Sam, Why do you have to place Jesus and EGW together? Saying that "Jesus became everything to her and those around her," this is not in keeping with all historical accounts such as by Dr. Kellogg and his staff.

When we become a real Christ centered church, we will stop glorifying EGW with selected quotes and reinvented history and that gives her sainthood. The fact is that having EGW makes us feel better than other Christian friends who are disadvantaged without all the new light from Ellen. We feel once believers know about the Sabbath Law and Ellen, they should be SDA’s.

Our LDS friends are guilty of the same when they profess to be “The Church of Jesus Christ,” while they resolutely hold to Joseph Smith. They believe that when a believer accepts Jesus and Joseph, they are advantaged over other Christians. The LDS church cannot exist without the teachings of Joseph.

Can the SDA church exist without EGW as the “Testimony of Jesus” or Jesus enough? My guess is that the SDA church will slowly migrate away from Ellen, but it will take another century.

"43 imperatives"

And not one of them about "the Sabbath, eating habits, that sort of thing". There is nothing ethical in worship or in setting oneself apart. Jesus' revolution consisted precisely in showing that ethics is the only worship necessary, the only path to holiness.

Sam, thanks for your reflections. I appreciate what you are trying to do so hope you can take these comments as the comments of a friend and ally and not simply a critic. In candor, though, what I struggled with reading your posting, and have struggled with previously when I have seen different statements about the One group (movement? project?), is that I feel a kind of weird vacuousness in the way you are talking about Jesus.

There's a lot of minimizing language going on in your article that maybe is intended to capture something authentic we have lost sight of or needlessly complicated (in the tradition of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, John Stott's Basic Christianity, and now N.T. Wright's Simply Christian). But the way you have articulated what One is doing somehow perplexes me. Maybe the difference is that Lewis, Stott, and Wright all wrote their books as accessible introductions to Christianity for non-Christian readers while the One project seems to primarily be aimed at reinvigorating life-long Adventists. So my question is: Do Adventists really need to have their faith simplified? Or do they need to be taken into some deeper waters?

You say what the One project wants to do is "simply worship Jesus". You say your goal is to "do nothing else but celebrate His life". You say that what the One project is striving for is "Just gathering to worship Jesus. Not for training, preaching, teaching or anything else, just worshiping and celebrating what Jesus means to all of us." But since when does it make any sense at all to talk about Jesus as "just" Jesus? And is worship as we find it in the New Testament ever disconnected from teaching? If you plan on "just" celebrating "what Jesus means to all of us", how do you avoid ending up being just worship as a kind of Rorschach test? A kind of revivalism that everyone can get behind because all that is really being asked of them is that they project their own Jesus onto a blank screen of nice music and rather traditional-sounding atonement theology in a progressive key?

In the last few sentences of your article make some seemingly obligatory statements about how Jesus was counter-cultural and revolutionary. I am more struck by the story you began your article with...and by the disconnect between your beginning and your conclusion.

You met a corporate executive in an airport and he asked you what Jesus meant to you and to Adventists. You told him "Saved by grace and not by works so no one can boast" and his "face lit up". But what if you had said to the executive something much closer in substance to what you say in your conclusion? What if you had said to him, "Adventists are absolutely Christians. We trace our roots in large part to the Radical Reformation tradition that gave rise to the Quakers and other historic peace churches. We are passionately committed to following Jesus Christ, which for us today means recovering some long forgotten parts of our own heritage and of the New Testament--things like resisting violence and war, and working for social and economic justice. At our conference we plan to worship and celebrate the life and teachings of Jesus, and we're going to have study groups to talk about what our response as Christians ought to be to the problem of corporate crime and the concerns of the Occupy movement."

Would the Nestle corporate executive's face have still lit up if this or something like this had been your answer?

