Print
On The Ambiguities of Holiness
Holiness means “set apart,” and that set apartness is the main theme of this week’s SDA lesson quarterly chapter on “The Holiness of God.” “God is set apart from anything else in creation,” asserts our lesson author, Professor Jo Ann Davidson. “He is transcendently separate, so far above and beyond anything that we can truly grasp. To be holy is to be “other,” to be different in a special way, as with the seventh-day Sabbath.” I have no quarrel with this assertion nor with where Prof. Davidson is headed with it. By the end of this week’s lesson she establishes that God’s holiness means our repentance: “Each one sees and admits their personal guilt and without any excuses and without reference to the faults of anyone else.” Fair enough. But if you look at the contexts of some of the Biblical texts on holiness that Prof. Davidson cites, a certain ambiguity appears.
Take Exodus 15:11, “"Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in splendor, doing wonders?”[1] What are these “wonders?” Slaughtering the whole of Pharaoh’s army in Red Sea and, with the spreading of the news, terrifying the inhabitants of Philistia, Edom, Moab, and Canaan. Or take Hannah’s prayer in 1 Samuel 2:2: “There is no Holy One like the LORD, no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.” The occasion for Hannah’s praise and proclamation of the holiness of God? As she says in verse 1: “My mouth derides my enemies, because I rejoice in my victory.” Her “victory” of course was the birth and weaning of Samuel, whom she dedicates as a nazirite and leaves at the Temple.
We might readily sympathize with Hannah’s victory over her husband’s other wife, who had taunted her miserably for her barrenness, even as we readily side with Israel over Pharaoh. But I think at points like these we begin to see additional meanings for the idea of the “holiness of God,” the kind of meanings whereby humans tend to claim God for their side over against the Others and, more generally, to make God in their own image. God’s holiness and the people’s holiness, after all, are explicitly linked in the Biblical books that have most to do with the so-called “holiness codes:” “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy” (Leviticus 19:2). Keeping the precepts of God’s holiness, furthermore, results in blessings of fertility and prosperity upon lands, crops, flocks, human bodies, society as a whole, and triumph in war against others, while turning aside from the commandments results in the curses that bring about all the dangers and privations parallel to the blessings (Deuteronomy 28).
Holiness in Leviticus and Deuteronomy has to do with more than just being set apart. British social anthropologist Mary Douglas has famously traced the meanings of ancient Hebrew holiness in her classic, Purity and Danger.[2] Holiness meant wholeness, she points out.
A major model of wholeness was the perfectly self-contained, unblemished body. Thus no blind, maimed, diseased, lepers, or persons in any other way blemished may be priests (Leviticus 21). Menstruating women (Leviticus 15) and women after childbirth (Leviticus 12) are unclean because their bodily boundaries have been ‘transgressed’ by bodily products, and they must make sin and burnt offerings to atone for their uncleanness. Men with any kind of bodily discharge are unclean and must bathe and wash their clothes and be regarded as unclean until evening (Leviticus 15). It is notable that men’s uncleanness from seminal emission, judging by the elaborateness and time of atoning ritual, seems to be not nearly so unclean as women’s menstruation. Nevertheless, men must stay out of the camp of warriors for a day after a nocturnal emission. Also, no bodily wastes are allowed inside the camp (Deuteronomy. 23:9-14). It is notable again that this latter rule seems obviously a hygiene rule, while the former rule about seminal emission does not.
Another major model of wholeness, argues Douglas, was keeping distinct the categories of creation. Maintaining the unity and integrity of kind was wholeness and thus holiness. For the ancient Hebrew pastoralists, whose Lord was their Shepherd, the model of holy food was the livestock they herded: cattle, sheep, and goats. This category is 1) hoofed, 2) cloven-footed and 3) cud-chewing. The pig and camel are anomalous, that is, they violate the category by being hoofed, cloven footed, but not chewing the cud. To be anomalous was to be unclean. Perhaps a case can be made, reading back, that the pig’s scavenging habits make it a less hygienic or healthy food, but the actual text of the Bible apparently made no such reference (Leviticus 11).
