already involved in the “social gospel”, labor unions and “sunday sacredness before the existence of the religious rt.” In fact all these issues of the world & sunday could have occurred at the Worlds fair in Chicago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/27/catholicism.religion
Please note how the “environment” is also linked with the “Pontifical council on Justice and Peace.” thus the blending with other socio-economic social issues. My paper 2001 in Ministry, The environment, Created and Sustained by whom?” was based on my observation of over 35 years Stephen…not a wild and scandalous theory of mine based on things visible and “not what they are up to.”
Of course the Bishops are strongly commited to the issue announced above from Brussels.
The Lord’s day Alliance has focused on Suday closings and the “social aspect” since 1888.
regards,
pat
Pat,
It may behoove us both to start quoting each other (the benefit of having put everything in writing) so as not to misrepresent our respective points of view. I have never ascribed the motivation of “desiring a future national Sunday law” to what you repeatedly call the “rel. rt.,” (of whom you claim not to be a member).
Since I have no quotes or have heard no reports nor have seen any interviews or have read any information about those individuals and entities whom I have referenced in this context (as religiously motivated people and entities who seek to “control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends) as having expressed a desire for a Sunday law, I cannot—and have not—ascribed such a motive to them.
This (legislated religious observation/recognition of a day) is, after all, a prophetic event that has not yet been “fulfilled,” as it were. I can only again cite (and this is meant to drive Elaine up a wall – LOL) “in order for the United States to form an image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends.”
Any future legislatively mandated religious observation/recognition of a day will—in the future—result because “religious power” will have acquired sufficient “control of the civil government such that the authority of the state will [then] be employed [in order for] “the church” to have such observance enacted into law.
As of now, there are other “ends,” goals, priorities, and objectives. When this legislatively mandated religious observance issue comes to the fore, I will then be able to identify who is for it and who is not. For now, I can only identify what segment of the religious community is most effective in seeking to acquire such power and authority on behalf of the church over the state.
Again, here is Mr. Reed, “I think what I want is to ensure that these folks, these voters, pro-family evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and frankly a growing number of orthodox Jews, are represented in the highest council of government, commensurate to their numbers…
“I’m not going to endorse a candidate; I’m not going to tell them what to do. What I am going to do is say ‘here’s our agenda,’ which is what we did with the Contract with the American Family, ‘here’s what we’re for.’ We’re encouraging them to endorse our agenda, not the other way around.”
austudent,
My last question: in what world is your use of quotation marks, when describing someone else’s position (but words they never uttered), OK?
Assume someone reads your sentence and your sentence only:
I think Pat summed up a perfect reply of anything I could or would say to Stephen. He’s exactly right. Stephen (and Preston) continue to ignore the more agenda of the left or “accept it as okay”.
To whom would they attribute the words in the quotation marks?
It is not OK, your explanation notwithstanding. You are the only subscriber to the austudent world of grammar.
Thankfully.
Preston,
He is “quoting me” referring to me…I said it based on looking the other way at issues such as come from the EU & Sunday and Social issues equvalent to groups in the US of the secular and religious left..
regards,
pat
Stephen,
And what is that agenda? Taking the republic back to a time they consider more in line with the constitution…or a goal of the national sunday law.
So, since you are not implying they are “the ones” now…what have we been talking about? Is not the rest mere speculation?
I suggest a larger view has been at work from the mainline and secular left for a century…so, hat is their ultimate motive in wanting to so influence legislation…as does the alliance in Europe?
regards,
pat
Oh, for an edit feature…
So, what is their ultimate motive for sunday and social issues legislation…a national sunday law which obviously best conforms to their social vision?.
Stephen wrote:
“This (legislated religious observation/recognition of a day) is, after all, a prophetic event that has not yet been “fulfilled,” as it were. I can only again cite (and this is meant to drive Elaine up a wall – LOL) “in order for the United States to form an image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends.”
I agree that this prophet event has not yet been fulfilled” (as it were, means what?)
I also agree with the statement (EGW?) that for this to occur the religious power must control the civil government. This is not IMPOSSIBLE, and not likely probable, but if it does occur, will those who promote it be around to recognize it?
Preston and Stephen,
Thought this sight of the Vatican on Justice and Peace which considers also the environment might show you my observations are “in the now” and not what some “may be up to.” :>)
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_pro_20011004_en.html
regards,
pat
Again Pat keeps hitting the nail on the head. I personally have admitted that the religious right can be considered a threat. Like Elaine, however, I see it more as a very weak threat which is every day losing battles and power. I mean seriously what exactly has the religious right accomplished in the last 5 or 10 years. Sure they may have helped Bush to become President. So what? He left office with 32% approval ratings. Not exactly a model of the beast that one would want to follow. Right now I think we need to keep our eyes open. The Right can/will push religion and the left can/will just as Pat has described with social justice and environmental issues. It will happen in Europe and it can happen here.
In a previous post on this thread, I believe it was laffal who indicated that the important consideration is what we will do when the push for legislatively mandated religious observance/recognition of a day occurs. If, in the United States, a liberal President and/or a liberal Congress were to initiate such legislation because of concerns for the environment and labor considerations for workers’ rights, and they were joined in coalition with the theologically and politically liberal church establishment, including many in the theologically conservative civil rights community leadership, would an individual such as myself with socially liberal leanings stand in firm opposition to such legislation even if it meant standing with those (hypothetically opposed to such legislation) whom I may have considered political adversaries for most of my life; such as the politically conservative business community for example?
I would like to think that of a certainty I would be strong and clear eyed enough, in this hypothetical scenario, to strongly—even vehemently—oppose any and all long-time political allies, and vociferously oppose such legislation with absolutely every fiber of my being.
Of course, this hypothetical scenario begs the question: where would those on the theological and political right, whom have dedicated their energies for decades in gaining access and influence in the “highest council of government” for the expressed purpose of promoting a religious values based legislative agenda, and whom have wanted to see and bring about national revival, and a return of our nation to God, and have wanted to win America back for Jesus, and have viewed the principle of separation of church and state with suspicion if not disdain, and who have lobbied for a return of prayer and for the teaching of creationism in the public schools, and for government funding of parochial K-12 education, etc. (where would such folk as described above) be in the run up to such legislation (in this particular hypothetical scenario)? What position would they have taken in a hypothetical scenario in which liberal environmentalists and union bosses will have influenced the initiation of such legislation? Would the power and influence of the conservative religio-political/legal lobbying and court watchdog organizations that they have (actually) formed be utilized to help promote, or oppose, such legislation?
Would those individuals who have formed and led these religio-political organizations, and those who have supported these organizations and/or joined these movements, suddenly decide that they do NOT want the church to influence the civil government in this way? Would the theologically conservative churches likewise dissent?
Having quoted extensively from GC with regard to the dangers of the church in America obtaining “secular power,” and having identified current trends wherein a segment of the church (religiously motivated church-going people, organizations, and institutions) has unabashedly sought and obtained increasing political influence in at least one of the two major American political parties, and having challenged the reading of chapters 25, 35, and 36 in GC, and now having entertained the American scenario foreseen by my friend Pat; would it be too much to now ask that the questions regarding what role would be played IN “OUR” HYPOTHETICAL by those who have been identified as ALREADY having sought, and increasingly obtained, church influence in the secular American political world (for a generation) be addressed?
In other words, what will have been the purpose for seeking and obtaining secular political power and influence by the church for its agenda, if when the legislation mandating religious observance/recognition of a day is initiated, this power and influence is squandered?
The Power and influence would not be squandered by the right and left combining; it would be magnified. Such a scenario as you described is the only way I can see the whole world marvel and follow the beast, as well as make an image to it. Sure in different places the right may lead (America) but in other locales the left (Europe) will be the one to push Sunday legislation. The politicians will use whichever arguments are the most appealing. Because American politics can change so quickly in the sense of which people support which issues, we could easily see a role reversal. For all we know it could be the right in Europe that pushes Sunday and the left in America. Though I still believe politics are predictable, that’s only in terms of the issues. The leaders follow the people, being tossed to and fro.
Stephen,
I think part of the problem is that rather than seeng scripture as a “broad stroke” revelation that does show the harlot riding on the beast, I suggest through out history in various ways, some choose to create micro explicit applications which I suggest are not possible.
My objection of those in the SDA church who try to use EGW to explicitly be explaining the “Christian Religious right” (in the adventist playground) is that the argument is not large enough to fit all groups that are complicit in what is written in her works. Even if one chooses certain quotes as applying to a group, other quotes don’t. For example, look at the meaning of “modern spiritualism” or theosophy. The rt. definately does not as a group accept “love” as the only characteristic of God’s character and ignore His justice thus undermining scripture. The don’t feel God is “within” only to be developed. They as a rule are opposed to globalism and the “world household” with the possibility of “in the now” coming of the long expected millennium. In short they do not expect a new an more exalted form of spirituality.
As opposite to this, I suggest you read the United Nations Environment Programme, “Earth and Faith.” This is an interfaith partnership for the environment. Is this not Religion and politics that combines eco-justice and political theology? It includes “all faiths” which indeed is a “more exalted sense of spirituality to save the planet.
John Paul II says regarding the environmental movement and various religious inputs at Assisi, “Let us see it inan anticipation of what God would like to developing history of humanity to be, a fraternal goal in which we accompany one another towards the transcendent goal which he sets for us.”
How does the religious right fit into that agenda?
I suggest that we deal with what is evident and declared…not what we think someone is ultimately up to.
I suggest their is a stand down and watch to see how things develop with an open mind without stigmatizing one group…namely the religious right who openlt opposes many of the world positions of the “hand” it is suppose to grasp.
I am merely saying again Stephen, your’s and other SDA’s box is simply not big enough for the “global village.”
regards,
pat
In the event you would classify me as a Fox news child or Rush child or rt.media chil,, I would suggest you read my article in Ministry in 1975, “Peace on Earth?” in which I alluded to the environment with these other issues in mind.
To him that will hear let him hear without labels.
regards,
pat
Perhaps you are right, and my focus is narrow. However, the only problem with that is that the focus of our conversation all along had been the U.S.
You may claim some proverbial “new light” insofar as how events will “play out” in the international community, outside of America. If so, as long as it does not conflict with that which we have already been given—by someone (EGW) who has beaten you to the prophetic punch—I personally have no problem with it. What gives me pause however is that the “new light” that you may claim attempts to redirect or minimize light (Revelation 12-14, particularly 13:11-17, and GC chapters 25, 35, and 36) we are given with regard to the role of the AMERICAN church (that is to say, the religiously motivated, church-going individuals, organizations, and institutions; largely, if not entirely, of the Judeo-Christian tradition) in gaining secular political power and influence and, at some point, using this influence to instigate a legislatively mandated religious observance/recognition of a particular day of the week.
Thus instead of new light, you appear to have put on a pair of shades; PERHAPS because the old light shines too brightly in your preferred general direction.
Stephen,
Pat’s statements do not contradict with Ellen White at all. Instead they complement. Ellen White describes a merging of the issues and ideologies so there will be only 2 groups, neither left nor right. This “new light” does not minimize the role of the American church. Instead it expands upon it using statements she has made about secularism and universalism to apply. Your view is the one which “minimizes” the GC reducing it merely to a battle which begins ideologically between the right wing and it’s opponents. It’s funny but the closest thing we even have to a Sunday Law isn’t found in the US. It’s found in Europe…among the left wing of all things. You should realize that certain religious groups like RCC are extremely malleable. On some issues they are right and others they are left. Again Ellen White never makes it ideological and neither should you Stephen.
Stephen,
It seems your a bit touchy. First of all I do not claim in “new light.” I do not consider that I am a “prophet” with special new insight. I have merely asked the HS in the past to guide me in my studies both of scripture and the “playground” writings of EGW. By the way, I don’t use the term disrespectfully but feel it does make the point we are referring to EGW within the SDA and how it is understood “as new light.”
To claim to isolate a group “in the US” as “the apostate Protestant group” without consideration of how commonalities of that group might relate with the whole world that is to be deceived by “grasping the hand across the sea” is “fallacious.” Sorry Stephen, your box is to small and is thus “new light” perhaps only to yourself and those who share your view.
A miraculous event at every step has to associate your “future” understanding. I see in this “presently visible” effort I have presented towards a secular and theological/spiritual pluralistic inclusive world a move towards excluding those who disagree. That movement including the RCC input is well underway, my friend…and that ain’t “new light” it is a visible and documented occurence.
regards,
pat
austudent,
Again, it seems that my description of activities, specifically the attempts of the church to obtain secular institutional power and influence on behalf of its own agenda, somehow seems ideological to you. This is why I had previously asked you and Pat to focus on the activities without regard to the political persuasion of the actors; and then compare the activities and/or actions (seeking and obtaining secular institutional/political power) with those described in chapter 25 of GC.
If you would do this—without regard to the political affiliations, persuasions, and ideologies of whoever is seeking and obtaining such power—it would be helpful; but apparently is also too much to ask.
Pat’s current enlightenment “expands upon” (your words) the role of the American church—to include things, people, and events not in the United States. This is his prerogative but is not what was under discussion; and not what I referenced in suggesting the reading of, or in quoting from chapters 25, 35, and 36 in GC.
The blog that generated this discussion concerned American public affairs. We were talking about the policy positions available to us in American civil affairs, on a couple of hot button issues, and WWJD. The conversation morphed into American politics and the elements within it, and then to eschatology. Eventually Pat “agreed” that the context, the parameters, “the playground,” of THIS conversation was historical Adventist eschatology; as that is the only playground on which I play in such a discussion.
So that my admittedly narrow focus has been the role of American politics in Adventist eschatology; whereas yours and Pat’s may be the world. This appears to be a circular argument, at last.
The first allusion to eschatology that I can find came from you Stephen about 2 weeks ago to depart from the specific issues of WWJD of Cindy.
>>The eschatological take on Daniel and Revelation (12-14) to which I subscribe coincides with religious powers influencing the state to enact laws having to do with religious observance; wherein the inability to buy or sell is a consequent penalty.