Let's now imagine a different scenario. Let's say you had instead met in the airport a young person who was just returning from spending days living in a tent in a major American city and had even perhaps had some kind of violent confrontation with the authorities. This person is deeply invested in questions of social justice and is struggling to know what they can do to actually be a revolutionary presence in a world of inequality, poverty, militarism, and environmental degradation.

Let's say you gave exactly the same answer to this person that you gave to the corporate executive--following Jesus means being "Saved by grace and not by works so no one can boast" and you're on your way to a conference that won't have any teaching, "just" worship and celebrating. When all you get back from this person is a blank stare you add that this is somehow very "revolutionary" because Jesus was a revolutionary. Would this occupy protester's face now light up? Would what you're doing sound remotely appealing, challenging, intriguing, or relevant to such a person? Or would you just have confirmed in a glaring way this person's views that religion is at best irrelevant to the problems facing society and at worst a surreal diversion from actual human needs?

If the One group isn't wrestling with these kinds of questions (and maybe it is)--if it isn't actually saying some very profound, disturbing, and complicated things about the actual content of Jesus' life and its meaning for us today--I have to wonder if it isn't doing something like the words of two songs that were sung this past Sabbath at the church I attended in Loma Linda. The first song had a chorus that featured in large part the words: "Oooooooouuuuuu, Oooooooooouuuuuuu." The second song had a somewhat different theology. Its chorus went like this: "Yeaaaaaaaahhhhh, yeaaaaahhhhhh...." The congregation, I dare say, felt profoundly united as one in Christ through these songs--they were "just" worshiping Jesus.

...Or were they?

Adventists are absolutely Christians. We trace our roots in large part to the Radical Reformation tradition that gave rise to the Quakers and other historic peace churches. We are passionately committed to following Jesus Christ, which for us today means recovering some long forgotten parts of our own heritage and of the New Testament--things like resisting violence and war, and working for social and economic justice.

Ron,
I always enjoy reading your vision of/for Adventism - probably because if it were actually realistic, I might still be a member.

However, I often find myself wondering what church you're talking about. It's not one I recognize, at all (and I attended a fairly progressive one when I attended). I know there are a few people on the margins that talk about some of what you describe, but at least from what I've encountered, the vast majority of members don't. It's not even on their radar.

I hate to bring up the obvious, but do you really think that any younger person is going to look at a church that doesn't ordain women and think it has even heard of social justice, let alone values it? Yes, the church might have done some good work in other areas, but now a days that one issue would trump pretty much anything else in most younger people's view I would think.

I just don't think the SDA church generally values the things you described. You do, and you can see how to tie the things you value into some of the doctrine which is good. Given some of its history and doctrine, as you have pointed out, the church certainly could, but really it doesn't and I think it is kind of false advertising to suggest to someone unfamiliar to SDAism that it does. Some of its members do, but overall, not so much.

David, maybe we can co-write something on the worship music one of these days :) I find myself growing increasingly nostalgic for hymns and increasingly troubled by the way congregations with "progressive" theologies (which I connect with) have severed themselves from hundreds of years of thought reflected in music and liturgy (yes, hymns are occasionally slipped in; usually sentimental 19th century ones; usually ones that can be played in certain keys that seem to sound OK on guitars). But more to the point, I have to say I honestly don't know what Sam is saying about the ethical core of the One project. (Sam, if you're out there maybe you can intervene to clarify.) I keep hearing that Jesus is "the One" and it's "all about Jesus". I saw some of the materials being used to promote the One project about a year ago and was puzzled back then also by the absence of really sharp engagement with the kinds of questions I think need to matter to disciples. I agree with Sam's final couple of sentences that this should have some pretty profound ethical implications. And yes, they are in bold. But Sam, it is not at all clear to me that what's going on with the One group is radical missional rethinking of what we've been up to with a powerful central focus on questions of poverty, injustice, and inequality. I don't think the Gospel is only about politics or ethics but it certainly can't be LESS than this. So I guess I'm still waiting for people connected with One to start filling in the substantive content of the Christology that has inspired them for those of us who haven't gone to the One events but have been to other worship events that also say they are about "just Jesus".