More generally, harking back to Genesis, there are three elements or categories of creation: the earth, the waters, and the firmament, and creatures are classed according to the means of locomotion proper for their element. On earth four-legged animals hop, jump, or walk. Thus snakes and other creeping, crawling earthbound creatures are anomalous and so, unclean. In the waters scaly fish swim with fins. Thus catfish and eels that lack fins but swim in the waters are anomalous, hence unclean. In the firmament, two-legged fowls fly with wings. Thus winged creatures that fly, but are four-legged, are unclean (Leviticus 11). The general principle, says Douglas, is that “any class of creatures which is not equipped with the right kind of locomotion in its element is contrary to holiness.”[3] Creeping, crawling, teeming, or swarming is explicitly contrary to holiness because it is an indeterminate form of movement not proper to any of the elements. The prototype of swarming things is the worm, which belongs to the realm of the grave, death, and chaos.[4]
Douglas closes her chapter on Leviticus by suggesting that these dietary laws would have been like signs which at every turn inspired meditation on the oneness, purity, and completeness of God, giving physical expression to holiness in every encounter with the animal world and at every meal. Observance of the rules would have been part of the worship that culminated in the Temple sacrifice.[5] And thus contemplation of the oneness, purity, and completeness of God would have led also to a ritual realization of the oneness, purity, and completeness of God’s people.
But coming back to the “set apart” meaning of holiness, observance of the laws was also explicitly tied by the Deuteronomist to the destruction of other peoples: “when the LORD your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. . . . For you are a people holy to the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 7:2,6).
In sum, the holiness of God, by the witness of some Biblical sources, means that God sides with “Us” against the “Other,” makes our way of life the superior one--“The LORD will make you the head, and not the tail; you shall be only at the top, and not at the bottom” (Deuteronomy 28:13), and justifies the destruction of the Other. Professor Davidson, in contrast, has assembled a range of Biblical witnesses that testify to a Divine holiness that demands a repentance “without any excuses and without reference to the faults of anyone else.” Candidly, I prefer the assembly she has found to the one I have found. I think, however, that both are there for the finding.
I have read recently[6] that the well-known Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann speaks of competing narratives in the Hebrew Bible--those that promote violence and those that promote mercy and compassion toward foreigners. He likens these competing narratives to witnesses in a court, each claiming authority and correctness. There are commands to genocidal obedience (1 Samuel 15) and there is questioning and dispute against such impulses, as in Abraham’s challenge to God: “Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked . . . . Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" (Genesis 18:25)
How do we pick our witnesses in a way that rises above mere personal whim? I have no better suggestion than the Golden Rule, that is, if your reading of scripture inclines you to break the Golden Rule or to justify its violation, then probably your reading is wrong. Specifically with regard to the topic of “holiness” I would suggest a corollary rule: When approaching ‘holiness,’ take off your shoes, not just out of reverence and repentance in the presence of God, but also to forestall running roughshod over the Others who approach from their own directions and with their own notions of unity, purity, and completeness.
[1]This and all subsequent scriptural citations are from the New Revised Standard Version.
[2]Mary Douglass, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966).
[3]Ibid., p. 55
[4]Ibid., p. 56.
[5]Ibid., p. 57.
[6]Derek Flood, “The Way of Grace and Peace,” Sojourners, Vol. 41, #1 (January 2012), pp. 34-37, 46.
User login
Recent
- Joe Erwin Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Anonymouswon Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Carrol Grady Should Seventh-day Adventists be Republicans?
- Sirje Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Fred Eastman The Role of Institutions in Evangelism – A Call to the Adventist Business Community
Newsletter
Organizations
Fri, 08/31/2012 - Sun, 09/02/2012
Job Dybdahl, Sigve Tonstad, Harri Kuhalampi
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Why is the word "holiness" avoided so much in Christianity?
What about holiness would make any SDA want to read more than the title before Friday night or this sabbath?