The only laws that have been enacted prohibiting adults from buy and selling (in the nation of my birth) have been enacted in response to religious impulses and influences.<< You opened it…I enlarged it’s meaning in a consistent way, I suggest, with the “SDA big picture playground.” :>)
regards,
pat
“Having quoted extensively from GC with regard to the dangers of the church in America obtaining “secular power,” could it be that such “extensive” inculcation with one book has colored your view of possible and potential happenings? It is easy for someone so entranced with one particular prediction may see the devil behind every possible event in the political world.
The old saying, “worry is the interest paid on trouble before it is due” is a good motto to remember. Sometimes, things occur in an entirely different way than we had thought were certain. People and their politics sometimes change rapidly, and what happens when someone is so certain of future actions (which in itself may never be as expected), is caught offguard? If we live our lives in honorable and humble ways we should be a little less certain in believing we certainly know the future, when in reality it is not in our hands at all.
Pat,
I don’t see where I ever denied having brought up (not to be confused with “vomit[ed]”) the eschatological implications of whatever was being discussed at the time. In fact, I recall taking at least partial responsibility for taking Cindy’s blog in another direction; and do not regret it.
Elaine,
GC has certainly colored my view of current and future happenings; there is no doubt about that, nor any denial. Revelation 1:1 tells us that the Revelation was provided in order that we would know what will occur. So, in terms of being “caught offguard,” the Revelation of Jesus Christ, as relayed to John is specifically designed by God to prevent this.
If however we deny it or add to it, then all bets are off.
Stephen,
I am also glad you took this direction. It was not actually a departure because Cindy’s political comments led to it. In a sense they were also directed at “conservative” american’s fpr their political views.
So I appreciate the opportunity your departure and the natural consequence of Cindy’s personally held political views that gave AUS and myself opportunity to refute the adequacy held by some SDA’s of the religious right is the great “apostate Protestant” group to be feared that will reach their hands acropss the abyss to grasp hands with the Papacty to bring about all that was forewarned.
Regards from one as stubborn and passionate as you,:>)
pat
I apologize for my spelling. My Windows program is so sensitive I am sometimes afraid to edit as I have previously lost everything in the process. Hey webmaster…thought the edit feature would be fixed in June?
regards,
pat
It’s not a matter of “fearing” Pat; it’s a matter of watching. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…it is rarely anything but.
That is, “in the nation of my birth.”
Dr Tutsch said:
>>What I’m concerned about here is not politics, it’s compassion…grace…caring…love. It’s hard for me to comprehend the mentality of a Christian who says, “I don’t want one penny of the money I worked hard for to go to provide health or educational benefits for someone who may not have worked hard like I have.”<<
————-
I guess it seems that one man’s/woman’s WWJD is another man’s/woman’s POLITICS! Dr Tutsch warned of this “(unfortunately) Politicized Issues” which I think comes from within the Capitalist Psyche which translates into BAD LAWS that OPPRESS, EXPLOIT and DENY RESTITUTION yet ‘justify’ their prejudice and selfishness by hiding under the skirts of Conservative Capitalism both within and without the Church. (I know that the same can be said of many on the left but they can’t really defend injustice and political/economic oppression per se).
Conservatives do this oppression thing in style though, through politics, legislature and from advantaged socio-economic positions. From their ‘hoity toity’ HILL they look down at the masses crying out for help and sometimes on a good WALL STREET day may even toss a few crumbs to the undeserving downtrodden who are seen as a huge financial burden especially when they don’t buy the ’cheap labour’ carrot which Capitalism thrives on. The third world then comes in handy to fill the void of CHEAP LABOUR. Often unappreciated they come to the shores of these Prestigious Nations in desperation and are willing to ‘bite the bullet’ even just to SURVIVE the harsh realities of our sinful Planet…
From what I can gather, it seems to be is some sort of ‘allergy’ that right-wingers suffer from when it comes to helping the poor, needy and oppressed … and I am sure that we are not talking just ‘HANDOUTS’ for the poor here but constructive programmes to alleviate and assist those in dire need of HEALTHCARE, EDUCATION, FOOD, CLEAN WATER, SHELTER and not forgetting CLEAN AIR.
Conservatives have always been known for BAD LAWS which have had a direct impact on the Socio-Economic conditions of the less fortunate and in the same breath say that this side of the ‘playground’ has had their fair share of support from within the Church.
I’ve learnt a something good from a Sabbath School Lesson a few months back which mentioned three kinds of KINDNESS:
1] Kind-hearted – a familiar one to most (even conservatives when they’re on good behaviour) which among other things emphasises compassion and goodwill to others. Kind-hearted = WWJD
2] Kind-headed – when compassionate people ‘overlook’ the wrongs in others by ‘seen’ need and helping without even expecting appreciation or that the person they assist is not cognisant of the terrible situation they are in. Kind-headed =WWJD
3] Kind-handed – getting one’s hands ‘dirty’ so to speak. Participating, engaging, doing the actual caring, sharing and preparing. Foot Soldiers? Yeah! Kind-handed = WWJD
In the Christ who has COMPASSION…[Matt 9:26 -When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.]
T
Stephen,
Didn’t realize that the beast that one is warned not to worship was confined to the US and not the world? Rev.17:12,13.
———
T,
The people who have been shown on tax returns to give the least to the poor are the political liberals…unless it is other peoples money.
The issue is not that the poor can not be helped but that it is to be through the states, as they deemed best, as to the original intent of the Constituition.
Don’t care to get diverted with you at the moment however.
Compassion…by all means just don’t use religion to impose the moral social concepts of the church on the federal government. I thought that was what those evil rt.wingers were doing?
regards,
pat
One additional thought T-
Perhaps you are in the continuing line of “social gospel” thought that in most instances seeks the aide of the state to fulfill it’s mission?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel#cite_note-8
Rauschenbusch specifically stated that religion in combine with the state was necessary to fulfill the social commitment. Out of this came the Federal Council Of Churches. I suggest these movements were what EGW wa sreferring to about the church employing the state for it’s purposes.
This part of history I have pointed out to Stephen and how liberal theology and “mainline churches” have already effected the state in fulfilling their mission is seemingly ignored by Stephen.
regards,
pat
T,Stephen& Cindy,
The coining of the term of WWJD came from “social gospel” Charles Sheldon who himself professed the politics of “Christian Socialism.”
How might Cindy’s original premise concerning the two issues of WWJD be similar?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sheldon
regards,
pat
The whole WWJD is itself entirely silly, but in this instance the origin of the term in the book “In His Steps” was after the pretty good first half of the book all about limiting American’s freedom by shutting down drinking establishments. It is kind of funny to see it arise in Cindy’s article with her usage once again along the Progressive political idea of government control. Remember both prohibition and internment camps for in the US for American citizens were both progressive ideas practiced by Progressive administrations.
Pat,
I have readily acknowledged that what is happening in Europe may well be a part of the prophetic end time; and have never hinted at a denial of the same.
What needs to be recalled here is that I am a Seventh-day Adventist who takes our eschatology seriously; and in fact believe that unprecedented current events having to do precisely with the Adventist interpretation of Revelation 13: 11-17 is one of the two or three best evidences of the legitimacy of the Adventist movement. The details of “last-day”events in America that EGW has insightfully spelled out based that were based on Revelation 13 is, in my view, inspired and therefore accurate. I have pointed to, and quoted from, the chapters in GC wherein these details may be found.
There is no identification, classification, or labeling of the political affiliation or ideological leanings of the churches (or individuals) who will seek and obtain secular civil power for the purposes of advancing their agenda; as I have also readily acknowledged without a hint of denial.
What I have attempted to point out and document is that there has, for a generation, been a very focused, organized, sustained, unhidden, and successful effort of religiously motivated individuals, organizations, and institutions to obtain political influence over secular civil governments and governmental systems for the purpose of promoting and legislatively enacting a religiously based agenda. In this context, I have directly quoted EGW as saying that this must first have been accomplished “in order for the UNITED STATES (emphasis added by me) to form an image of the beast the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends,” [and that] whenever it has been accomplished, civil penalties have been inflicted upon dissenters from church doctrines, and that “PROTESTANT (emphasis again added by me) churches that have FOLLOWED (my emphasis) in the steps of Rome by forming alliance with worldly powers have manifested a similar desire to restrict liberty of conscience.”
I have further acknowledged, without hesitation or hint of denial, that I personally have no knowledge whatever of any of the individuals and organization whom I have documented and identified as having sought and obtained such power, influence, and alliances as having yet advocated for a “Sunday law,” but have maintained that such groundwork for power, influence and alliances will have to have been accomplished; echoing EGW’s “in order for the UNITED STATES (emphasis added)…”
I have also fully and readily acknowledged my own philosophical and ideological leanings (having “confessed” them in an earlier blog (“Confessions of a Conservative Liberal”) on this site.
What is interesting—and telling—is that you, Pat, have declined to acknowledge that—WITHOUT REGARD TO “LABELS”—the actions/activities detailed above and documented previously IN ANY WAY represent a clear and present danger, here in the UNITED STATES, from the perspective of historical, conservative, and literal SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM.
Edit.- “…insightfully spelled out that were themselves based essentially on Revelation 13 is…
When does a conspiracy theorist become a rationalist theorist?
Ron is partially right re: prohibition. It was carried out by a progressive administration — who pandered to religious conservatives (the religious right of their time) to use the power of the state to enforce the moral code of a strong, vocal, and insistent constituency. The protagonists were, again, the religious right (“drawing heavy support from pietistic Protestant ministers and their congregations, especially Methodists, Baptists, Disciples and Congregationalists”).
Note: quoted from John Rumbarger, Profits, power, and prohibition: alcohol reform and the industrializing of America, 1800-1930 (1989).
The Japanese interment camps were the result of an unexpected event (the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor in 1941, moving a progressive administration to over-react (likely to protect their political bona fides as able protectors of the country). The conservative W. Bush administration reacted similarly, enacting the anti-libertarian Patriot Act, after the 9/11 attacks.
The point is, the government/politicians of either stripe, will do whatever seems popular or necessary at the time — and will either change the Constitution or ignore it to accomplish their goal. The majority of the public will go along, at least for a while. In the meantime, individual freedoms are sacrificed.
In the Adventist narrative, the end-in-mind of the image of the beast is to enforce an exclusively religious objective (the Sunday Law in the US). Progressive or conservative politicans will do whatever seems necessary or popular at the time. Like prohibition, the likely catalysts are religious conservatives.
We will see.
Stephen, Preston & Taking the 5th Cindy :>),
I look forward to continuing our discussion next Tuesday, as I likely will have little time over this 235 year Celebration of our Republic weekend…in order to keep “social harmony” with my wife. :>)
regards,
pat
Partially right Preston? Look up Woodrow Wilson. You seriously need to learn a bit more about history. And that the Patriot Act is even close to an internment camp is pretty laughable.
Well check this out…
—–
Since REX 84, work has continued on internment camps. Most recently a contract was awarded to a Halliburton company, KBR. The contract, awarded in 2006, allows for the creation of new camps that can hold up to 400,000 people. This is in addition to the many camps that already exist. The stated reason for the new camps is “an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs”. The press release remains in the KBR archive, it can be seen here.
Since our government has been lacking in the control of illegal immigration or any other type of immigration for that matter, we are left with the ominous line “support the rapid development of new programs”. It is perhaps the most disturbing part of the press release. What are these new programs? How rapid is the development? Maybe we don’t even want to know the answers to these questions.
These types of programs have spanned several administrations, both Democratic and Republican. They come from within the depths of government and are likely born out of a sense of self preservation by the government. In history, we have seen this type of behavior before most prominently, in Germany, the Soviet Union, and China. In the past our government and citizens frowned on things like this.
So yes, the camps do exist. They are there. They’re waiting to be used. But the big question, ‘Why?’, remains unanswered. Except for the vague stated reason, “support the rapid development of new programs”. Maybe it is a good idea to keep a watchful eye on the rapid development of new programs.
—–
Could all this be true:
“Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.” write Lewis Seiler and former Congressman Dan Hamburg of the watchdog groupVoice of the Environment, Inc.
Voice of the Environment’s mission is to educate the public regarding the transfer of public trust assets into private, mostly corporate, hands.
The article continues:
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of “all removable aliens” and “potential terrorists.”
http://infowars.net/articles/february2008/210208Camps.htm
—–
T
What about this idea to chew on a few days. The religious rt. may only be “pushing back” against the “progessive secular/religious laws” that have been imposed over the last 100 yrs. The religous social views of the left and those of Eugene Debs were in legislation by and during the “new deal” so many “religious imperatives” appear to be merely secular to some while they were actually not initially.
The commonalities of Europe with the aforementioned match more with the “progressive religious/civil” agenda here.
regards,
pat
I don’t trust too much from Info wars, Alex Jones has a bit of a checkered history. here is Popular Mechanics debunking of some of the concentration camp myths. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4312850
Preston, Stephen & Cindy,
You may ask why I can ask the above question legitimately. The answer…that is the reason Christianity Today Mag first came into publication to counter “Christian Century” magazines political religious positions towards a more evangelical understanding…back later.
regards,
pat
Pat,
How is it logically possible for there to be a danger of a so-called leftist (here we go again) attempt of CHURCHES and RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED CHURCH-RELATED INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES to accumulate power and influence over SECULAR CIVIL GOVERNMENT in order to enact its agenda and fulfill its purposes, which I acknowledge IS a danger insofar as it is conceivable for a legislatively enforced religious observance of a particular day of the week to at some point be a part of said agenda is concerned; and there NOT be danger of a so-called religious right attempt of CHURCHES and RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED CHURCH-RELATED INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES to accumulate power and influence over SECULAR CIVIL GOVERNMENT in order to enact its agenda and fulfill its purposes, insofar as it is conceivable for the legislatively enforced religious observance of a particular day of the week to at some point be a part of said agenda is concerned?