I well remember being in theology class at Avondale College around 16 years ago and the lecturer posing the question, "How many of the (then) 27 Fundamental Beliefs must you agree with to be a Seventh-day Adventist?" It seems this "One Project" has brought that line of thinking to its logical conclusion and answered the question in the singular.
I would suggest that this "One Project" may be an attempt to counteract the success of the GYC movement. Is there any cross over of those involved in GYC and the One Project? I did notice the GC youth director in a video clip of the One Project. Although I doubt he would be comfortable at GYC.

music....never ending story...minor topic but I still feel lonely. I like Bach much more than those brainless trivial "Ouuuuouuus"... But to me it is more a question of culture than of piety.. very sad that our worship music is drowning in the depths of triviality...guess I have to put up with this for the sake of the body of Christ...

"Do Adventists really need to have their faith simplified? Or do they need to be taken into some deeper waters?"

Great question, Ron. I would answer to the first, "No, we don't need to have it simplified. It needs to be problematized." I would say to the second, "Yes, our theology must continue to mature and our ability to think through a faith response to our world increased."

What has troubled me most about what I've seen coming from the One Project and those commenting on it is the way in which Jesus has been "sloganized." "Jesus does not need a tagline. He does not need a logo. Case in point: WWJD. When Jesus is reduced in such a fashion he becomes nothing more than a Rorschach blot.

Some food for thought (and more fodder for discussion) from C.S. Lewis. The demon Screwtape, writing to the novice demon Wormwood, on how to successfully tempt Christians--

“I had not forgotten my promise to consider whether we should make the patient an extreme patriot or an extreme pacifist. All extremes except extreme devotion to the Enemy are to be encouraged…Whichever he adopts, your main task will be the same. Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacificism as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the state at which the religion becomes merely part of the ‘Cause,’ in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce in favor of the British war effort or of pacifism”

(The Screwtape Letters, 38-39).

Thanks for this article and the thread that has ensued!

Ron...I particularly like your radical vision of Adventism.

Beth...I think Ron is correct to speak up even if the majority doesn't really connect. It takes time to change the identity of a group, but if the Ron's of the world don't speak up, then the ideas don't really exist.

Zane...I think your observations are spot on. Adventists really do need a system for ordering our beliefs.

As I view them, many of our most essential beliefs (Need for a Savior, Creator God, God in three parts, the Cross, Faith, Grace, 2nd Coming, Bible, etc.) are congruent with historical Christianity. Others are not (Sabbath day, state of the dead, nature of hell, etc.)

If Adventists could agree on these top tier fundamentals, our dialogue with other Christians would drastically change. Then other Christians could rapidly see that we hold much in common...and perhaps they might be willing to consider our beliefs in the areas where we differ.

Ironically, it could be a second tier belief, diet and healthy lifestyle, that may be most intriguing to non-Christians.

"I very seriously doubt that the LDS church could back up ALL of its theology on the BIble, but the SDA church can do so."

Tell that to any non-Adventist Christian. Start with the LDS.

Having been at both gatherings, and having produced months ago the video (in the succeeding post) to steer The One Project (TOP) away from aiming toward "Oooooooouuuuuu, yeaaaaaaaahhhhh" euphoria (which Jesus, btw, says nothing about--along with anything else concerning music), perhaps a few salient points can elucidate TOP.

1. The high Christology of John 1 and Colossians and Paul's "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" are self-evident. TOP's organizers, teetering on the brittle edge of burnout, concluded, "We have lost our first love: Jesus." So they determined to be more intentional about Jesus. How many of us carry on regular conversations about Jesus Himself--not the tantalizing "oooooooouuuuuu, yeaaaaaaaahhhhh" peripheral topics that regularly consume this blog?