"A major model of wholeness was the perfectly self-contained, unblemished body." -- quoted from article above
---------------------
Yet God commanded Abraham and his descendants to circumcise their male babies, mutilating their perfect genitals and perverting something He had presumbably created in the first place! Go figure...
"The general principle, says Douglas, is that “any class of creatures which is not equipped with the right kind of locomotion in its element is contrary to holiness.”" -- quoted from article above
---------------------
Interesting, but doesn't explain why pigs, horses or rabbits are unclean, not to mention sharks or swordfish!
it is a long time since I read such an intelligent discussion of holiness. In America, and doubtless many other places, the word is almost exclusively "moral" or "pious" in meaning, and ends with different and competing lists of actions or virtues. Insisting on these leads to division and intolerance, not peace and love.
I have been thinking recently about holiness as ideology. As Greg mentions, it generally seeks to divide rather than unite the world and society. It emphasizes "difference" and "exclusion" and provides humans an easy way to justify their self-righteous ways. Of course, it could be argued that what humans mean by holiness and what God means by holiness are two separate things. But there we go again, using the divide between God and human, between mine and yours, the idea of "separation" as a justification for ... whatever we think. It's so encompassing, and that's why I think of it as an ideology.
It seems the idea of holiness is problematic needs to be complemented with metaphors of harmony and union. Otherwise it quickly degenerates into ethnic cleansing, self-reighteousness and paranoid exclusiveness. I think a much better way is to think about the SACRED. We begin with a sense of awe at life and its mysteries, and where there is no separation but a sense that we are in the presence of others, and they are in our presence. We respect and recognize the Other as both same and different from us. God is both within and without us, not exclusively Other or outside the Creation but both beyond and deeply inside the fabric of particles that constitutes the cosmos.
Robert says,
" ....doesn't explain why pigs, horses or rabbits are unclean, not to mention sharks or swordfish!"
Maybe it does. Douglass would explain that pigs have wrong kind of hoof (for land creatures), sharks (which don't appear in the Bible) don't have the norm for their "kind" (sea creatures). etc.
As an explanation of the general terms of ancient ideas of holiness, I think Douglass's point holds. Read the book and see if you think the argument holds. I not, then please share with us a better explanation.
-------------------------
Robert also says, "Yet God commanded Abraham and his descendants to circumcise their male babies, mutilating their perfect genitals and perverting something He had presumbably created in the first place! Go figure..."
If you take a modified historical-critical position on the Old Testament, as I do, you quickly notice that the Abrahamic stories and the Levitical codes are from different Hebrew traditions. Only in the imagination of later writers is it the same "God" speaking in both cases. And I believe Douglass addresses this issue of circumcision (and other cross-categpry "cutting") in her book from an anthropological perspective (don't have the book in front of me). In other words, only God has the right to break or transgress the categories of creation, as he does, for example in the Flood story (melding heavens and seas and land). The rest of us have to abide by the world the way God has made it, and not mix things improperly (so no sex with sheep, or wearing wool and cotton on the same day, or cheeseburgers ! ). This is the basis of the whole idea of "kosher".
Graeme,
"It seems the idea of holiness needs to be complemented with metaphors of harmony and union. Otherwise it quickly degenerates into ethnic cleansing, self-reighteousness and paranoid exclusiveness."
Wow!. Why /how does this happen? Who or what promotes paranoid exclusiveness?
Maybe inept teaching??
I have posted several times the denominational disease of pride, paranoid and passivity.
One of the reasons for this is the lack of presenting practical, contemporary application of bible lessons and promoting ministry/mission.
Are not our lessons on glimpses supposed to have an effect?
2 Corinthians 3:18 "But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."
Almost all of the New Testament bible verses on holiness are omitted in the SS lesson.
Here are 2 of 13 verses (KJV) which are the heavies:
2 Corinthians 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Hebrews 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
Why are these verses missing?
Because Jesus is rejected.
The SDA denomination is being cheated by wine skin approaches that generate fanatic, insubordinate, gainsayers.
Why does the separate and wholeness defintion get exposure whithout the ide of the defintion of "holy" which is perfect in goodness and righteousness?