As you consider your answer to that question, keep in mind—as you have repeatedly pointed out, and as I have acknowledged—that neither the Bible nor EGW identify political affiliations or persuasions; but instead identify motivations, intentions, and actions. Please also keep in mind that according to EGW’s take on Revelation 13, in the UNITED STATES, the prerequisite for the forming of an image to the beast will be “control of the civil government [such] that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends.”
(This is notwithstanding speculation that part of the motivation (for the religious right) has possibly been as a backlash or “pushback” response to that which did not previously bring about Sunday legislation.)
You seem to miss the point Stephen. The seeds of progressivism have been growing for 100 yrs.. I have never said none of the rel. rt. will not be involved. On the other hand that is Liberty’s, Yours and Cindy’s primary protagonist…as preston puts it. There most certainly were sunday laws pushed by the Lord’s day Allance i.e here and in Canada accompanied by “social issues.”
I have continually said your “box is to small” and I suggest that is evident by the parameters of the European model for Sunday as a day of rest as the “rel.rt.” of the US doesn’t even exist there! BUT, the comonalities of religious and secular progressivism do!
later & regards,
pat
“The European Sunday Alliance is a network of existing national Sunday alliances, trade unions, civil society organizations and religious communities which promotes fair and balanced work conditions and the harmony of a balanced lifestyle comprising work, family and free time to strengthen social cohesion. The alliance further requests for Sundays to be work free in the new working guidelines (2003/88/EG) to be negotiated among EU member states.”
Ron,
My history seems quite fine. Your reading — not so much.
The point that I made was that progressive administrations (though Wilson was had a terrible civil rights record, to put it mildly — making him less than “progressive” in my view), will also partner with the religious right if it is politically expedient to do so. The point here is that politicians, right or left, will do anything. You were partially right in that , though carried out by a so-called progressive administration, the catalysts for prohibition came from the religious right.
The point re: the internment camps and the Patriot Act is not that they are directly comparable (well, I’ve never been renditioned), but that both were political over-reactions– approved with overwhelming bi-partisan support, to an unexpected and traumatizing event. The point is that, given an unexpected event (i.e. a false appearance of Christ, declaring Sunday to be God’s preferred day of worship), history shows that, legislatively, anything is possible.
Pat,
The question I’ve asked you—in light of the fact that the prerequisite for the forming of an image to the beast in the United States is the near complete control of the civil government by religious powers such that “the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her ends”—still stands: how is it logically possible for the seeking and obtaining of such power by religious individuals and entities of the left (ostensibly for the imposition of a religious left agenda) be considered dangerous, whereas the seeking and obtaining of such power by religious individuals and entities of the right (ostensibly for the imposition of a religious right agenda) NOT be considered equally dangerous?
Bear in mind, as YOU have previously suggested, that neither the Bible nor EGW identify the ideological shadings or political affiliations of the American antagonists. All WE know is that the religious will have obtained such secular power that they control the civil government, and employ governmental authority to accomplish religious objectives, and punish dissent from their interpretation of doctrine.
One place where the religious right is attempting to take control is with same-sex marriage. They are the main opponents of this in many states: it was the Mormons and Adventists in California who were behind Prop 8 to prevent same-sex marriage. That was the combined religious-political power of which you speak.
For some, it depends on whose ox is being gored: if it is an initiative as this was, the religious powers are eager to use the political power to enact laws they wish to enact. Be careful who is today’s friend may be tomorrow’s enemy.
Elaine,
Well said, I couldn’t agree more. Now I hope that my agreement with you doesn’t produce an “Obama Effect;” wherein at which point that I agree with you, you immediately revisit your opinion and no longer consider your position your position
Stephen,
Concerning your last patronizing comment to Elaine,It seems that a good study of the foundation principles of this country might help in better understanding there is a proper an improper use of religious people in the civil realm. When related to the “last 6” commands religion certainly has an appropriate input. When related to the “first four” it doesn’t other than pointing out the state is not to become an idol replacing God.
Stephen, may I invite you to read an article I wrote at the Spectrum site. I suggest it forms the true basis of church and state and not the extreme “separatist view” held by many SDA’s.
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2008/02/01/ethical-standards-mores-and-violation-religious-freedom
I will continue to look up, down, left, and right for revisionist views of both scripture and the constitution. I will tend to favor those views which do not see scripture or the constitution as a “living document” to be revised as some feel “socially” expedient. I feel I can reason with those who I can find and believe in a “fixed authority” rather than a sliding religious or civil scale as slipery as an eel…and as hurtful when they clamp down and will not let go.
I will not ignore the religious and civil drift of the last 100 yrs. and the stealth gradualism towards the church and state fulfilling a “social contract” in the US very much in line with the European vision mentioned. With “modern spiritualism” focused on love, charity, compassion and peace,rather than scriptural justice… an entrancement that I suggest leads to the unifying powers of church and state with an ire towards those who do not accept the syncretistic vision to save the planet and a “secular/religious” millenium of brotherhood. The opposing are causing the worlds problems…now that is “strong enabling delusion.”
regards,
pat
Happy July 4th to all Americans that appreciate the Grace granted to us by Providence.May we recognize that as Patrick Henry realized,Righteousness exalts a nation and sin is a reproach to its people.
Patrick Henry,Govenor of Virginia, opposed the Articles of Confederation because it did not say, we “the States” composed of Citizens create a Union. He feared the lack of federal restraint and the federalism that he prophetically warned of has come to pass…a lamb that is becoming like unto all the former beast.
Pat,
My question to you remains—because the question remains unanswered by you.
Your responses are now ideological, wherein you are extolling the virtues of the icons of patriotism which have nothing to do with the logical inconsistency of religious left wing civil influence and power-seeking (and obtaining) being considered dangerous; whereas religious right wing influence and power-seeking (and obtaining) being considered NOT dangerous; that is, not dangerous by you.
You apparently seem to have forgotten your admonition to me that neither the Bible nor EGW identify the ideological leanings or political identification of those religious powers in the United States who will so “control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends.”
These “ends,” may well on occasion appear moral and legitimate; as no doubt was the case with the early church when, for example, “apostasy…led the early church to seek the aid of the civil government…” The point is that “whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines.”
Likewise, have a Happy 4th of July!
A cogent book review in the Economist about irrational belief:
“Instead of shaping belief around painstakingly gathered,soberly judged evidence people most often decide upon their beliefs first, and then use an impressive range of cognitive tricks to bend whatever evidence they do discover into support for those pre-decided acts of faith.”
Stephen,
I never have said that any ideology including the “rel.rt.” is not problematic. What I have said is that the religious rt. simply does not have the public favor of the entire US to “gain control.” Even if they…which I consider to be as unlikely as NY city under water… the courts have been not in favor of their major positions such as recent rulings concerning Homosexuality or Abortion…which basically SDA positions concur with morally.
Is a Yes- No? I feel it is. It is you and Cindy and to a degree Preston that insist on 1 ideaology as being the protagonist. I simply refuse to accept that neither in consideration of all of EGW’s writings/adventist playground not to mention Scripture insists it MUST be the Protestant “Rt.Wing.” I also say it is demonizing legitimate believers in Christ who as a rule accept sola scriptura and Christ as our only savior.
The “model” that seems most consistent to me is one developing for 100 yrs combining theological and secular interest. It includes the solidarity of religious and secular goals as the acceptable one for society. It includes an inclusive religious secularism that minimizes the unique Christ in the syncretistic goal of Sunday for social interest for family and society.
I suggest if things go south in this scenario a more exalted religion influenced not by an orthodox understanding of Christ but rather one influenced by “modern spiritualism” incites opponents of the solidarity to save the planet.
The most important issue, I suggest to all is not a political ideology or party but for each of us…what think you of Christ, who is He. Historically political-religious interest have relegated that a lesser role “lest the whole nation or household” perish…you shall be hated of all nations on account of me…the world zeitgeist has hated me and it will hate you.
Hopefully we can focus on the Christ as SDA’s rather than simply “Saturday and one possibility of only the religious rt” creating an endtime scenario. Christ not the sabbath will be our sustainer any more than it was the ancient Jews at the time of Christ.
regards,
pat
Sabbaath is the idol which Adventism worships. Touch it and you touch the fire, and fireworks start.
Firstly I speak not JUST of a social gospel (which is usually unfairly used in an inferior derogatory way) but of the ‘am I my brother’s keeper’, and the ‘love your neighbour as yourself’, as well as the ‘least of these’, principles set forth in scripture. [Prov 16:19] – Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud.
—–
Outside of the ‘dogfight’ yard there is the reality that too often is overlooked. A reality in which the poor have no voice: no money – no power – no voice. Think about it! Governments can directly influence who gets poor, stays poor and gets out of poverty. I once heard the Rev. Jesse Jackson call on Government to stop pouring so much money into bigger prisons and juvenile halls but to focus on ‘education’, ‘healthcare’ and social development within the inner cities for the underprivileged and downtrodden.
—–
I must also point out that even in the First World there are people who sleep on the streets and beg; and eat out of garbage cans; and sell their bodies for drugs; and commit suicide; and are forced into bankruptcy, debt and criminal activity, etc. High Taxes, inflation, interest rates, fuel prices and food prices etc., all can drive one into poverty very quickly. The Church doesn’t do that! It’s the State. So when the Church says: “Hey that’s wrong to deny healthcare for the elderly, children, the disabled and also needy families and individuals. That’s Wrong! Then we have lost our way.
—-
The dogfight noise in the political yard drowns out the cry for help from those outside the yard. The poor man’s valuable vote is translated as a proxy for whatever by whoever, however. DemocPROXY? Remember too that the sentiments of a Government of the people, by the people, for the people didn’t come from the church. The state advocates such. The church can and should be a voice of the poor. That’s NOT politics, that’s doing what is morally and ethically right.
—–
I spoke in an earlier post about conservatives and rightwingers who position themselves as such but in terms of Social Welfare issues which is the main vein of this blog. Those who find all sorts of excuses and reasons NOT to help the poor and needy by ‘POLITICIZING’ such a noble cause. Those who make poverty a CAPITAL crime even to the extent of declaring poverty a sin of the masses. A ‘DEBT’ penalty is meted out. You then started the ‘who gives more’ stats line to try and squash my line of argument. Social Engineering is costly too, I know…and many give a lot of money to KEEP the poor out of the way. Others give to uplift and empower the poor and downtrodden and those aren’t in this dogfight. They are too busy fighting under the bloodstained banner of Prince Immanuel.
—–
The Church only asks Government to make right what Government has done wrong – Again think about it! Government gives private banks a huge bailout but denies the needy access to decent healthcare and social benefits. How can we just sit by and watch such injustice and then use 18th century creed to justify such atrocities. Makes one wonder who is REALLY running America and the rest of the world, doesn’t it! What about NEED ABOVE CREED?
In God we trust?
T
T.,
I suggest most don’t really understand the political conservative vs. liberal/progressive debate.
As a “constitutional conservative” I have no problem with the states choosing what services will be offerred to the poor by the state legislatures. The states can’t print money and must have a balanced budget. The citzens choose the services including the cost of all local government they are willing to provide then must pay for these services by levying taxes which should be on a “non progressive” state tax specific pecentage…say for argument 7%.
Constitutional Conservatives argue the Federal role is to those specific duties enumerated to them in the constitution as implied in the 10th Ammendment placed so as to get the states to “sign on” originally since they as Patrick Henry feared ultimately federalism as the denier of states and personal liberties..
That no one “cares for the poor” is a strawman!
regards,
pat
Preston wrote:
“Ron,
My history seems quite fine. Your reading — not so much.
The point that I made was that progressive administrations (though Wilson was had a terrible civil rights record, to put it mildly — making him less than “progressive” in my view)..”
Oh it is your view that makes one progressive or not. So I guess they should just change the Wikipedia article on the “progressive era”. Yea it is my reading but your history is good…at least in your view, I suppose, you being the authority on what is is or not progressive politics. Amazing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
Ron,
You seem to want a fight where there is none. My complete sentence was, “The point that I made was that progressive administrations (though Wilson was had a terrible civil rights record, to put it mildly — making him less than “progressive” in my view), will also partner with the religious right if it is politically expedient to do so.”
Objective readers would likely take that sentence as a concession that the Wilson Administration is included in the set of progressive administrations, though the writer (me, in this case) has some personal reservations about how the term was applied to Wilson.
I am not the authority of who is included in the set of “progressive” progressive administrations. I do have a right to a personal opinion, Wikipedia or not. For some reason, my opinions seem to throw you off track from the primary point — even when I agree with you. What’s up with that?
Oh I am sorry Preston, when you begin by saying:
“My history seems quite fine. Your reading — not so much.” I should have realized that you were actually in agreement with me you just did not feel that the main person who brought in Progressivism into the mainstream of America as a President was not really a Progressive.
But let us move past your personal poorly developed opinions and ask about the so called religious right. So just to be clear you would put Ellen White in the religious right that the Progressives joined hands with. After all, to Ellen White God destroyed San Francisco in order to close down the saloons. Her part in the temperance movement would certainly appear to be religious right would it not?
In fact it does not bother me one bit what the religious people want and or protest against. The problem comes when the government removes individual freedom. And history of the US shows us that this is and has been done to a far greater extend by Progressive politicians. I don’t blame the religious for their values and morals and beliefs that is part of our freedom. What we need to be concerned about is the politicians that take away freedom. Freedom that our constitution insures but that constant redefinition as putting everything they want as part of the general welfare destroys.
The answer is not to complain about religious peoples beliefs but to protect ourselves from the growth growth of government and its intrusion in to Americans freedoms.
Happy Independence day! Let’s stay independent from oppressive regimes.
salons (drinking places, not hair styling places)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson
PS. Wilson also represented the “new Presbyterian Princeton” that Machen objected to in “Christianity and Liberalism.”
They left to form Westminster Theological Seminary in protest of “progressive/liberal theology” that focused on saving society and put on the back burner mankinds sinfulness and the need of individual salvation in Christ by “faith alone.”
regards,
pat
Assuming that you are addressing or responding to my question, and in the interest of understanding, and in an attempt to characterize or summarize your position fairly, I will use your words:
“I never have said that any ideology including the “rel.rt.” is not problematic. What I have said is that the religious rt. simply does not have the public favor of the entire US to ‘gain control.’”
