| Author | Message | ||
     Larry Masden (L_Masden) |
Bill, I understand and value that most SDA church members will always value the traditional teachings of the church regarding the IJ, creation, etc. I respect this. I am concerned about the tradition of labeling as morally reprehensible those that don't fit this exact pattern. I wish I could get my reading of different passages of the Bible to fit into one nice neat picture like apparently you can. I wish I could get my understanding of the Bible and Nature to fit into one nice neat picture also. Perhaps I can't do that as easily as you because my life path contributes to my struggling more with these issues than you. I just hope that Cliff and others will no longer see the need to label people like me as morally reprehensible (in the big picuture that hurts and does harm in a variety of ways). It's my guess that people that struggle with these issues but are within the SDA church are here typically because we want to support those we love, and their honest search for God, that is leading them closer to SDA traditional views (and we respect their honest search). I'm still hoping that Cliff will respond directly to my prior questions (in the context of my prior post): - Should you [Cliff] set an example of labeling other's actions as morally reprehensible when many people came into Adventism (or are now in Adventism) with a somewhat different concept of "what it is" than you? - Should you [Cliff] set an example of labeling other's actions as morally reprehensible when the system isn't so flawless itself? Maybe the following material from Adventist Today interview with one time GC Vice President Richard Hammill will help to explain the issue: (see following post) | ||
| Larry Masden (L_Masden) |
--- Quotes from Adventist Today interview with one time GC Vice President Richard Hammill --- AT: Do you think progressive creationism or theistic evolution should be among legitimate church views? Hammill: Every thinking Christian must come to some conclusion about evolution, which I have done, after reading very widely on the subject from the best analyses available for the non-professional. As a Christian, I accept by faith, on the basis of Genesis and such passages as Psalm 33 and Hebrews 11:3, that God created the universe and all living creatures in it. This is something with which science should not attempt to deal, because it is an untestable hypothesis. God, as the Creator of everything, lies at the very core of my faith, and is a concept very dear to me. However, I do recognize that God has placed within creation data that enables trained scientists to discover when some of that creation activity took place, and to some extent, how God did it. As I have read extensively in the literature over the last dozen years, I have come to realize that sufficient scientific evidence has slowly accumulated to show conclusively that the universe and this earth are very old. There is evidence that certain forms of plants (grasses, fruit trees, etc.) and some animals (mammals) came into existence only in relatively recent times after earlier plants and animals had become extinct. Evidence of such life history abounds not only in the geologic column, but from other lines of evidence such as plate tectonics and various chemical geochronometers. For myself, I now recognize that enough data has accumulated to show that life has existed on earth for more than eight or ten thousand years. I have, for my own satisfaction, come to believe that probably at different times, over long periods of time, God has created new forms of life leading up to the final capstone of the creation of human beings. Inasmuch as I believe God is the source of all life I have gradually accepted progressive creationism, that is, God has created new life forms especially on the phylum, order and class levels, at various times, over long ages. This view fits both my faith in God as Creator, and the unassailable evidence that some plants and animals were extinct long before other forms came into existence. I find no conflict between this view and solid biblical Christianity. I do not think agreement on the time of Creation is vital for personal salvation. What counts is belief and trust in the Creator, who is also Redeemer. AT: So you would see God involved in the process all the way along, over eons of time. Hammill: Yes. I believe that the increasing complexity of life forms that we see in the geologic column is due directly to God’s creative power. I see confirmation of this in recent scientific literature, such as the writings of noted Harvard geologist Stephen Jay Gould, who, along with Giles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History, has verified that in the fossil record species do not change over tens of millions of years. Species remain in statis, without change, until all of a sudden new genera and species appear in the fossil record. They explain this phenomenon as "punctuated equilibrium," which means the stability of sameness in species over long ages is punctuated by sudden evolutionary change caused by mutations. I explain it as God having created new forms of life. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the Creator no longer creates. AT: Do you see that view becoming officially accepted in the denomination, or will we always hold to the tradition of a short chronology and a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2? Hammill: I would suspect that the majority of Adventists will always believe in a short chronology of creation. I think however, that increasing numbers of Adventists who have studied into the subject will be forced to realize, as I have, that life forms have existed on the earth for long periods of time before other genera and species appear. AT: This brings up the larger question of how our church is increasingly more diverse. Because of our emphasis on education we have an increasing number of educated members, and at the same time, because of our evangelism in underdeveloped countries, we have millions of people at the opposite end of the educational spectrum. What do you make of that, and what does this portend for the future of the denomination? Hammill: I think the mass of Adventists in the third world will be largely fundamentalists and also those in first world countries. I have noted a lack of interest on the part of most Adventists to study seriously into scientific problems that relate to earth history. I find great reluctance to discuss the matter openly and objectively. But it isn’t always the educated class that takes the more advanced view. Many professional people don’t like to get into this area and don’t care to read about it. Some of the best-qualified professional people that I know resist any discussion that would tend toward accepting the idea that life on earth is very old. It seems to be a matter of temperament as well as the type of training that a person has. AT: And how would you describe that difference in temperament? Hammill: Some people seem to quickly and strongly accept ideas which they have received from their parents and from the church fathers, and they believe so strongly that they are not open to any further studying along those lines. There are other people who have inquiring minds, who read widely and are interested in what modern science can contribute to their understanding of the very interesting world in which we live. By temperament they seem to want to know. So it does seem to be somewhat a matter of temperament. And also I would add one further qualification—perhaps their teachers. If you have had a good teacher somewhere along the line that interests you in pursuing questions of your own, that sort of affects your outlook, your temperament, your orientation, so that you want to know. AT: An observer who notes Adventism’s notions of "present truth" and "progressive revelation" would get the idea that we have a corporate temperament or orientation of searching and openness. But on the other hand, it seems like we are one of the more staid denominations when it comes to conceptual openness. What do you make of that? Hammill: I don’t find a great deal of openness toward new ideas among the majority of Adventists. I think we have become as tradition bound as other churches. AT: But isn’t that a bit paradoxical, given the history and announced stance of the church? Hammill: Indeed it is a paradox. I’ve wondered about it, because our early pioneers seemed to search for new ideas and be receptive to them. But in our church now we have developed a tradition of our own that is extremely conservative. We have quite a bit to say about how other denominations fall back on tradition to support some of their views like the Immaculate Conception and even Sunday observance—things which they support more by tradition than by the Bible. It seems that the writings of Ellen White and other Adventist pioneers take that place within the Adventist church. While Ellen White herself had quite an inquiring mind, and read widely, and even in her latter days changed her mind on some very important points, most Adventists are unwilling to move beyond Ellen White. This is a paradox, and I think it is a sad thing that as a denomination we have fallen back on the teachings of our past, rather than on the great tradition of searching the Bible and being willing to go wherever it seems to guide us. --- end quotes --- The full interview is available at: http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1997/marapr1997/articles/HammillInt | ||
| Ron Corson (Roca88) |
A yes Bill, if all else fails take verses out of context with readings that are limited to only certain Bible translations. A good illustration of what is wrong with your type of Bible Adventism and why those of us who are also SDA's will not be silent as you misrepresent the Bible. This is just a small example the entire IJ is a hugh example of the same type of manipulation of the Bible to create a false church doctrine. Bill Wrote: "Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary." Ps. 77:13 Ps 77:12-14 12 I will meditate on all your works and consider all your mighty deeds. 13 Your ways, O God, are holy. What god is so great as our God? 14 You are the God who performs miracles; you display your power among the peoples. (NIV) | ||
| Pierre Paul Legault (Pierrepaul) |
In my experience, people who have rejected the SDA theology remain attached to the church for a myriad of reasons. Tradition, family ties, friendships, inertia all play a rôle. I myself stayed in the church for almost 12 years after concluding that EGW's writings were not inspired, and for an additional 3 years after concluding that the unnamed early church leaders who selected which writings were to be canonised had no divine inspiration either. These 15 years were years of intense study, contemplation and meditation. I fully participated in church life until the last sabbath I attended. My name is still on the church records. I have not requested a revocation of my membership. I have not been disfellowshipped. I did not make a public announcement of my conversion, and therefore except for a few select individuals, most likely believe that I am still a christian of sorts. Many likely even believe that I attend a different SDA congregation. I saw nothing morally reprehensible about my remaining an active church member while struggling with these theological, doctrinal and philosophical issues. I see nothing morally reprehensible about allowing my name to remain on the SDA books [this is solely being done to save my immediate family the specatcle of having to vote on removing my name from the church membership list during a business meeting], I see nothing morally reprehensible about not publicly announcing my conversion. It's none of anyone's business what I believe. If someone asks I will gladly share my beliefs - but I am not a proselytiser. If my wife ever wished to return to the SDA church, I would be disappointed, but I would gladly accompany her - just as she accompanies me from time to time to events she finds distasteful. I see nothing morally reprehensible about that. For certain special events, I have had the occasion to attend church. I will not hide or lie about my beliefs (I refuse to pray or participate in communion - although I may sign hymns which contain lyrics I find offensive and immoral - just as I may enjoy a Wagnerian opera for its artistic merit though I may find his politics objectionable. | ||