Because the word "PERFECT" is hated and feared. Here is a root reason at what causes paranoia.
Jim:
"Holy" does not mean "perfect in goodness and righteousness." That's a modern, pietistic definition that is far from the biblical idea. Did you read the article above?
As for your idea that perfect sermons or teaching will produce perfect people, that seems very unlikely to me, especially when I'm doing it ;-)
One of the best places to identify with on the subject of holiness as being set apart is the "Bread" and "Wine" of the communion service. Ordination is another--quite a burden or obligation for the one accepting. How faulty the vision of man to have ordained so many Simon, the Sourcers. Cable is jam packed with them.
Truth forever on the scaffold,
Wrong forever on the throne,
But the scaffold sways the future
And behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadows,
Keeping watch, keeping watch above His own"
- James Russell Lowell
to accept a "call" is to pledge to declare His Righteousness" not our own.
To be a Christian is to declare one self as a witness to the otherness of the Creator/Redeemer
God. Defined by the perfect justice and perfect mercy displayed in the Christ Event.
Paul makes that point early in the Letter to the Romans.
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his fove toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more the, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Romans 5:6-9
That is the thrust of Hebrews 11---Men and women are cited for their faith and confidence in the faithful otherness of God.
In these Last Days, it is for us to give the trumpet that "certain sound"!
I am here for no other reason. Institutional identity be damned if it applies the Otherness of God to itself.
Tom Z
Ambiguities of holiness? Yes, indeed! But why scratch around the periphery of the subject, medling about with the minutia when there are indeed, wonderful insights in God's word revealing the mystery of His holiness?
Perhaps a commentary on some aspects of the following may have been more edifying for the believers.
Genesis 3. Why did Adam and Eve hide themselves from their holy God?
Exodus 34. What was it that evoked Moses reaction to God's self revelation?
Isaiah 6. Isaiah seems to have felt completely and totally out of place, out of context and "undone" when confronted with the holiness of God and heavenly beings. Why is this so?
Ezekiel 1. Ezekiel confesses to "falling on his face" when he saw what he recognised as "the appearance of the likeness of the Lord" (vse 28).
Other examples similar to the above would be Daniel, Peter and the John the Revelator.
Question: Why is it that when confronted with someone we perceive as perhaps holier (or maybe, more "righteous") than us, we seem to stand (or should that be shrink) back from their presence?
Then again, we could examine or investigate the reaction of those heavenly beings portrayed in worship "crying one to another Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts" or "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty."
To me, holiness, especially God's holiness is a mystery that, I would guess, will not be fully revealed until Christ returns to claim His own. Until then, all we can do is accept that we are sinners in need of grace regardless of our accomplishments and achievements, our intellect or lack thereof, and that God is holy, just, merciful, loving and saving, mysterious and marvellous, and above all, GOD!
Bolstie ... just another sinner in need of grace!
I'm sorry, but I have not read all of your comments yet. But my question is, why are we trying to define what Gods attribute of Holiness is, by our reactions to Him? Why not define His Holiness by His actions towards us?
Some of the "proof" texts cited in the lesson confuse rather than enlighten the topic. And I think the reason why is the writers focus on "the human reaction". And that focus is looks solely at what could be considered negative reaction, and not positive, as in when Jesus entered Jerusalem and they worshiped Him. Or when children ran to him for His Love. Or when John leaned on His breast at supper. Are these not just as valid reactions to His Holiness as those that depict an emphasis on our sinfulness?
God isn't interested in behavior modification, He's interested in life transformation!
Eliot,
We don't need to wait for Christ's return to see God's holiness. Isn't this why Christ came in the first place - to introduce us to the true essence of God? How ever the OT depicted God, it was wrong and had to be corrected - by Christ. No human can ever really know God as He IS. We don't have the capacity. God, as man, is our only chance to know anything about God. As J.B. Philips says in Your God is Too Small, Jesus is "God focused". He is too big for the human mind to comprehend, as Job found out.