This appears to hold out the possibility that the accumulation of civil power and influence by the right may be problematic; but that you believe that conservatives who seek such power have, to this point, been unsuccessful in their attempts to gain control of the civil government; because their policy positions are not sufficiently popular with the public; nor are they likely to be.
“It is you and Cindy and to a degree Preston that insist on 1 ideaology as being the protagonist. I simply refuse to accept that neither in consideration of all of EGW’s writings/adventist playground not to mention Scripture insists it MUST be the Protestant “Rt.Wing.” I also say it is demonizing legitimate believers in Christ who as a rule accept sola scriptura and Christ as our only savior.”
In fairness, I think the record will show that I have been trying to get you to understand/admit that on the SDA/EGW/GC playground, what is made clear is that the religious powers in the good ol’ U.S. of A. will have obtained enough secular civil power and control to employ the authority of the state to “accomplish its own ends;” and since no political ideologies or parties are mentioned or referred to, that the seeking of such power (as is readily admitted to by Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, et al) by EITHER the left or the right is therefore equally ominous.
We are not saying that “it MUST be the Protestant ‘Rt. Wing,’” but ARE suggesting that it is surely illogical to “simply refuse to accept,” in light of their stated intentions and unambiguous actions, that it cannot be them—here in the United States; especially since no particular ideology or political affiliation is specifically identified, but religious American Protestant Christians certainly are.
Interestingly Stephen it is “apostate Protestantism.” And, none fit that better than the Progressive/liberal theology that was mentioned as higher criticism in EGW’s day. That is the progrssivism that has been developing from seed to plant over the past 100 yrs.
Till this point I suggest the “rel.rt.” is quite in accordance with the Constitution and they are seeking to regain it’s original intent from the creeping previous progressivism of church state kingdom on earth visionaries. I would disagree with them on “public school” prayers. I would disagree with some of them on not allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest or imminent dnger to the health of the mother on a moral basis.
I, however,at present do not see them pushing for sunday laws for the agenda the progressives in Europe “in reality and the present” are.
regards,
pat
It might be good that adventist consider if there are ways they might be “apostate Protestants” and that was why the book QOD/Questions on Doctrine was written to attempt to answer thoughtful questions by some Evangelical Christians who cared enough to ask and listen.
regards,
pat
Ron,
I have copied the second paragraph of the Wikipedia bio on President Wilson. The first sentence makes your point. The second sentence makes mine.
“In his first term as President, Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass major progressive reforms including the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and an income tax. Wilson brought many white Southerners into his administration, and tolerated their expansion of segregation in many federal agencies.[1]”
Not really as progressives can be racists also, just read on down about Eugenics.
Once (or is it twice, or perhaps even thrice) again, the issue is the fact that in the United States “the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends” in order for an image of the beast to have been formed. It is self-evident that “only in flagrant violation” of the Constitutional provisions that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercised thereof,” and the religious test for public office prohibition “can any religious observance be enforced by civil authority.” Further, it is self-evident that, as I have previously acknowledged, that those Americans whom I have identified as having publicly stated that they want power and influence in the secular civil government realm in order to promote and enact their religiously based agenda have not, to my knowledge, yet pushed for Sunday any observance legislation (although various municipal and state governments have clearly been influenced to so in the past). If they had done so, we would not be having this conversation; in that they would have already identified themselves.
Our disagreement now revolves around what is either a disingenuous or an illogical position of yours wherein you either do not believe that the accumulation of “secular power” by the church in America is following after the pattern of history whereby “in order to control the consciences of the people,” the early church” sought the support of the secular power” (resulting in “the papacy, a church that controlled the power of the state and employed it to further her own ends, especially for the punishment of ‘heresy,’”) and that “Protestant churches that have followed in the steps of Rome by forming alliance with worldly powers have manifested a similar desire to restrict liberty of conscience,” or you believe—ideologically—that, despite countless statements, interviews, speeches, sermons, articles, columns, conferences, and colloquia to the contrary, the ONLY American Protestants interested or seeking to obtain such power are religious liberals, and the ONLY group to which the prophesied “state of religious declension similar to that in the first centuries” described in 2 Timothy 3: 1-5, and 1 Timothy 4:1, and 2 Thessalonians 2: 9-11 applies– in which “the same results will follow as in the first centuries” – are liberals; despite the fact that neither the Bible or EGW identify the political affiliation or ideological leanings of the last-day American antagonists.
Edit. – Further, it is self-evident, as I have previously acknowledged, that those Americans whom I have previously identified as having publicly stated that they want power and influence in the secular civil governmental realm in order to promote and enact their religiously based agenda have not, to my knowledge, yet pushed for any Sunday observance legislation (although various municipal and state governments have clearly been influenced to so in the past).
Stephen,
What Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson may want secretly is besides the point. American’s as a whole do not want the religious rt…or anyone else to confront them and tell them what to do. They are not saying “Peace” instead they confront at times even where they should not…and most americans don’t like it. At times I don’t either…but this is not a group that will gain America’s heart. :>)
Stephen, the world zeitgeist is “heal the world” and “we are the world, we are the people” and the seeds of Progressivism has been growing “alliances with world powers” for 100 yrs.
Part of that understanding is being voiced in Europe for solidarity…the “delusion” after all is worldwide biblically and not confined to the US…or have I missed something.
Your saying I have a view that is disengenious or illogical and you don’t. Your absolute adherance to the “fact” that it is going to be the religious rt. is revealing to me as an ideology…and a bit more of spite towards many of their religious positions.
We shall see…I believe likely in our lifetime.
regards,
pat
Too much EGW Kool-Aid pollutes the mind.
“Your saying I have a view that is disingenuous or illogical and you don’t. Your absolute adherence to the ‘fact’ that it is going to be the religious rt. is revealing to me as an ideology…and a bit more of spite towards many of their religious positions.”
With all due respect, I have not adhered to the “’fact’ that it is going to be the religious rt.” Once you agreed to play on the Adventist playground, I have purposely, repeatedly, quoted directly from The Great Controversy (ad nauseum in Elaine’s view) for the specific purposes of maintaining deniability that it is my, or Liberty’s perspective of ominous activities and dangerous liaisons with regard to the religious seeking to obtain American secular civil power and influence; and to highlight the activities/intentions themselves, in isolation of a particular ideology or political affiliation.
What I believe has occurred, is that my repeated quoting of EGW’s description of activities, intentions, and historical and prophetic consequences so closely resembles particular individuals and entities that it has left the impression of an adherence “to the ‘fact’ that it is going to be the religious rt.”
This is why I implored you to consider these activities without regard to the labels attached to whoever engaged in them.
When this is done in light of the Adventist eschatological take on America in Bible prophecy and in acknowledgement of the fact that EITHER end of the American religious spectrum may be more successful than the other in obtaining secular power to enact its agenda, the picture becomes clear. That the issues currently championed by one side or the other are currently popular or not is not determinative as to whether circumstances will allow other issues to become sufficiently popular for certain legislative actions. Besides, legislation does not have to be popular, nor bi-partisan, in order for it to become the law of the land.
35 yrs. ago the focus of evangelist and the “sure word of prophecy” was that Armageddon was the nations doing battle. The focus on EGW understanding was the danger of the Federal,National and World Council of Churches.
I wonder what caused the paradigm shift to “just the good ole USA” and “the obvious religious rt.,Liberty, You and Cindy sees as “the sure word of prophecy of EGW?”
I wonder if their was an internal church change in the positive relevancy of the Progressive political and religious ideology to “save the world?”
I’m all for legitimate efforts…but the problem is not politcal…it is in the heart of sinful humanity. Humanity needs a heart cure that is found in Christ alone.
On that thought I think I will cease the conversation. Who is Christ? What shall individuals do with Him in the US, Europe, Canada, South Americal, Asia, S.E.Asia, Ausrtralia,New Zealand, The Middle East,and Africa…or is salvation found in humanities seemingly good goals to save the planet…in the now. That is a “prophetic preaching” that is counter world cultural that will ruffle feathers. The audacity of the “exclusive Christ” will cause true believers to be hated of all nations for HIS namesake.
Farewell,
pat
Or Perhaps the real issue is “What is the Sabbath”…with Christ as a “mere” appendage to the worlds need…oops…just the good ole USA’s need.:>)
Revelation 13: 11-17 has been the focus of the conversation, from the SDA perspective. There are, and will be, nominal professed Christians, who claim to know who Christ is, who will cause the beast with lamblike horns to speak as a dragon.
A quick response to the ‘Kool-Aid’ advertisement…
—–
“God has mercy on those whose ignorance leads them to form prejudices against the truth; but he confounds those who take them up through envy and malice, and endeavor to communicate them to others.” [from Clark’s Commentary]
—–
T
Close to good Reformed Theology Preston.
The law has not been cancelled as a standard or guide. The debt of our guilt was nailed to the cross and satisfied by Christ’s sacrifice…and by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified…even through the indwelling Spirit. We are “reckoned” righteous by Christ ‘s obedience that we accept by faith. That “legal fiction” stuff “classical” Protestants believe.
regards,
pat
oops…sorry wrong topic…
Stephen, I said true believers…not nominal SDA’s or otherwise.
Another “last comment” to you and Cindy that started all this. If their has not been a paradigm shift among SDA’s towards an acceptance of the “progressive religious political views” could you explain to me who would have made Cindy’s assertion of WWJD regarding “immigration-illegal” and “national insurance” as a compassion assertion 30 yrs. ago?
I would sugggest the SDA church “body” has assimilated more of the “progressive platform” than they dare acknowledge…including soteriology.
regards,
pat
I thought you were “ending the conversation.” No offense, but as a fourth generation SDA, who is now a retired senior citizen, I can honestly say that there has been no paradigm shift in the SDA church in which I was raised. He or she that hath an ear…
“Progressive political religious views,” as you put it, among SDA’s is one topic; the extent to which the seeking of secular civil power by religious people in the U.S. is a harbinger of the prophecies of Revelation 13: 11-17 is quite another. I hope that you are not suggesting that Revelation 13: 11-17 rules out conservatives. If so, then you are revealing that your view all along has been purely ideological and in contradiction to your admonition to me that neither the Bible nor GC identify a political persuasion or ideology.
Well Stephen as a 5th generation SDA, where would you find support for Cindy’s 2 WWJD “progressive” statements 30 years ago?
True believers of whatever stripe that believe there is no other name under heaven wherby we must be saved in the time period of Rev.13:11-17.
I tell you what after your non-evasive reply as the last comment, I will cease if you do. :>)
regards,
Pat,
I sincerely thought that I responded to your question by referencing the SDA culture with which I’m familiar; but if it wasn’t “heard,” then so be it. I may have to write a blog to further address the issue, because I’d prefer that this conversation not to be diverted from that of Revelation 13 and Chapters 25, 35, and 36 of GC.
Besides, in light of the historical and prophetic danger of religious power seeking to obtain secular civil power for the furtherance of its agenda (clearly spelled out in GC), I never got an acknowledgement from you that EITHER end of the religious/ideological spectrum that does this represents a danger.
Where would Adventism be if had to rely only on the Bible?
Like Mormonism, they both base much of their doctrines on extra-biblical prophets. If every Christian group had its own prophets, why would the Bible be necessary?
So Stephen,
I notice you will not answer my question regarding Cindy. Can I make it a yes or no? Did anybody ever talk about “illegal immigration” 25 yrs ago or natinal health insurance as being a compassionate action and WWJD?
Yes or no would work for me. ;>)
regards,
pat
The older I get, the shorter period of time 30 years ago, seems. As I think about it, this is about when Jerry Falwell started the Moral Majority.
Of course, 30 years ago the contemporary hot button social legislation issues were simply different than immigration and health care; so, “no”—to those particular issues. However, the SDA Church with which I am familiar did not consider the analogous “controversial” national social policy issues of that time…perhaps, let’s say affirmative action and, say, food assistance… to have been very controversial at all.
That said there is little doubt that in the SDA Church with which you are familiar such issues were viewed similarly to that of immigration and health care.
The fact remains that you, my friend, have continued to evade my question as to how it is logically possible to conclude that the acquisition of secular civil power by the generic “church” in order to enact and impose its agenda—the only way that it is possible to legislate mandatory religious observance in this nation—is NOT dangerous from a prophetic perspective.
Stephen,
I’m right there with you on this.
Now,I don’t mean to be demeaning or trite, but maybe we need a rediscover what it means to come of of Babylon? But then again, that might just be another blog.
Mrs Nelson said: “Where would Adventism be if had to rely only on the Bible?
Like Mormonism, they both base much of their doctrines on extra-biblical prophets. If every Christian group had its own prophets, why would the Bible be necessary?”
—–
ALL Seventh-day Adventist doctrines, in terms of Fundamental Beliefs, are BASED on the Holy Bible ONLY and have been meticulously formulated and unambiguously articulated: most of which are held in common by other Christian denominations.
Last time I checked, the SDA Church was the twelfth-largest religious body in the world and sixth-largest highly international one. This was achieved not by coercion, violence or intimidation and false doctrinal persuasion. The Holy Word of God has been taken into ALL the world and PREACHED with love; and millions have responded to the Love of God in Christ. Millions from ALL walks of life, races, cultures and religious persuasions as well as those from different socio-economic backgrounds and schooling have made this their spiritual home.
To keep in line with the topic on this blog, I will also say that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been built on unselfish sacrifice, willing service and unconditional love for our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ through the ministry and leading of the Holy Spirit.
The poor, the needy, the oppressed – have also found a home away from home in the warm hearted environment within the vehicle of Adventism which provides a conducive Biblically Based atmosphere for ALL God’s Children who seek after Truth, Hope and Love…
The SDA Church may not hit the ‘front page’ news very often but we have definitely left our f00TpR1nT as proclaimers of God’s love in Christ Jesus on this planet we call Earth.
Kool Aid stuff Ma’am? I don’t think so!