| Bill Scott (Loneviking) |
Ron, it's not so much about finding a church in which you agree with everything, as it is finding a church that teaches the Biblical gospel--which, IMO, the SDA church surely does not. I've found several, very good churches where the only differences of opinion are very minor, on minor issues. An example of a minor issue would be 'baptism---a saving act or an act of obedience because we are saved'. On some issues Christians can differ. But on the big picture issues, such as who is Jesus and what is the gospel---there can't be differences. In fact, there are lots of churches that agree with the teaching that Jodi is putting up on the Romans thread and that I, along with other formers are trying to share with some of you. Ron, the SDA church likes to paint those outside the church as 'fragmented', but the truth is that there is a lot of unity on the fundamental truths, and those truths are much different than what is taught in most SDA churces'. That's why I can't see any reason to stay! Why stay within a system where you are out of step with just about everything they believe and practice, when you can leave and fellowship with Christians who believe as you do? So Ron, if you are at a loss for a church to visit outside of SDA'ism, let me know and I'll give you some to look at.......... | ||
| Ron Corson (Roca88) |
I find many other churches have doctrines such as eternal torment in hell that I find as major obstacles to accepting them. While I know there are some such things as that are not passed over lightly. | ||
| Glen Davidson (Glen) |
Actually, ol' Goldstein can be relativistic about belonging to the church as well. His statements have included the claim that he, too, has issues with Adventism, but he belongs to the church that keeps the Sabbath and has some other important issues right as well. Of course I think he's far more orthodox than most of those who "should leave", but apparently he finds it okay to put up with error (or something like error, I don't know if he used that word) rather than to give up what he finds more important. Fine, of course, but then what is important? He has a list, naturally, but then one might be able to question the list. Is the IJ crucial? How can a relatively new understanding of Daniel be crucial when it also has no direct impact on salvation, central Christian doctrine, or what to expect in the future? Is truth crucial? This is something that Cliff and many others have too much avoided, for perhaps one should be able to, indeed insistent upon, telling the truth to fellow churchmembers for whom one has voluntarily taken on some responsibility. Perhaps one has an obligation to try to undo one's support for false statements, rather than to flee without giving an explanation. But then not only IJ, EGW, and other SDA beliefs become questionable, so does creationism and the belief in truth as a metaphysical certainty. So obviously it's a problem, as a church should be able to decide what sorts of beliefs those it accepts will espouse. Yet I was under the impression while growing up that the truth (and this needn't be metaphysical truth) should be proclaimed regardless, that Luther was right to try to bring truth into his own church while remaining a member, and that false teachings should be challenged within or without the church. In the end I left Adventism, though without pulling my membership (I'm probably still on the books). I think it was sensible to get out, since I was philosophically and empirically incompatible with SDAism, and I don't feel the need to change the way that people fundamentally view the world if they are simply trying to make it through life as decent humans. Nevertheless, for those who are more compatible with the SDA viewpoint yet happen to disagree with Cliff and others over something as unimportant (as it seems to many of us) as the IJ, or as harmful as EGW (still, EGW is not considered the basis for doctrine), I don't see that their list of what is important has to coincide with Cliff's. Many churches have changed over the years because they found debate over the list to be acceptable. Probably this has been for the best, something that let people shed dated constructs while holding to the Christian core. It is not obvious that SDAs should not also have the opportunity to change their list away from Cliff's list, especially the many who wish to actually maintain SDA distinctiveness without buying it at the expense of difficult-to-maintain distinctions which are only hazily understood by the bulk of the membership to begin with. | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) |
You know what's funny- that Cliff makes these sporadic forays into these discussions and initiates pages and pages of discussions while he sits back and what - laughs? That seems sad to me. I guess he's decided it's benieth him to have a meaningful discussion but given the tiresome tirrades that Tom keeps pulling, I can't say I really blame him either. Anyway, it would be good to discuss some of these issues with a dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrat. Sirje | ||