No human is "holy - "there is none righteous, no, not one". We can pretend to be holy by doing stuff and or not doing some other stuff. That does not make us holy. In fact, the word "holy" is a man-made concept - words to describe the indescribable God. Nothing we can do to make ourselves "holy".
Sirje
Amen Tom God bless you for defending the Faith Once delivered to the Saints
Tom are you Jack's Brother?
Thank you Sirge for amplifying and extending the theme of my earlier comments. In the present we have such a limited view of God's holiness revealed to us through His word (and exemplified though the life of Christ), yet in the hereafter it could be our study through the ceaseless ages of eternity. I feel that we need to keep always in our mind that we are human and He is GOD. And I would reckon that we can be really thankful the He is, always was, and always will be! How awesome is that!
Thanks also to David Awdish for suggesting that we could be looking at God's holy reaction to humankind's unholiness and despair - and not just in His sending His Son to provide us with glimpses of His holiness - but continually seeking humankind's salvation.
Bolstie ... just another sinner in need of grace!
Place where one can learn a lot about holy / holiness / wholeness:
http://definitionofholy.blogspot.com
Just wondering about the comment, "How ever the OT depicted God, it was wrong and had to be corrected - by Christ" (Sirge). I am yet to be convinced of this statement's total validity. It certainly appears that way in many instances. In last week's study, though, we looked at the concept of "grace" as an attribute of God.
I am convinced that I found many examples in the OT of God demonstrating His grace to humankind: in His dealings with Adam and Eve at "the fall", His dealings with Abram, with Sodom & Gomorah, with His promise to Abraham concerning the inhabitants of Canaan in Abrahams time and revealed in the night vision of Genesis 15, His dealings with Job (Chapt 42), His dealings with Moses, with Rahab, with David (the Bathsheba scandal and Nathan especially), His dealings with Hezekiah (and Isaiah) to mention just a few.
Perhaps it is our reading of the narrative and our lack of understanding the "whys" and "wherefores" in God's dealings and revelations in the OT that is really the problem. Hence I can but conclude that I am human, He is GOD. And thank God for that!
Bolstie ... just another sinner in need of grace!
Downunder -
Yes and proud of it. Of course he is a year old and much wiser. Mother used to say often. . Tom why can't you be more like Jack? But on the I.Q. test we came in on an even tie.Higher than most critics would allow. We both made the honor roll on graduation from dental school.
I have a tin ear to spelling, singing, and of course the double bass. Jack can excel on the first two--never tried the third.
Tom Z
Just a thought on the holiness of God
Man was made in the image of God.
Jesus was perfect man
Jesus was the express image of God
And Ian Rankin, additionally the presenter from Sac Central Church brought out the thought that
1) Adam was created in the image of God
2) God is holy
3) therefore Adam, before the fall was also perfectly holy.
" ... man was formed in the likeness of God. His nature was in harmony with the will of God. His mind was capable of comprehending divine things. His affections were pure; his appetites and passions were under the control of reason. He was holy and happy in bearing the image of God and in perfect obedience to His will" (PP 45).
Bolstie ... just another sinner in need of grace!
Sorry, Bolstie, but the idea that Adam was "perfectly holy" does not logically follow.
Let's try it....
1. Apples look like fruits.
2. Fruits are tasty
3. Therefore apples before they fall from the tree are perfectly tasty.
???
@Eliot B.....love your perspective. I find this week's study very challenging and rewarding. As I read some of the comments I believe we often underestimate all that our Salvation implies and cost. It is neither tidy, linear and certainly not cheap! This God we worship who eternally dwells in a context unblemished by evil took upon Himself our very sinful nature in order to empathize and ultimately step in between us and death...bearing the full brunt of sin's condemnation.
I believe that the various "methods" God instituted to raise a "holy nation" were correlated with their spiritual/intellectual/physical development at each stage of human history. Many if not most humans can't wrap their minds around the horror of sin and how God actually sees it (I encourage you to visit Calvary!). Many either flatter themselves into believing that humans are born "good" and therefore only need to access and develop a "higher consciousness".....Satan's thesis!