T
I’ve skimmed the thread and gotten the basics. I would strongly disagree with Stephen as to the church not having made “paradigm shifts.” I’m 3rd generation SDA, AU/LLU alumna, and I’ve seen the church as represented by those inside the beltway specifically and in academe more generally drift further and further to the political left and even progressive point of view. I can’t even read Liberty mag anymore, and I used to send out subscriptions to it. The beltway Adventists are so far to the left that they think their viewpoints are nonpolitical, perhaps even Christlike (witness this particular blog entry – the article itself, not the comments)
I won’t rehash the arguments made by Pat, Elaine, William, and others, but they make a lot more sense than those posting a lot of key texts and EGW lines taken out of context. It’s pointless to argue, however, as I honestly don’t think the GC types live in the real world. They don’t see unintended consequences of government meddling, only the overall “feeling of doing something.”
Agree Hawaii Person.
————-
Stephen, If the church controls the state rather than be co-partners “riding it” as scripture shows with a wide brush…it would be dangerous. I will wait till is evident who that might be. It is dangerous for a legitimate “church” to be to much involved with the state…especially in my view becoming financially invoved with it…because it is then your really cntrolled.
My point is that 30-35 yrs. ago such “political remarks of Cindy” would have been met with strong remarks of “socialism” and “lawlessness” that now have the state simply being our friend and WWJD.
I’ll sit out for a while as perhaps that is WWJD. :>)
regards,
pat
It is not at all clear (to me) what you mean by “be co-partners ‘riding it’ as scripture shows with a wide brush…,” but personally, I do not want the church, or church-related entities, organizations, or individuals in partnership with the state.
Besides “financially” what else would constitute being “too much involved with the state” (talk about unintended consequences)?
This is the point (of this entire exercise), either we believe the counsel and warnings provided in GC regarding the prophetic dangers and implications of church and state uniting in America, or we do not. For the generic church, or any church, to flirt/partner with the state, only then to “wait till [it] is evident” who represented the danger would be…unwise in the extreme, shall we say.
Speaking of ominous, if/when the separation of church and state is viewed in the SDA Church as a controversial left vs. right issue (in the words of Dr. King) “we’ve got some difficult days ahead.”
As for paradigm shifts, and 30-35 years ago, as I’ve said, that’s a horse of a different color, so to speak.
>>As for paradigm shifts, and 30-35 years ago, as I’ve said, that’s a horse of a different color, so to speak.<< And that’s always the “progressive view” that “political and religious conservatives” push back at Stephen…and that is what is occuring between You, me and Cindy. Who seeks “more central government” in reality involved in every day activity…Conservative or “Progressive.” That’s been the discussion in the US since the Federalist Hamilton was opposed by Jefferson & Madison. In religion, as I have stated, “Progressive/liberal theology” seeks the aide of the state to transform society primarily socio-economically along their understanding.”Society” in their view is the “church.” Conservatives reject the view focusing on “individual needing salvation” and the gradusl moral changes that are positive to society…and not visa versa. So in reality who seeks the aide of the state in working out of their goals? That “seems” to be a good conclusion…and by the way I would oppose,Sunday,Saturday or Friday or combination of “forced closings” if and when they occur. Regards,
pat
Amen Ron.
Preston, racism is a very complicated issue. Having lived in many parts of the US, I’ve seen racism directed at many very different people, “native Americans,” blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and yes, whites. Isn’t presuming that someone is inferior simply because of their skin color racist? Isn’t giving someone extra privileges just because of their skin color racist?
Trevor, the right is not proposing doing N-O-T-H-I-N-G. (your emphasis, not mine). There are some very interesting ideas out there for reform, but you’re not going to find any of them on the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. Obamacare is the prime example of rushing about to do SOMETHING and ending up with worse than nothing. I have 30 years of experience in the medical field, many physician and dentist friends, some of whom deal with insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid patients and trying to get payment for their patients. One friend is fairly high up in the organization of a system Obama has applauded for their medical management. Only a very few medical people that I know think that Obamacare will improve anybody’s health. We’re already seeing insurance for kids getting dumped from a lot of plans.
By doing “something” the Democrats rammed this thing down the throats of the public before even the lawmakers had a chance to read it. For all you know some congressional aide slipped in something to the effect that his frat brothers from college each would be given $10 million in excess of every CEO in the country every year of their lives as referenced in Part B, point iii.v, bill HR2341028789, and further enlarged by the case of Smith vs. Jones. (sorry – I can do fake medical language better than fake legal language).
Anything as huge as a healthcare bill that could affect 20% of the economy should not be decided behind closed doors with only token attempts at sham listening to the input of half the country. It should be deliberated carefully and examined closely. You just did “something” by performing a tracheostomy on someone with a head cold.
edit…”Conservatives” Christians reject that view focusing first on “individuals needing spiritual salvation in Christ” and the gradual moral…
Apparently, you refuse to accept that the so-called “conservatives” who admittedly and very publicly seek to acquire significant influence over the secular civil government, do so in order to enact a religious legislative agenda; and are therefore not limited government libertarians who do not want the government in the lives of individual citizens. They actually want the government to do certain things (e.g., fund parochial education, and teach Biblical creationism in public schools, etc.) and to police certain actions (e.g., outlaw abortion under any circumstances, censor reading and entertainment materials, etc.) that according to their doctrinal beliefs are sinful. In other words to “partner” with government to, among other things, restrict liberty of conscience. There has been a clear historical pattern of bad outcomes to such “partnering,” and we know that similar, if not identical partnering must occur in order for America to form an image to the beast.
If these pseudo-conservatives only believed in individual salvation they would not be so concerned with national repentance, and reclaiming America for Jesus; goals that I have heard articulated with my own ears on numerous occasions by numerous religio-political luminaries.
That said it is equally dangerous for left leaning religious types to acquire control of the secular civil state. Why the reverse is so hard for you to acknowledge is, I’m afraid, painfully obvious. The fact that you would oppose a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday closing legislation “if and when they occur” is good to know; but indicates to me that I may have somehow convinced you to play on the Adventist playground when you may well have preferred to stay off it all along.
Sorry Stephen,
Beat you to it…I was on the Neal Bortz program in 1974 opposing the “Common day of Rest” act in Ga. It provided for Sat. OR Sunday closings and thus wasn’t a “clear and present danger” to the SDA Rel. Liberty dept. It was supported by former Govenor of Ga…Jimmy Carter.
We’ll just see how far your demonized “mini” group gets. I suggest not much past 1st…if there.:>)
False religions have always associated with the state “ridden on the beast” in every beast “of the Dan.2 statue.”
For the most part these confederacies were “inclusive & pluralistic” for what seemed beneficial to beast, society and religion…barring the “Holy Roman Empire.”
Christians under Rome were considered to be atheist as they rejected “all the gods.” Pehaps there is a “lesson” in that for the unfolding world we live in.
It’s been enjoyable and for the most part Civil Stephen.
regards,
pat
There’s been no “demonized ‘mini’ group” Pat. The danger of American religious powers obtaining secular power so that they control the civil government was not my idea. The generic church in America was what was identified in what we’ve read. The actions and intentions have been what they have been. Accept these actions as real and let the chips fall where they may.
Hey, Hawaii50ish
I prefer the overall ‘feeling of doing something’ rather than the overall ‘feeling of doing N-O-T-H-I-N-G’.
———-
This issue is not really about the Church controlling the State. Some have had their feathers ruffled and unfortunately caused them to REACT by ‘politicizing’ it . Ordinary Christian Service to our fellow brothers and sisters in the Society we are a part of is brushed aside as political aspirations – yet there have been none – except a call to the Church and others to do something for a change, instead of justifying their oppressive attitudes and creeds and their XENOPHOBIC political agendas.
Can I say SHAME ON THOSE who propose that we do nothing just because they say it may be deemed political by some who hallucinate about Christians taking over the State in order to feed the poor and provide healthcare for those in need?
That is just an excuse to side-track and dodge our Christian and Civil Society duty to the poor and needy. Aren’t citizens who have Christ in their hearts supposed to do what Jesus would do – at least for the ‘least’ of these? The right to vote and choose to speak or act on behalf of those less fortunate than ourselves should be used to provide a better quality of life for those who cry out for help from within the huddled masses of our Society.
Always NEED above CREED.
T
Ron,
. . . which confirms the (secondary) point I was making about Wilson. What and who some consider to be progressive is a function of perspective. One person’s “progressive” can be another’s racist (your word). Still, the primary point is that politicians of all stripes will partner with religious groups to accomplish what is expedient — in the short term.
No Preston a person can be a political progressive and a racist, they can be a political conservative and a racist or moderate and a racist. Or likewise not a racist. But your personal defintion has nothing at all to do with it.
But I am glad to see you and Stephen concede that the religious left could be equally as bad should they unite with government. So instead of complaining about the right or the left. Why not seek to limit government so that their power will stay limited and that they will stay with the constitution. Thus we are back to political conservationism or libertarianism, but we need to be very careful of the political progressive or as they became known the political liberals, because they want to increase government size and intrusiveness. It is pointless to complain about religious peoples morals they have every right to their beliefs. What needs protected is the constitution.
Glad we can finally agree.
The only limited government political types are those very few principled libertarians who do not want the government involved in much of anything; be it war, or commerce regulation, or private morality, or what intoxicants one takes into their bloodstream, etc.; and these types rarely get elected on a local scale, and never to national office.
The fact is that those churches and church-related individuals and organizational entities, whoever they are, who seek to acquire influence and power in the civil governmental realm in order to promote and enact a religiously based “moral” agenda in America, are the very same people who will have had to have been sufficiently successful in such influence and power seeking in order to, at some point, have religious observance of a particular day of the week legislated.
Ron,
Ron,
My personal point is that, for me, no one can be a “progressive” and a racist, regardless of how they define themselves. In my strict definition of the word (progressive), that marriage is oxymoronic — and dishonest.
My concession is that, in terms of the church/state issue, the POLITICAL left can be equally as bad as the political right. As I see it, the religious right remains the likely protagonist of the church/state marriage that will conclude in the Sunday law and threaten liberty of conscience (vis’ a vis TGC narrative).
Stephen,
Reality check…
“Limited Government” means holding politicians down to the “chains of the constitution”…not libertarianism or complete “separatism” of “Church & State.”
The founders envisioned “freedom of religion” BUT NOT “freedom from religious influence.”
Preston,
I would suggest that “Progressive Religion and Political Theory” beginning late 19th & Early 20th Century is for more centralization of power & authority for a “politico-socio-economic” vision that uses race or anything else it chooses or finds desirable as a utilitarian tool to reach it’s vision of an ideal society.
regards,
pat
Pat,
There you go again. “The founders” were not monolithic in their views, as your wording “the founders envisioned…” again implies; and neither, by the way, were they prophetically gifted or infallible.
The Constitution does not mention God at all; and contrary to popular conservative revisionism, prohibits Congress from enacting laws respecting an establishment of religion, period, and not just any one religion.
Stephen my friend…it “seems” to me you have an arrogant ignorance of the Republic. Johnathan Witherspoon was the first Chaplain of the Continental Congress and the only clergy and college president,later to be called Princeton, to sign the Declaration of I. immediately upon the founding of the Nation Chaplains were in the Congress…and Military.
You have fallen prey to “Deist Revisionism” shared by only perhaps 3 or 4 founders.
“An establishment of religion” IS one religion…a state religion as in Europe.
This lack of understanding seems to be at Liberty also…though not as severe as yours seems to be. Laws based on Judeo-Christian principles certainly were incorporated as part of the nations principles.
You really should brush up on your history Stephen…and actually Eidsmoe makes “some” wonderful arguments. Try reading his book that you criticised.
regards,
pat
Before I leave for the weekend, I want to clarify what I mean to you Stephen and others who may be following.
THE US IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION BY LAW!
That is different in concept from saying Judeao-Christian laws and references were not made to God in the Republic by practicing Christians at the Federal level. In the Military they even had Sunday’s for worship…rightly or wrongly. It most certainly did occur and religious ideals “are not an establishment of religion” in and of themselves.
They become an establishment the State is based on ONE religious understanding…Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Atheist Humanistic secularism.
As you certainly know, the document by which this republic is governed is not Declaration of Independence; that would be the Constitution of the United States, which I will remind you again, never mentions God.
The First Amendment’s drafters could quite easily have said “a religion” or “one religion” or “a state religion.” They did not.
In light of Revelation 13 and GC, am I really having this (separation of) church and state argument with an SDA? Incredibly, I know the answer is “yes.”
Pat.
Thanks. I am aware that it is commonly understood that Wilson and others in that time period fit that definition of “progressive.” I conceded as much in my original response to this. I also noted that for me, conventional wisdom aside, it is difficult to countenance anyone so racially insensitive (albeit a function of their time) to be considered as “progressive.”
Is this really so hard to understand?
Stephen,
You have, it seems, a view of the Republic founding though the lens of “some” SDA’s who see Amend.I as “complete” separation of the state with any religious values. What do you think Art.1, Sec.7 referred to “excepting Sundays?” Rightly or wrongly do you think that had nothing to do with people worshiping on Sunday primarily in those days. I’m simplt not trying to impose my desires on the reality of the times. Now, specifically we are not a Christian Nation by “law” but many cultural things were assumed and ingrained in the Republic…as I mentioned above. Chaplains, Utah and Bigamy, Sunday in Military protocol in early America. How can these things be denied and their religious overtones?
For me, I get concerned only when someone actually is trying to enforce the first 4 commands and have no problem with multiple religious views desiring some parameters of morality based on the last 6.
To overstate a “problem” in my estimation is problematic in itself.
———
Preston,
I am sorrowed by the history of racism in this country. Laws should apply equally to all citizens. I understand your desire to cut racism out of the “progressive” historical agenda but that is not always possible in human continuums.
Likewise there are some things that I wish did not exist in this countries history…but they exist as part of the whole.
Labels are useful in my opinion in the sense one doesn’t have to remake the wheel in every discussion. So we from the generalities begin saying areas of the whole stereotype with which we disagree for our “individual nomenclature.”