2. Three gift books for each participant: N.T. Wright's Simply Jesus (2011), 7 Keys for Finding Jesus in the Book of Revelation (2012) by Steve Case and Daniel Wysong, and Leonard Sweet's I Am a Follower (2012).

3. A highlight is the tables (87) of discussion (for groups of eight) following stimulating talks.

4. Music included "Be Thou My Vision," "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing," "How Deep the Father's Love for Us," "In Christ Alone," "My Jesus, I Love Thee," "This Is My Father's World," and "You Will See Your Lord A-Coming."

5. Justin McNeilus and David Asscherick from GYC were present. TOP is not in competition with GYC; we applaud many of GYC's aims, particularly in discipleship training, and long for more synergy within the church--organization and invisible. "For he that is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40).
Alex Bryan's talk brilliantly used the analogy of the Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal to demonstrate how we're dependent upon, and richer for, the involvement of people from all Christian faith traditions. What a loss if we had to stick to merely Adventist music.

6. Ron's concerns are valid: How does "Jesus. All." translate to how we confront our privilege, challenge the existing narrative, speak truth to power, and care for our community?

7. Simple is not simplistic. As Oliver Wendall Holmes put it, "I wouldn't give a fig for the kind of simplicity which exists on this side of complexity, but I would give the whole world for the simplicity that exists on the other side of complexity."

8. There is definitely a danger in sentimentalizing the radical, countercultural, risky Jesus. Becky Pippert observed, "In much of the Western world, the biggest problem is not skepticism but sentimentalism. Convictions have been transformed into cliches. Christian truths are unknown, because they are too well known."

9. Zane mentions some worthwhile points. Our discussion table united in a call to individually prioritize the 28 fundamentals--including what we would add or change. No list is worth anything unless it's prioritized. Jesus prioritizes the commandments: "This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it" (Matt. 22:38, 39). For me, No endless torture is near the top. We also discussed the absence of Fundamental 29: "You must believe every syllable of the preceding 28 to be an Adventist." (Not there.)

10. Zane writes, "It is always the temptation for any Christian community to emphasize what makes it different from everyone else, it's [sic] identity markers, as being the thing that is primarily important." In his talk "Jesus (2012): Doctrines," Mark Witas contended when "doctrine" becomes a means of separating ourselves from others, it becomes unavoidably repugnant. Doctrine becomes helpful, at least potentially, when it's exclusively about explaining God.

11. Too often we are on the defensive. I direct attention back to the "I have overcome the world" post from last week (particularly Aage, Beth, and Graeme). Let critics come up with ways God could "do it better" in keeping with the laws of the universe as we know them; let them play defense once in a while. Our beliefs should make sense. "People despise religion: they hate it and fear it is true. To remedy this, we must begin by showing that religion is not contrary to reason" (Blaise Pascal). TOP approaches God and one another in the belief that we should love Jesus with all our mind.

Chris, thanks for your comments. I feel I need to apologize to everyone for having resurrected the old worship music wars, which was not my intent. My point in mentioning music was to draw an analogy to theology, not to say anything about the kind of music that may or may not be used at One events. The debate about worship styles belongs on another thread (although for me the issue isn't style as such--I appreciate music with a beat, including in worship--but about the substance, or lack of it, that often seems to go with certain styles of contemporary worship). If my friend Nick Zork is involved in the music leadership team of One (which I think I heard a while ago) than I am sure the selections are substantive, intentional, diverse, and deeply Christ-centric.

So back to the real issue as I see it: the theological one. I continue want the One team to articulate more clearly and substantively for outsiders the actual content of their Christology. My hope is that this vision will be based on a serious engagement with the kinds of radical concerns Sam mentioned in his conclusion but which otherwise do not actually seem to be at the heart of how One conceives discipleship. My worry is that One might remain entangled in purely in-group/Adventist identity issues and brands of theology (whether "liberal" or "conservative") that at some level are actually diverting our attention from what Christ calls us to. These are simply the honest impressions of a complete outsider to what is going on with One who at this point has only the public declarations of One leaders to go by.