This "sin problem" is way pass a slap on the wrist or firm chastisement. The only hope is a heart transplant! There's lots and lots of blood involved, but the end is complete restoration to the ideal creature that can freely worship its Creator without the interference of sin.
Thank you for your comments Graeme, but ...
While the words "perfectly holy" may not be quite correct, sticking with the concept suggested in the syllogism, if made in God's image then Adam (and Eve) must have been holy. Unless of course God's holiness devolved on Him subsequent to the creation week. But that is ridiculous!
SOP explains in the first chapter or two of Patriarchs & Prophets and The Story of Redemption just how holy God is/was prior to creation week and why Lucifer could not find place in the heavenly courts after his challenge to God's justice, mercy and love.
Guess we'll just have to agree to differ on this one, but for me, I'd rather choose the SOP and maybe wrong than any other alternative at this stage.
Happy Sabbath.
Bolstie ... just another sinner in need of grace!
As for your idea that perfect sermons or teaching will produce perfect people, that seems very unlikely to me...
********
This is an idea that Jim keeps trumpeting ad infinitum, as if good preaching would solve everything in the church. Paul and Apollos preached their hearts out to churches that continued to have problems in places such as Corinth, Ephesus, and Galatia. They never produced a perfect church with their preaching, or churches that even lasted far beyond their passing.
This idea also ignores the fact that preaching today, by a pastor weekly manning a pulpit, probably owes less to biblical/NT preaching than it does to forms of rhetoric, Enlightenment thinking, and the hangover of high church practice. Likewise, it diminishes the complexities and multi faceted nature of what helps create church health and growth.
I agree that solid biblical teaching is necessary. But, the one trick pony stuff gets tiring.
Thanks...
Frank
Just wanted to say thank you for Greg Schneider's thought provoking, balanced and informative essay. It gave me some stimulating thoughts for my sabbath school class - an exercise I am looking forward to with some fear and trepidation... or simply: awe.
@Frank7 .... I am very much in tune with your comments, and yes, Jim is riding a hobby horse ad infinitum. At the same time - even though preaching and teaching will not produced the results we may be hoping for, NOT preaching and teaching will make matters worse. Thus - from time to time we need the reminder that we have a responsibility to educate truth (-: .... that is make people think, allow them to ask questions, and acknowledge that we don't have all the answers.
The mystery of holyness is a case in point
Thanks...
Andreas
Do most readers just accept the defintions of "holiness" from the author and Mary Douglas without checking like the Bereans would?
"but also to forestall running roughshod over the Others who approach from their own directions and with their own notions of unity, purity, and completeness."
hagios anyone?
Hey, holiness means anything similar to Swiss cheese... or socks with holes in them.
I said it , you can believe it and that is all there is to it.
Is it really that ambiguous or is it like an SDA pastor once told an audience....theologians have the tendencey of making truth complicated?
Anyone know anything lately about Herbert Douglass?
Are we going to miss the LAW lesson?
Did anyone hear any of your SS teachers make a connection between the title of our SS quarterly title and.....
2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. ???
Observe, Interpret, >>>>APPLY
Jim R, I notice many preachers don't do exactly what you expect them to do. Ahhh, we're all failures by your standards!
Pr Jim,
Thanks for the post.
Think on this first if you are SDA. Do you realize that 99% of "Christian" pastors do not support the validity of the 4th commandment. So, are they doing what Jesus expects of them?
Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Now , let's focus on the 1% of Christian pastors in the SDA denomination. How many are doing anything close to what is promoted in Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers?
FYI - read just 4 pages in GW p 196-199 and tell me what percentage of SDA pastors actually, seriously promote work/outreach to their audiences instead of performing theolgical therapy, nurturing and correcting.
Time for pastors to get serious with their biblical job description in Ephesians 4:12 "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:"
I won't hold my breath waiting. I spoke with a long time SDA pastor just last sabbath at a church I visited for the first time and got the typical defensiveness and resistance.
Notice how EG White implies on page 197 that pastors should be terminated who do not get their audiences involved.