Like I said, I don’t believe in Public school prayer and other issues of the Christian Rt. but as to the whole I have more in common with them than most “religious/political progressives.”
I think you feel more at home as a whole “among the progressive positions of Wilson” and FDR apart from any racial overtones.
Labels are merely a useful tool not a final analysis.
regards,
pat
Stephen wrote:
“The Constitution does not mention God at all; and contrary to popular conservative revisionism, prohibits Congress from enacting laws respecting an establishment of religion, period, and not just any one religion.”
This appears to be Stephen’s main problem…he has a fictitious view of what conservatives believe. There is no conservative revisionism that ones to make the state enforce a religion, maybe in Islamic conservationism but not in American Conservationism. He continually uses these straw man arguments because he has no real facts only his prejudice and expectations on what will happen based upon his particular and traditional understanding of Ellen White.
that should be “conservative revisionism that wants to make the state enforce a religion”
oh to be able to edit or even delete to repost, or and no it logs me off after making a comment as well even though I checked say logged in. UGGGGGhhh
For some folks, they needn’t read the news because if it doesn’t reveal their EGW conceptions, it is disregarded, as she is the only one who REALLY knows the future.
Ron,
I suspect that you misunderstood me (though maybe not; in which case I do not understand your post). I am not saying that, at this point that conservative or liberal revisionism “wants to make the state enforce a religion.” I am saying that popular conservative revisionism has a view of the First Amendment that it in fact merely limits Congress from enacting a law establishing a state religion; whereas the reality is that the actual text of the First Amendment expressly prohibits any “law respecting an establishment of religion,” period.
Elaine,
Since I am a news junkie and am actually thoroughly convinced that the news does in fact confirm, corroborate, and reinforce my “conceptions” of EGW, feel free to elaborate. Do you deny that there are religious interests in our country who are admittedly desirous of (if not on their way to) controlling the three branches of our federal government, and state governments?
Pat,
Bro,’ I’m sorry, but I believe that in the United States, a law mandating the religious observance of a particular day of the week will be passed. This will not happen in a vacuum or without a “legal” or “constitutional” predicate having first been set.
I believe that such a law will only be possible “in flagrant violation” of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibiting such less legislation.
Frankly, you cannot possibly believe that such legislation would be a violation because you do not believe that the Establishment Clause prohibits anything other than the establishment of a state religion. You are therefore either wittingly or unwittingly laying the argumentative predicate for such legislation.
As you might suspect my opinion is heavily influenced by the following:
“Such action would be directly contrary to the principles of this government, to the genius of its free institutions, to the direct and solemn avowals of the Declaration of Independence, and to the Constitution. The founders of the nation wisely sought to guard against the employment of secular power on the part of the church, with its inevitable result—intolerance and persecution. The Constitutions provides that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ and that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to an office of public trust under the United States.’ Only in flagrant violation of these safeguards to the nation’s liberty, can any religious observance be enforced by civil authority. But the inconsistency of such action is no greater than is represented in the symbol. It is the beast with lamblike horns—in profession pure, gentle, and harmless—that speaks as a dragon.”
I believe this.
>>Frankly, you cannot possibly believe that such legislation would be a violation because you do not believe that the Establishment Clause prohibits anything other than the establishment of a state religion.<< Stephen,
I believe a specific law forcing worship on Friday, Sat. or Sunday violates the first Amend.
It seems you and many others considers even everything short of this such as “common moral legislation” is a violation. I believe that to be a “hyper understanding of “separation” never intended by the “majority of the founding fathers” of the US.
regards,
pat
Ron,
This may be what informs Stephen’s so-called “fictitious views” of conservative beliefs (source: Wikipedia):
“Dominion Theology is a grouping of theological systems[5] with the common belief that the law of God – as codified in the Bible – should exclusively govern society, to the exclusion of secular law, a view also known as theonomy. As of 2010 the most prominent modern formulation of Dominion Theology is Christian Reconstructionism, founded by R. J. Rushdoony in the 1970s. Reconstructionists themselves use the word dominionism to refer to their belief that Christians alone should control civil government, conducting it according to Biblical law.[6][7] Social scientists have used the word “dominionism” to refer to adherence to Dominion Theology[5][8][9] as well as to the influence in the broader Christian Right of ideas inspired by Dominion Theology.”
“According to Diamond, the defining concept of dominionism is “that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns”. In 1989, Diamond declared that this concept “has become the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right”[14] (p. 138, emphasis in original). In 1995, she called it “prevalent on the Christian Right”.[20] Journalist Chip Berlet added in 1998 that, although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists assert a Christian duty to take “control of a sinful secular society.”[21]
In 2005, Clarkson enumerated the following characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism:[22]”
1. Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
2. Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
3. Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or “biblical law,” should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.[22]
Other authors who stress the influence of Dominionist ideas on the Christian Right include Michelle Goldberg[23] and Kevin Phillips[24][25]
Preston,
Reality Check…”Dominion Theology” is held by relatively few if any in today’s “Christian rt” as most are pre-mill and others mostly amill.
The RCC is unclear in it’s eschatology of end time with the possibility of dominion a reality.
Historically it was the “progressives” of the early 20th century that were post -mill. and looked for a “Chrisitian Century” of world conversion of society prior to the coming of Christ. As I have said previously Cristian Conservatives opposed this agenda and that was the initial beginning of “Christianity Today” mag.
regards,
pat
Pat,
Would a state or federal law, or statutory provision, that mandated observance of any day as an official “rest” day—without regard to a worship requirement—be in violation of either the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause or its Free Exercise Clause (or both)? If “yes,” on what grounds?
Preston,
PS. Wilson and other “progressives” in religion and government favored the League of Nations for Peace. WWI was a blow yet progressive agenda continued. How might one consider the UN and other various world religious councils relate today to the religious/political progressive agenda?
regards,
pat
Pat,
This is not my reality, it is the conventional wisdom of objective observers and the self-definition of the religious right, to wit, Katherine Yurica, in her essay, “The Despoiling of America writes:
“Today, Dominionists hide their agenda and have resorted to stealth; one investigator who has engaged in internet exchanges with people who identify themselves as religious conservatives said, “They cut and run if I mention the word ‘Dominionism.’”[11] Joan Bokaer, the Director of Theocracy Watch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University wrote, “In March 1986, I was on a speaking tour in Iowa and received a copy of the following memo [Pat] Robertson had distributed to the Iowa Republican County Caucus titled, “How to Participate in a Political Party.” It read:
“Rule the world for God.
“Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.
“Hide your strength.
“Don’t flaunt your Christianity.
“Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing.”[12]”
and, later:
“Within a period of twenty to thirty years beginning in the 1970’s, Dominionism spread like wild fire throughout the evangelical, Pentecostal and fundamentalist religious communities in America. It was aided and abetted by television and radio evangelists. More than any other man, Pat Robertson mobilized the millions of politically indifferent and socially despised Pentecostals and fundamentalists in America and turned them into an angry potent army of political conquerors.[46]
But it would be a mistake to limit Dominionism to the Pentecostals and fundamentalists alone: conservative Roman Catholics and Episcopalians have joined and enlarged the swelling numbers.[47]”
Dominion theology THINKING, as you well know, is very much alive and well, and in fact dominant among today’s American Christian political activists to the extent that at least the first and third characteristics enumerated above in 2005 accurately represent many if not most politically active American Christians: #1) a celebration of “Christian nationalism [insofar as a belief] that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation,” in revisionist denial of “the Enlightenment roots of American democracy;” and #3) endorsement of a “theocratic vision” of sorts, “insofar as [beliefs] that the Ten Commandments, or ‘biblical law’ should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles” are concerned. Whether such THINKING is referred to as “dominion theology” or not, in REALITY, is irrelevant.
Guys,
The Phenomena dominion/rconstruction is mainly among post-mill. Robertson leans that way but not your Baptist or most other rel.rt. believers…most being as I said “pre-millenial rapture” or amill.
Rushdooney and Chilton and a few others embraced it in their day. I read both of their books 30 yrs.ago.
The focus used to be on Falwell…all the old demons are dying off.
Also Interesting is Ralph Reed of “Christian Coalition” fame couldn’t even get the Lt. Govenor elected in Ga a few years back…even in the “Bible Belt” south.
He know has a group called “Faith and Freedom” working with political “conservatives.”
Look at the “most dangerous groups” as those who minimize doctrine and choose to work with government for a social vision of saving society and the world…with…an occassional WWJD as an example.
Have a good Sunday.
regards,
pat
Ron & Elaine,
I agree the software is a nightmare. No edit and you have to sign in again even to make another comment on another strand.
There we go again Pat, apparently fixated on labels while nearly oblivious to the mindset, intentions, and actions of those involved. Trying to forget the “dominionist” label (or category) while following the descriptions of the thinking—as opposed to what those in question are called—would undoubtedly help to facilitate an understanding of, at least, that to which we refer. In the interests of such communication, I did not use ideological labeling in my previous post.
While Falwell and Kennedy are gone and Robertson is pushing 80, they have helped foster a continuing movement and have established institutions—not to mention intellectually siring a host of like-minded progeny– dedicated to the same objectives.
Previously you have made assertions that I had let slide, which should be addressed. You said something to the effect that what personages such as Robertson and Reed “secretly want” is irrelevant. What they want is by no means a secret. I have cited and transcribed part of an interview with Reed wherein he plainly states the objective of gaining increased power and influence “in the highest council of government.” Obviously Robertson has been no shrinking violet or stealth operator. The point is the agenda is not secret, which makes it all the more puzzling as to why an Adventist would deny it and/or seek to minimize its ominous nature.
Which brings me to your recent “observation” that me “and many others” consider any “common moral legislation” short of a worship mandate to be in violation of the Establishment Clause and that you “believe [this] to be a ‘hyper understanding of ‘separation’” which was never intended by the framers. I would remind you again that any legislation of the religious observance of a day will not have come out of nowhere; with no predicate having first been laid.
My question then remains, would a state or federal law that mandated observance of any day as an “official “rest” day—without regard to a worship requirement—be in violation of either the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause or its Free Exercise Clause (or both)? If “yes,” on what grounds?
Yes the secret sect of Dominionists. The new boogie man. Of course you are hard pressed to find any…why not see how many churches that preach dominion theology. Since you can’t find any you simply assume that it is a label but the truth is that they are all around us on the Religious right.
Well you know what they say about those that assume.
To answer Stephen’s questions no it would not be a violation of the first amendment. We have several of these holidays. Now any legislation that said you cannot work, nobody can work would be a violation of the numerous rights granted by the constitution federal and state and a violation of the intent of the constitution which is to limit government by specifying only the areas they could be involved. The trouble is it is the political progressives/liberals that want to expand the government by putting everything under the general welfare clause. Such as you have to buy insurance for health care or in his question’s case it would be for the welfare of the people by giving them a day off of work. So what it comes down to is the real danger is the political progressive/liberals, as they are the ones trying to weaken the constitution.
Pat, if you always carefully re-read comments before clicking “add comment” it is possible to correct typos or other errors.
Elaine,
My windows 7 progranm is so sensitive I have had it accidently erase comments by some unintendednmotion on my part…but do have to log in to make another comment.
Stephen,
I simply am not that aware of any significant mumber that hold to a dominionist post mill. position. As I have said that was the view of the likes of Wilson seeking “world peace”, League of Nations et.al.
Well unfortunately the court has ruled that even a day that was historically held as a worship day does not by necessity violate Amend.I as it serves simply as a societal function…How perfectly that fits the European Alliance Sunday Rest view…for societies well being.
I believe any day shown as a “particular” religious day for worship should not be allowed as it does respect “an establishment” practice.
But even at that it does not “require” religious worship as the SDA playground demands…but in my mind it is a violation because it would favor what ever religion held the particular day…but not the “free exercise” clause.
Ron,
Sometimes the “Dominionist” may be simply a strawman for those hoping one will look the other way as their “progressive train” central authority continues to grow in power. :>)
regards,
pat
By the way I don’t hold to “conspiracy theories.” I believe most people literally choose visions they feel best with their world view and pursue them. I believe Wilson saw in Progressive taxation, the Federal reserve etc programs he felt would centralize power and make a world peace more possible. While in reality in institutionalizes power in the hands of central government.
Others such as myself and other conservatives just don’t buy the legitimacy of the “shared progressive vision” of the world. It is a “top down” vision for world peace.
Conservative Christianity doesn’t accept the humanism of human perfectability. Hmankinds first need is recognition of their need through the HS, Repentance and Christ…but that is so boring and in conflict with our new tower of Babel.
edit…add international orginizations such as the “League of Nations” to Wilson’s modus operandi.
Ron,
You obviously did not pick up on the fact that 1) I have advised that we stay away from labeling, even so-called “dominionists” and/or the religious right, as it obscures the behavior and intentions behind a shield of labels; and tends invariably to cause an auto-response defensive reflex if we happen to have a soft spot in our hearts, so to speak, for the labeled whereby we lose focus on the actions (and “defend” the actors), and 2) that the objectives and ideological attributes identified as recently as five years ago are still very much prevalent and en vogue among most of today’s American Christian political activists, and 3) that my question regarding a mandatory “rest” day was, unlike our national holidays, mandatory; and would thus prohibit work, and 4) that the question itself was hypothetical, and that we do not now know the parameters of the legislation that “many” of us believe will be passed.
Therefore it might make sense to revisit some of the “assumptions” in your post.
Pat,
In my question, I excluded a mandatory religious worship requirement from the (context of) the hypothetical measure’s provisions and “just” made it a legislatively mandated/mandatory “rest” day; if you prefer, not much unlike the day you opposed in ’74, except that work is prohibited—let’s just hypothetically say this would be Sunday.
Would then such hypothetical legislation as this be in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause?
Stephen,
I would consider it a violation…whether Sunday, Sat.,or Friday or combination BUT the courts have seen it differently if serving a “secular purpose.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGowan_v._Maryland
regards,
pat
Stephen you are so funny, how you don’t like labels yet you frequently use them such as this statement “To be sure, there are theological liberals who would like to bring about an egalitarian utopia; but the theocrats and “dominionists” are almost exclusively conservatives.”