Zane, if only your suggestion could be implemented at the top levels: Prioritize SDA Fundamental Beliefs starting with the one most important: God and Christ as the foundation of all that follows; then how each and every doctrine flows from that one essential.

Giving a Christological reason for the unique SDA prophecies; diet, and lifestyle and how they correlate with belief in Christ. I, for one, believe that quite a few of those 28 could be eliminated if there were many fewer principles than today. What possible salvific importance can there be to understanding the 2300 days, 1844, or the timeline for rebuilding the temple??

Rather than adding more, as has been done, remove many and salvation is not affected whatsoever. Christianity should be simple, not so complex as Adventism has made it.

I have long nurtured an acute skepticism of the recurring efforts of certain ones to use the name and centrality of our Lord as a means of producing some sort of "lowest common denominator" Christianity. More often than not, whatever the motives of their perpetrators, such efforts generally develop into a construct whereby the love, mercy, and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ are presumably distinguished from those doctrinal and moral issues which seem particularly vexing to church members at a given time.

This construct is problematic for a variety of reasons, the most basic of which is the fact that this non-doctrinal, morally ambiguous, unconditionally unifying Jesus is most definitely not the Jesus of Scripture. When His relationship to the Father was challenged by Satan in the wilderness, Jesus did not use any argument but "It is written" as His defense, declaring that "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). His famed prayer for His disciples in John 17 prefaces His plea for their unity with the plea that they be sanctified through His word of truth (see verses 17-21).

Reference has been made in this conversation to Paul's statement in I Corinthians 2:2 that he had "determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified." Too often, in contemporary Adventism, I have heard people interpret the phrase "any thing" in this verse to include any number of Bible-based doctrinal, liturgical, and lifestyle issues which they fervently hope will "go away" once everyone comes together "in Christ." Yet in context, it is quite clear Paul is not speaking of Christ as distinct from Biblical theology or morality, but rather, Christ as distinct from the human wisdom he had mistakenly employed in his dialogue with the Athenians (see I Cor. 2:3-4). If indeed Paul was seeking to distinguish "Christ and Him crucified" from presumably "other" doctrinal or moral constructs within the written Word, he obviously wasn't consistent with himself, as he spends the following fourteen chapters in First Corinthians giving that particular church a very detailed lecture on correct doctrine and correct behavior.

Too many who persist in their obsession with the much-inflated bugaboos of "legalism" and "perfectionism" seem not to recognize that when salvation is allegedly secured apart from doctrinal or moral faithfulness, the loss of the gospel's ethical imperative is far-reaching, extending vastly beyond those areas of conduct dismissed by certain ones as "trivial" or "unimportant." If the achievement of a personal or spiritual "comfort level" is permitted to marginalize any Biblical command our experience finds unwelcome, there is no limit to how or where this principle will be applied. If we choose to disregard what Scripture teaches regarding intimate relationships, diet, personal appearance, or any number of questions where we wish our individuality to be untrammeled by higher authority, the same pattern will emerge when the visible needs of society's downtrodden conflict with our personal convenience and priorities.

In short, we must either follow our Lord's admonition to live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4) or any talk of "oneness in Christ" bespeaks not the Christ of the Bible, but a fabricated christ of our own making.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

@Kevin Paulson: Amen, Bro!! I really believe what we are seeing is the beginnings of the "Omega Apostacy, based on the massive number of comments that I read on this forum, who in so many words want to radical change the SDA church into a psuedo-evangelical SDA church.

"not the Christ of the Bible, but a fabricated christ of our own making."

There is no single "Christ of the Bible". And any christ is of our own making.