| Clifford Goldstein (Cliffg) |
Let me restate things slightly . . . . I think it's morally reprehensible for people who don't believe in these things to be paid to be in our pulpits or teaching in our schools. I think that a much higher standard should be there than, say, church membership, though for the life of me I can't understand why, why anyone would want to be an SDA without believing in the basics of this message. 1844, the sanctuary, Sabbath, state of the dead, second coming--these are the ONLY reasons I am an Adventist. If I stopped believing in any of these teaching I don't see how I could be honest with myself and stay in this church. The only reason I am an SDA is the teaching, which I believe is the truth. No, I don't believe that we have ALL the truth; no I don't believe that there isn't more truth to find. All I know is that no other church, no other denomination even comes close, even comes within the ball park of what I believe is biblical truth, present truth. Our message stands out so clearly, so distinctly, from anything else out there, anything! that I have no choice: if I want to be honest with myself and with what God has revealed me, I can be anything other than an Adventist. I make no apologies to anyone for that, not to Tom or Elaine or anyone. The logic of some people is astounding. For instance, maybe I'm missing something, but our dear brother Tom rants and raves about preaching the true 3 angels messages and being true to EGW and being true to the our pioneers and yet he rejects 1844! I know know, but isn't there something wrong with this picture? And contrary to Tom hysterical propaganda, Ford got the boot because of his nonsense about Daniel and Revelation, not because he was preaching the gospel. Many people I know who have no time for Ford's cold, dead, discredited preterist theology were in agreement with him on the gospel. Contrary to Tom, the SDA church, even after Glacier View, has been making great strides in preaching the gospel. Sure, we have a long way to go, and in my own pathetic little way I am trying to do my part, but to claim as Tom does that the church has somehow lost it's way after Glacier View is such a joke. At Glacier View we confirmed that we are historicists, using the historicist hermenetutic to understand prophecy because that's what the prophecies demand and that's what our pioneers used; we stood firm for the the prophetic foundation upon which this church as a distinct church was founded, and not upon an understanding of Daniel 8 as talking about Antiochus or any such of Ford's silliness. If Tom thinks Ford was right at Glacier View, then Tom is no more an Advenist than Ford is. Cliff | ||
| Clifford Goldstein (Cliffg) |
Excuse the few typos above. Line 14 should read," I CAN'T be anything other than an Adventist . . . " Line 18 should be, not "I know, know" but "I don't know" Line 25 should be "its," not "it's" (this, after giving my kid a lecture today about the difference between the two words). Just like the quarterly, I see all the mistakes AFTER it's in print! Cliff | ||
| Maggie Bockmann (Maggie) |
Cliff, I still do that, too. If you catch it within a half hour, you can edit your post. Go to USER PROFILE, lower right, and log in, and then click on the EDIT button of the post you want to edit, make changes and repost. Maggs | ||
| irene longfellow (Irene) |
Cliff......if you came upon new truth, you would get the right FOOT of fellowship. renie | ||
| Sirje Walkowiak (Sirje) |
Cliff, Your characterization of Ford is benieth you, I suspect. It speaks to some degree of discomfort with the man and what he stands for. What I find odd is that you admit that the SDA church "has a long way to go" in preaching the Gospel. Pray tell, what's it been doing then? Of what use is all the rest of it, if it doesn't preach te Gospel? What importance does 1844 have if it isn't tied to the Gospel? I can tell you personally, why I'm still pounding the path to the Adventist church, while I don't believe in the 1844 scenario. I studied and came to believe that 1844 is bogus, I can't force myself to believe it if doesn't make sense and I can't find the Bible supporting it. Being that as it may, my entire life is tied to the Adventist church and I owe every good thing in my life to it. It's something like a family member dissappointing you. Do you just throw them out the door or abandon them? There are emotional ties - family ties - life style ties. When I began to realize that the message of the church is misplaced and "that it has a long way to go in preaching the Gospel" I felt like I did when my mom died when I was still in college - the world stopped and all I had known to be real was suspect. My only "salvation" was my God and the relationship I have continued to have with Him. I have kept going to church, as much as I can without doing damage to my spirituality and I have even taught school and been a principal of one of our schools since my personal "great dissappointment". I have always been careful not to project my understanding of the issues on the kids. That's been relatively easy since none of that makes any difference when a kid is in trouble or needs a supportive hand. As I've ministered to the kids, no one has asked me if I believe the judgment started in 1844. In the real world, nobody cares. But, if somone were to ask, I can tell them that Christ has been ministring on my behalf ever since He returned to wherever He came from and when He came up from the grave, He brought me with Him. Des Ford is a good man and doesn't deserve the vilification he receives at the mere mention of his name by people who have never read one word he ever wrote, or by those who have, but have never given him a chance. Sirje |