As for your official rest day there is and has never been any such thing since Puritan times (possible only in a truly agrarian society which we have left long ago). It is not even a possibility to have a day when people are forbidden to work. It is not just a poor question with a silly assumption it is complete foolishness.
Fixations are difficult to eradicate.
Ron,
I’d say that you are funnier…except that what you have just done is not so funny; because it lacks fundamental fairness.
You clearly took the time to go back into my posts on this thread to find my use of labels some three weeks ago; but purposely, or purposefully, omitted referencing the point at which I suggested (to Pat) that, in the interests of communication efficacy, we perhaps should dispense with their use—about two weeks ago.
Pat’s linking of the McGowan v. Maryland Wikipedia link makes my point that a Sunday closing (and in my hypothetical “rest” mandate) would be a de facto violation of the First Amendment but one wherein there may arguably be precedence in American jurisprudence. The point being that not only was my question feasibly framed, but that a hypothetical law that “many” Adventists claim would be “in flagrant violation” of the First Amendment (evidently, now including Pat) would not have come out of nowhere.
Edit.- “…a Sunday closing law (and my hypothetical “rest” mandate would be…”
Stephen,
Several points. In 1961 when the verdict was made the “rel.rt.” did not exist and “Progressive” Earl Warren isn’t exactly their friend from other court rulings as I recall. :>)
Secondly, What you are fighting has been going on since the beginning of the Republic and you are the one demanding that history be seen through a different lens. How am I misconstruing.
Yes, I personally think it would be unconstitutional but not the end of the world as long as I could worship as I pleased without other penalty than inconvienience.
regards,
pat
ps.
Are we in parallel universes with different time zones or did I not point out to you the nature of the “European Alliance for Sunday closing” that avoids specific religious claims other than the benefits of society which you scoffed at for you “religious rt. default zone.” :>)
And it would come without warning…Whatsa up dude?
Stephen, oh you just had a change of heart two weeks ago and then you thought you should not use labels. I bet I could find you using them many times since then as well. Actually I took to the time because I was thinking you were perhaps the one to bring in dominionists but I think you were just the second to use it. Sorry I did not cover all of your statements when I pointed out a specific hypocritical statement.
Interesting you continue to use the label dominionists, but you use it as the conservapedia says as a pejorative:
“Dominionism is a conspiracy theory most often used to describe politically active conservative Christians, mostly Calvinist in orientation, with an imagined specific agenda. The term is not recognized by any legitimate, trusted dictionary[1] and is rarely used as a self-description; it is a loaded or pejorative term, and use of the term is primarily limited to religious and non-religious critics of the Christian Right on the political left. Leftists commonly assign the pejorative label “Christer” to those they perceive as being “Dominionists”. ” http://www.conservapedia.com/Dominionism
As you do a search you clearly see it is just that a derisive and perjorative label for the Christian right. As one of the populizers of the term says:
“As one of the authors who popularized the term “Dominionism” (along with Sara Diamond, and Fred Clarkson), I feel some obligation to clear up this confusion, which stems from some very sloppy research posted on a number of websites where the terms “Dominionism,” “Dominion Theology,” and “Christian Reconstructionism” are used improperly and interchangeably.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/what-is-dominionism-palin_b_124037.html
It is misused often. What you don’t see is very many self described dominionists.
Pat,
Here’s what’s up, once again may I remind you that my question was a HYPOTHETICAL one, that was in fact FEASIBLE because there has been Sunday closing legislation in the PAST, and Seventh-day Adventists like me BELIEVE there will be legislatively mandated weekly religious observance in the FUTURE.
To make the HYPOTHETICAL legislative scenario acceptably FEASIBLE for those of you who DO NOT BELIEVE that a legislated mandate of the religious observance (i.e., no commerce, no work, for religious reasons) of a particular day of the week is feasible in the United States, I took any “worship” component out of the HYPOTHETICAL question scenario.
The question itself was designed, of course, to isolate the reality that 1) such legislation would be in violation of the Establishment Clause, because it would represent an establishment (codification) of religious practice, and 2) that a revisionist view that the WORDS of the Establishment Clause only mean “a state religion” is narrow and clearly inaccurate.
As you will now recall, I had already stipulated that “the European Alliance for Sunday closing” may well be part of the global eschatological equation; but that the UNITED STATES, according to SDA biblical prophecy interpretation, is going to play the lead role in the enforcement of religious recognition/observance.
Our reading of Revelation 13: 11-17 suggests that you will be in no position to dictate/negotiate terms of convenience in such legislation for yourself and other Sabbath keepers. So for me and many others, it would signal the end of the world.
Ron,
I’m afraid I’m not sure if that was an apology, or an excuse.
Stephen,
If you recall all of your original premise was a against the “Rel. rt.”
Your hypothetical exist istorically with or without the “rel.rt.” The issue in Europe doesn’t include the rel.rt…so why can’t all this occur without the “rel.rt.” as the protagonist as insisted by you and Liberty…that’s my point and I don’t get it!
What I get is a “day of rest can be legislated for the benefit of society” which is amazingly in line with “progressive theology and government’s” common interest…as well as RCC solidarity.
Just living in reality without all the needed special miracles to come to make one particular SDA view of the “rel.rt.” come true.
regards,
pat
Pat,
I will not fall into the (undoubtedly unintended) labels trap. I would just again remind you that “in order for the United States to form an image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends.
“Whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines,”…and churches that have gone into “alliance with worldly powers have manifested a similar desire to restrict liberty of conscience” to that of Rome previously.
“When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties will inevitably result.”
Further that “’the image to the beast’ represents that form of apostate Protestantism which will be developed when the Protestant churches shall seek the aid of the civil power for the enforcement of their dogmas.”
Admittedly my view is heavily colored by these views and statements. The common theme is that the religious will seek to acquire influence and power over the civil power in the United States and that this effort will be heavily influenced, if not led, by nominal Protestants.
So, when I hear, see, and read about prominent Protestants admitting to wanting influence and power in the highest councils of the U.S. government to enact a social agenda of religious values, it unsurprisingly gets my attention. Labels, in such instances, are absolutely unnecessary.
There must first be an assumption that it is the United States that will form an image to the beast. Once that assumption has been made, there are additional ones: That this “image to the beast” is Protestantism” which will seek aid of the civil power.
Once such assumptions have been made, one does not hold up, the whole chain of dominoes falls over.
This introduces so much speculation to the Bible that it becomes like tomorrow’s newspaper: anything can be seen in it, depending on the preconception of the observer.
Where is there evidence that any of these have yet taken place? Or, are they merely suppositions based on extra-biblical interpretation; intrpretation that cannot be deduced from Revelation (except with EGW glasses). But then, who needs the Bible? Simply read the red books for tomorrow’s news.
Elaine writes:
“Where is there evidence that any of these have yet taken place?”
As you well know Elaine, the Bible prophecies—particularly Revelation 13: 11-17—foretell future events.
Many Seventh-day Adventists believe that EGW helps to explain precisely what has been prophesied in Revelation 13. So, are you (now) saying that you believe what the Bible says on any, or every, topic?
Stephen,
You say, >>Labels, in such instances, are absolutely unnecessary.<< I am glad I can expect you,Cindy, and Liberty Mag will no longer say the “religious rt.” will bring all these things one view of the “SDA playground” has prophesied. That inadequate “litle” picture is all that I was trying to show the fallacy of from the beginning. regards,
pat
PS. And the second point I was trying to make from the beginning wa to tell Cindy to “stay out of politics” unless she makes perfectly clear her views are “her own” and do not necessarily represent the church she works for.
Because the day they do the SDA church has become as apostate as they accuse others of…and I’m outa here!
regards,
pat
Stephen wrote:
“I’m afraid I’m not sure if that was an apology, or an excuse.”
The reference to my statement: “Sorry I did not cover all of your statements when I pointed out a specific hypocritical statement.” Is that people cannot refer to everything someone has said in the previous conversation. It was sarcastic because you felt that in fairness I must mention everything else you have said. So you want an unrealistic dialog…a dialog that you don’t even try to attain to. Or else why would there have never been an answer to my question:
” So just to be clear you would put Ellen White in the religious right that the Progressives joined hands with. After all, to Ellen White God destroyed San Francisco in order to close down the saloons. Her part in the temperance movement would certainly appear to be religious right would it not?”
Ah the deafening silence that ensured.
So Pat, are you saying that we could have concluded this conversation a couple of weeks ago when I suggested that we (you and I) could/should dispense with labels and rather focus on the actions, movements, and objectives of those in question?
The auto-response defensiveness that labels bring with them is a distraction from the actions.
What I’m concerned about, of course, is that we are looking for different kinds of things to occur here in America. As we are now in the run up to the prophesied events, in focusing on certain politically active and ambitious religious people, we risk unwittingly supporting that which we should be on guard against. I get that, if that’s your position.
On the other hand, in light of Bible prophecy and SDA eschatology, to NOT view very politically active and ambitions religious people in America with suspicion would represent willful ignorance.
As opposed to participating on behalf of the church, Cindy had made it clear, for those who were willing to “hear,” that she participates on this site for her own reasons—see “Why I Blog for AT.” In fact, one sentence from that blog stands out insofar as this particular blog (which generated this conversation) is concerned, “My goal as an AT blogger is to reference biblical principles, also often found in Ellen White’s writings, that could have a significant impact on our choices as Adventists, inspiring us to both compassionate action and a deepening commitment to Jesus Christ.”
If your politics are in conflict with her views, so be it; but attempting to censor a blogger on THIS site because of where they work is really not cool, in my opinion.
Ron,
We have discovered that it is wiser and more effective, from a communications standpoint, to “dispense with labels and rather focus on the actions, movements, and objectives of those in question;” and that “the auto-response defensiveness that labels bring with them is a distraction from the actions.” This goes for labeling Ellen White as well.
That said it would not be at all difficult, as you certainly must know, to find quotations and positions of White which may be categorized either “liberal” or “conservative;” depending of course upon the issue.
The texts below indicate principles which God holds even non-believers accountable which would include a secular politicized civil society with a hatched from an egg constitution.
Ezek 16:49 “‘See here – this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had majesty, abundance of food, and enjoyed carefree ease, but they did not help the poor and needy.
Isa 16:3 “Bring a plan, make a decision! Provide some shade in the middle of the day! Hide the fugitives! Do not betray the one who tries to escape!
Isa 16:4 Please let the Moabite fugitives live among you. Hide them from the destroyer!” Certainly the one who applies pressure will cease, the destroyer will come to an end, those who trample will disappear from the earth.
Luke 16:19 “There was a rich man who dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.
Luke 16:20 But at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus whose body was covered with sores,
Jas 5:1 Come now, you rich! Weep and cry aloud over the miseries that are coming on you.
Jas 5:2 Your riches have rotted and your clothing has become moth-eaten.
Jas 5:3 Your gold and silver have rusted and their rust will be a witness against you. It will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have hoarded treasure!
Jas 5:4 Look, the pay you have held back from the workers who mowed your fields cries out against you, and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.
Jas 5:5 You have lived indulgently and luxuriously on the earth. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.
Selfish Capitalism too will have to answer to God. Get it! No one who oppresses the poor and needy on this planet will escape God’s wrath.
T
Sent to me by email (THIS KID ROCKS! – or whoever wrote it):
BY A 15 yr. Old SCHOOL KID IN ARIZONA
New Pledge of Allegiance (TOTALLY AWESOME)!
Since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord’s Prayer are not allowed in most Public Schools anymore because the word ‘God’ is mentioned…..
NEW School prayer:
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That’s no offence; it’s a freedom scene..
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all..
In silence alone we must meditate,
God’s name is prohibited by the state.
We’re allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks…
They’ve outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the ‘unwed daddy,’ our Senior King.
It’s ‘inappropriate’ to teach right from wrong,
We’re taught that such ‘judgments’ do not belong..
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles ..
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It’s scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school’s a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen
————
T
Stephen,
Your accusation…
>>If your politics are in conflict with her views, so be it; but attempting to censor a blogger on THIS site because of where they work is really not cool, in my opinion.<< What I actually said concerning you both… (Since labels are inappropriate) “I am glad I can expect you,Cindy, and Liberty Mag will no longer say the “religious rt.” will bring all these things one view of the “SDA playground” has prophesied. That inadequate “litle” picture is all that I was trying to show the fallacy of from the beginning.” “And the second point I was trying to make from the beginning was to tell Cindy to “stay out of politics” UNLESS she makes perfectly clear HER VIEWS are “her own” and do not NECESSARILY represent the church she works for.” Seems clear to me.
————-
And…I do have a different political philsophy from hers…it is called “limited government.” Both you and her as as welcome in my world to hold your views/political philosophy. We all should make sure however, if employed by the church, “our views” are not considered the whole bodies view.
And, when worshiping corporately weekly I make sure that I don’t express those political philosophies as WWJD.
regards,
pat
To be clear Pat, here’s what you can “expect” from me in the future when individually discussing these issues with you or anyone else who I perceive to be, shall we say, rightward leaning: in the interests of communication efficacy, I will attempt not to use any descriptive labels of political ideology; but will rather identify individuals, groups, causes, actions, motivations, and intentions.
As I do not recall Cindy saying anything about the “religious rt.,” as you put it, nor am I privy to any editorial quotes from Liberty Magazine to this effect; they can speak for themselves.
Stephen,
I know you are not fully grasping or perhaps just plain disagreeing with what “parameters” I have been trying to point out of the “bewitching” relationship between theology & “social-gospel” WWJD politics.
Grenz in his book, “The Millennial Maze” states his observations this way on p.188.
“When theological liberalism exchanged original sin for human perfectibility and replaced Christ as our substitute with Jesus as the model of the new human (i.e. example theology & WWJD-supplied by me) the triumph of this worldliness was complete and the way was open for the church to join the secularized millennial vision.”