A few more thoughts:

When it comes to simplifying systematic theology, I've found my experience at seminary (which was not at Andrews) to be very clarifying when it comes to the framing of theologically significant topics. The systematic theology sequence is broken into 3 quarters:

1. Revelation and Theology - Faith and reason, inspiration, theism, Trinitarianism
2. Christology and Soteriology - Jesus' nature, theories of salvation, i.e. Arminianism, Calvinism
3. Ecclesiology and Eschatology - Church structure/governance and last things.

These three classes can be taken any sequence.

My professor for #2, which I took last, insisted that Christology was the heart of Christian theology, and the most significant issue to "get right." I think she's right, although I think "theology" or one's view of God is pretty/just as important, too. One thing I'm pretty sure of, though, the most important issue is definitely not eschatology.

Dear Kevin,

I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue about this issue, because I said, it is the issue the church must broach/resolve.

I'm not sure what you mean by "disprove" but if you mean that I am arguing the Great Controversy is untrue/false, you have misread my comments. The issue is priority. What teaching/issue/doctrine is the at the center of our theology, the one that shapes the way we see everything else? Does our understanding of Jesus shape our understanding of the Great Controversy, or vice versa?

I'm suggesting an either/or. Either it can be God saving us ("Jesus-centered") or us saving God ("The Great Controversy motif"). I don't see how it can be both ways.

If one can have it both ways, show me how. Also, I'd be interested in your thoughts on my thoughts about the GC really, in the end, being about humans saving God. Please show me if I am misstating or misunderstanding this teaching because the more I think about it, the more abhorrent I find it.

Kevin,

Isn't a focus on the centrality of Jesus a "highest common denominator" faith?

Dear Zane Yi:

First and foremost, our theology must be shaped and measured by the written Word. The question of whether God saves us, or we save God, or both, must be answered by the written counsel of God. We cannot set up dilemmas that the Word does not set up.

I believe there is a very strong Biblical case for God's character being vindicated by the experience of His end-time church, and that this teaching is clearly echoed in the writings of Ellen G. White. I would be happy to send you a private copy of a paper I wrote on this some months ago, which I was invited to present at the conference on Arminian theology at the Seminary at Andrews in the fall of 2010. This paper is titled, "The Glory Which Shall be Revealed in Us." If you write me privately, I would be happy to send you a copy of this paper, which presents what I believe to be sound inspired evidence on this subject.

Common sense tells us that if the controversy between good and evil depends solely on God for its victorious conclusion, God has a lot of explaining to do for all the horror and tragedy that has lingered through all the centuries. If one wishes to take the Calvinist view that "God is sovereign" and we have no right to question His ways, that may be one option, but not a very satisfying one, either Biblically or intellectually. Sadly, I fear many Adventists are reacting so negatively to what they perceive to be an excessive focus on personal behavior in their Adventist experience, that they go to the opposite extreme and insist that God must save human beings without any human help. Reading the Bible, especially such passages as Hebrews, chapter 11, makes it very difficult for me to accept this theory.

In any case, I look forward to further contact.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Zane Yi

I believe you create a false dichotomy when you state that its either Christ saving us or its us saving him.

Our vindication of God is to show the world and the universe that God has indeed saved us to the uttermost. We need to show the world the full extent of God's power and grace to save completely from sin.

In a nutshell our vindication of God is to show that God has indeed saved us to the uttermost and will keep us from falling. I hope i've answered your question.

FROM ZIMBABWE AFRICA

" Which is why even the scapegoat, representing Satan, is said to make atonement in the ancient ritual"

Kevin, it's quite excellent that you have noted the atoning nature of the Azazel ritual (with atonement rightly understood to cover both purification and elimination of guilt). But it could have never represented Satan. First of all, the Levitical ritual was meant to "work" in and of itself, realizing a primitive version of atonement (primitive if one accepts the "better" model of Hebrews). Reading it symbolically is highly speculative (is the released clean bird in Leviticus 14 also Satan?). Secondly, Satan is barely visible in the OT, certainly absent in the Pentateuch. Thirdly, the scapegoat was scapegoat only by chance, literally. It was supposed to be a healthy animal, amenable to sacrifice - just as "blameless" as any animal ever to be "brought near" the temple.