This I suggest is “the bigger picture” of the “conflict” in the reality of the world vision of hope we see of “religious and secular” Pluralism and Inclusivism.
regards,
pat
PS. Cindy affirmed your use of the GC to point out the religious rt. in one of her comments on this strand to me. Lincoln Steed has made the comments several times in Church publications…namely the Review.
Cindy in negating the “political nature” of her comment is either extremely naive or a quite clever writer to capture the unwary reader. I suggest sge is not naive. ;>)
Well Stephen that is convenient to have decided so late in the conversation not to use labels. I expect you will not use them in any further comments and blogs. Which is OK, now that you have had your change of heart. I prefer to use labels as they correctly used. Which means I don’t label someone I allow them to assign the label to themselves. As labels are simply conventions that allow people to talk without having to repeat everything that is involved with a label. Apparently if you feel like Preston that he can define labels however he personally wants then a label is really going to be confusing.
Of course that is not the problem of the label but of the misuse, which I suppose is why you want to stop using them as you have been misusing them fairly frequently. I do look forward to reading your material without labels. Though I do hope you will be more specific and less accusatory with your language then Cindy for example when she said: “I’m also perplexed by all the shrieking that making health care available to millions who were formerly without health benefits would be tantamount to a government takeover.”
Note there was nothing specific there and the statement was highly prejudicial as if those complaining had no standing at all for their concerns. Anyway I hope that course is not the one you chose when you stop using labels. Because labels aren’t the only thing in language that can be misused.
Pat,
The last time I checked, among other roles, Christ is our substitute (as in the scapegoat sense, and as our Representative before God) AND our example (as in “what DID Jesus do, and WWJD?”). What Cindy’s affirming of my use of The Great Controversy has to do with the “religious rt.” (why abbreviate “right”?) is a mystery to me; and what an editor of Liberty Magazine may or may not have written in The Review is different than it appearing in Liberty, as you know.
Ron,
No offense intended my brother, seriously, but you definitely have reading comprehension challenges when it concerns what I write; and I hesitate to constantly point out things you may have missed, etc. (because I sincerely don’t want to appear condescending in any way), but you consistently leave me no option. You had previously quoted what I had written, but have not done much of that of late. I would suggest that returning to that pattern MIGHT be helpful in terms of understanding. It certainly couldn’t hurt at this stage.
My comment to Pat about what he can expect from me has nothing whatever to do with future blogs; but has to do with individual conversations with people for whom labels might be a distraction. Personally, I don’t mind labels; but to the extent that we become defensive of individuals with whom there may be some political affinity and dismissive or ignorant of the actions and motives in question, it might just help not to use them.
Again, this I concluded a couple of weeks ago; sorry you missed it.
Well Stephen, it seems obvious st this time you won’t be experiencing an Ah-ha moment, I suggest due to your lack of educational information of developing theological and secular history linkage. I tried.
That’s ok. Jesus is all we need…and He is even more important than the sabbath…but obviously the majority of religious leaders did not understand that in Christ’s day either.
regards,
pat
Oh Stephen,
I agree with you that Christ was the “scapegoat” as Spurgeon and others proerly note… but you might want to check EGW to find out she said it was Satan.
I agree it doesn’t make sense also…satancarry our guilt to the wilderness and being “outside the gate.”
regards,
pat
edit…”properly note” & Satan “carrying our guilt.”
Right Stephen it is all me. The comprehension is my fault not having anything to do with what you actually say!
“Ron,
We have discovered that it is wiser and more effective, from a communications standpoint, to “dispense with labels and rather focus on the actions, movements, and objectives of those in question;” and that “the auto-response defensiveness that labels bring with them is a distraction from the actions.” This goes for labeling Ellen White as well.”
So who is the “we” you begin with? And who has the “auto-response defensiveness” Did the “we” all agree that was happening. I don’t think I saw it happening. Rather I saw you calling people dominonists and theocrats. At least some general unknown conspiracy type people who amazingly enough were all conservatives. But hey I just go by what you write, I don’t read your mind as it appears you wish folks to do so that they could comprehend your confused ideas.
Oh one more thing did the “we” only discover this in regard to this comment thread? You would think such an important discovery would have wider application…or else not really be worth the announcement.
What Jesus did (WJD) by type…and antitype.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0095.htm
Ron,
It’s simple, if my use of “dominionist” and “theocrats” came after I recommended that we (principally Pat and me) dispense with labels, for sake of this discussion, then I owe a general apology to everyone involved for hypocrisy. If on the other hand my use of those labels (or others) came before I recommend that we dispense with labels for sake of discussion, then you should perhaps consider one…then again, perhaps I shouldn’t hold my breath.
Pat,
We may have finally found agreement: Jesus is all we will ever need.
Cindy,
What do you think about Dem. Richard Durbin proposing that “non-political” and “non-separation of church and state” Dream Act Sabbath for illegal immigrants?
Just curious.
regards,
pat
Stephen it would not be a problem if you used labels properly but you don’t and you didn’t and saying you aren’t going to use them anymore in this thread after you already have does not really change anything. Because we can all be pretty sure that you have not changed your opinion one wit in the time span of this thread. I don’t expect you to apologize for your hypocrisy any more then I expect you to acknowledge your errors. And frankly that says something about you because I sense you are far from open to any ideas other then your own. The Adventist playground of eschatology is simply your traditional view and you can’t fathom other possibilities or probably even that EGW was wrong. But you should not be inflicting groups of people with your prejudice because of what you think they will do. That is simply wrong.
Reading comprehension or writing efficiency, it’s certainly one or the other…I’ll take the blame, and say that I’m not writing clearly. AFTER having recommended the suspension of the use of political labels in this discussion, it would have been hypocritical of ME to use labels to describe individuals and organizations who are seeking to acquire religious influence and power over secular civil institutions.
To the extent that I did not, but rather only labeled such individuals PRIOR TO concluding that continuing to do so (in this conversation) may not be a good idea; it would have been fundamentally unfair of YOU to suggest that I did.
Maybe if I were to agree with you about something, you would understand me. To wit: you are right, I have not changed my opinion that those politically active and ambitious church and church-related individuals and organizations who seek to acquire power and influence over American civil institutions represent a danger from the Adventist/EGW eschatological perspective; to which I happen to subscribe.
Larry,
Eph.2:1-3 and Rom.3:9-12 seem prety clear about our “natural” condition.
It is only due to the kindness and Grace of God’s prompting Spirit that we are led to repentance. Rom.2:4.
But guys…knock yourselves out trying to be “just like” Christ.
regards,
pat
oops…wrong strand.
pat
Concerning the use of labels, the assumption seems to be that if one is a Democratic liberal they will be compassionate and want to help the needy. in reality it is an embraced worldview that believes a more socialistic system would make people kinder and ready to help each other. If this were true the celebrities living in their multimillion-dollar homes, of which most are liberal, would be sharing all their wealth and living like the rest of us. I don’t think liberal politics makes anyone kinder or ready to share their wealth–they just want the government to do it without it affecting them. On the other hand, such a system may tend to appeal to those who believe we are equal and deserve to be taken care of when circumstances have gone bad. In a free, moral society, this would be the best system.
The next assumption is that Republican conservatives are selfish, greedy capitalists who hate the poor and tend to be religious fanatics. Some of them are. Much of their so-called freedom can lead to violence. But many in this group form the foundation for much of what is done for the needy on a voluntary basis. And they seem to have a more realistic view of human nature–rich or poor. When the poor are forced into dependency and learn immoral behavior from the media and have bad diets, what more can we expect than they will be sick, unemployed and behave badly? It would happen to any of us.
Our corrupt society is responsible and no political party is to blame nor can they help. Like a frog in slowly-heating water, we didn’t feel it coming. Only individuals, and not our labels, can make a difference as we are obedient to Christ. It is his grace that changes the heart under any label and helps us be more willing to compromise and understand the logistics involved in changing society.
Ella,
You’ve made some interesting observations. Your last sentence seems to get to the problem. The human heart. No system can continue to work “as hoped for” with our “natural sinful human nature.”
On a related side issue, when did the “traditional” fear of the NCC & WCC and unity of world religious thought become replaced by the single entity of the “religious rt” and the US in your opinion? Is that an illegitimate question of the facts in your opinion of SDA history?
I think I recall reading a few articles by you in the Review & perhaps Ministry in the past…was that you?
regards,
pat
Pat
In answer to your question, the NCC and WCC was never a threat from its beginning. While working at the Pasadena Presbyterian Church years ago I met the leader of the WCC, Eugene Carson Blake, and did an interview of him. He was one of the first Christian leaders to take a stand for racial justice in the US. The WCC goal was not to unite churches and sacrifice their truth, but as “mutual enrichment rather than compromise.” He took a strong stand on the separation of church and state. They were never a threat to religious freedom.
Their influence has weakened, and I have heard little about them in recent years.
The religious right started appearing in SDA magazines when some of its early spokesmen came on the scene; most have passed on, but some political leaders seem to be in that camp now, like Michell Bachman, etc. It seems that our religious liberty dept. has generally seen this group as a threat.
I can’t know for sure which way the wind would blow on these two extremes, but as someone else here said, does it matter in a crisis? There is evil on both sides and the devil is neither liberal nor conservative but can be both when it serves his purposes.
I don’t know how literally you take EGW, but it is interesting that she saw Sunday laws occurring first in towns or districts before spreading nationally. That would indicate a grassroots or states-rights type of thinking rather than a national Sunday law by a big government.
On the other hand, Germany has initiated Sunday laws for secular reasons not related to religion.
Yes, I have written for both Ministry and Adventist Review in the past.
Additional thought…
http://mattjduffy.com/2010/08/on-the-transcendent-unity-of-world-religions/
An interesting talk is being made by the Dalai at the Chicago Theosophical Society.
http://www.theosophical.org/programs/national-conferences/2254-his-holiness-the-dalai-lama-in-chicago
Interesting thoughts about the role of “Love, Peace and Compassion” as the unifying elements of the world religions.
Regards,
pat
From a recent news article about the Dalai Lama:
“A little bit Buddhist?
The Dalai Lama, who is in Washington, D.C., for a ten day event, has written: “I have come to the conclusion that whether or not a person is a religious believer does not matter much. Far more important is that they be a good human being.”. . . “That is why I sometimes say that religion is something we can perhaps do without.” It seems many in the West agree with the spiritual leader, as millions report that they incorporate Buddhist practices such as meditation or mindfulness into their own spiritual activities without necessarily adopting Buddhism as their religion. Does religion aid or hinder the spiritual journey? Can you practice Buddhism without becoming Buddhist?”
I fully agree with this position: it matters not one whit what particular religion one espouses. Far more important is the inner compass which appreciates all humans; that the way we treat others: the Golden Rule, if practiced, is the respect we all should extend others.
Because religion has been the great divide that caused hostility, hatred, and the attempts to totally destroy others because of their beliefs has made organized religion obsolete. One does not need to rely on any religion for the basic respect we should all give and expect. Religions, rather than bringing us closer together has drive us farther apart.
In this, Buddhism has never been an agressive or warring religion.
Elaine,
I appreciate your honest thoughts and I personally think they represent the “world spirit.” Jesus as example and “one way” is readily accepted by Buddhism and other major faiths.
Jesus as the sin atoning Savior/God-man is rejected…as is Lk.24:46-48.
regards,
pat
PS. Jesus as example of “love, forgiveness and compassion” is readily accepted…
Pat,
Yes, most Christian religions have a savior who saves them from Hell, or grants them heaven’s bliss. A different approach is found in Buddhism. Their ability to find peace without a savior demonstrates that there is no one path for everyone.
The greatest determinant of one’s particular path is the country and family of his birth. Something that is most difficult to overcome in proselytizing. Simply note the poor showing of Christianity among Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, Confuciansts, Daoists, and older belief systems. Christianity is seen as a western religion and makes little inroads in the eastern systems.
Something to chew on (perhaps):
“Anyone who claims that all religions are the same betrays not only an ignorance of all religions but also a caricatured view of even the best-known ones. Every religion at its core is exclusive.”
– Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods, p. 7
T
Elaine,
I lived in SE Asia 7 yrs. I would personally question the “true peace” one has in the path towards “nothingness.”
regards,
pat
Pat,
And most assuredly, there is no “true peace” with many Christians. An inner peace is not necessarily associated with any religious belief but an inner compass, or philosophy about life that allows one, “o be content in whatever circumstances I am.”
The Serenity Prayer has been my source of strength for these 86 years. But, I admit, that with age comes serenity that cannot be experience by someone in his youth.
Re: ” A different approach is found in Buddhism. Their ability to find peace without a savior demonstrates that there is no one path for everyone.”
If I am a Christian that means I believe Christ is the only path for everyone whether they know it or not. He has died for all humans. their non-Christian religion may be the only way they know how to reconcile the struggles of life on this earth, but that does not mean they have found another path to eternal life.
I would also suggest that “peace” is not the goal of our lives. It would only be a by-product of our relationship with God. It is also possible that one close to God will not always have “peace” as generally understood as “good feelings.” There is what some great believers have called “the dark night of the soul.”
There are drugs that can give us “peace” if we choose that route.
In a note to Stephen Foster two weeks ago, Ron Corson wrote: “The Adventist playground of eschatology is simply your traditional view and you can’t fathom other possibilities or probably even that EGW was wrong.”
—–
Concerning the part “…probably even that EGW was wrong.” Just what was the ‘Messsenger of the Lord’ wrong about – at least in terms of the GC?
—–
EGW was definitely NOT wrong in this statement:
“We have far more to fear from within than from without. The hindrances to strength and success are far greater from the church itself than from the world. Unbelievers have a right to expect that those who profess to be keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, will do more than any other class to promote and honor, by their consistent lives, by their godly example and their active influence, the cause which they represent. But how often have the professed advocates of the truth proved the greatest obstacle to its advancement! The unbelief indulged, the doubts expressed, the darkness cherished, encourage the presence of evil angels, and open the way for the accomplishment of Satan’s devices. {RH March 22, 1887, par. 4}
T
Choosing when a writer is “right” is not difficult. Even a broken clock is “right” twice a day. It’s all the other 1438 minutes where it is wrong.
Well, where was she wrong?
T