Pastor kevin Paulson

You also believe LGT. There are 7000 in Israel!! I'm a young person and I got tired contradictory theology. I would also love some of the stuff you promised Zane yi

FROM ZIMBABWE AFRICA

Bogdan,
How do you know anything?

Kevin,
So glad you brought up Matthew 7:22, 23: "On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'" It's blatantly obvious the "many" here are focusing on themselves: "Did we not" "we prophesied" "we cast out demons" "we do." There's the rub. The inward gaze, the navel warfare, the looking unto ourselves for a measure of salvation.

It's all backward. Sure, there's growth and soul searching and maturity in Christ, a striving "toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." Yet in the end it's Jesus. All. As Ellen put it, "When we seek to gain heaven on the merits of Christ, the soul makes progress." In the revised painting of the plan of salvation, the Cross [common denominator] takes up practically the entire landscape. As the conclusion of the entire matter, the song of Moses and the Lamb, summarizes, "For thou alone art holy" (Rev. 15:4). Translation: Not we.

And for the record, Brother Kevin, please leave Ellen White out of any future "doctrinal proof" statements. She herself would be ardently dismayed by that misuse. I appreciate her, and there's a valid and happy reason not one of her quotes serves as proof in our fundamental beliefs--it's all Bible texts. You can't be continually preaching "to the Bible" and also quoting Ellen as determining, conclusive evidence. In her own words, use "the Bible and the Bible alone." Thank you. As you continue on that narrow path I will feel more of God's blessing (!) coming from you. ;)

"How do you know anything?"

Chris. Blake, is that the best you can do? Yeti is more knowable than God.

What I appreciate about the One Project and Sam's essay is the focus on the person of Jesus. In my view, the further we get from the Jesus of the Gospels the more trouble we run into. Every so often, we need to clear away all the accumulation of theology and remember ,"It's not what we believe about Jesus that saves, but it is Jesus who saves."

That means putting aside temporarily the Jesus of the sanctuary, Jesus who is coming again, Jesus who created the world, Jesus who is the second person of the Godhead, Jesus as High Priest, Judge, World Savior, etc. and know the person who loved people and brought the kingdom of heaven to this world.

I fear for my brethren. While there is everything good in uplifting Christ we have to be clear which Christ. Because there is a Christ that will be impersonated by the devil himself and much of the christian world will be deceived. Our Christ is Lord of the sabbath, our Christ can keep us from falling, our Christ wants people to obey him. Our Christ is our high priest in the most holy place and our Christ is coming for people who fully reflect his character. This is the Christ that is biblical i.e. as adventis believe.

Amen, Tapiwa!! Matthew 24:24 comes pointedly, painfully to mind:

"For there shall arise false christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, in so much that if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

This so-called "One Project" gives every evidence of fabricating yet another false christ. May God's faithful be warned.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Good night people it is now past midnight this side. Remember we worship the Christ of the bible, to worship any other christ even well intended is idolatory. Pastor Paulson it was nice to meet you and happy sabbath in advance. Bogdan i sincerely hope you find your way back to the Lord and those brains to good use

"i sincerely hope you find your way back to the Lord and [put] those brains to good use"

Thinking is not enough? :)

No, evolutionists cannot be solid SDA's. The two are mutually exclusive. Even Richard Dawkins (a rabid evolutionist) recognizes this. He says that Christians who try to add evolution to their Christianity have been duped. He agrees with Christians who say that evolution and and Christianity are incompatible. Evolution destroys the gospel, and the gospel destroys evolution. It is, as Johnathan Sarfati has said, "the greatest hoax on earth."

"Evolution destroys the gospel, and the gospel destroys evolution."

While the former may very well be true, the latter is clearly delusional.

"this 'unforgivable sin' takes place whenever we attribute the work of God's Holy Spirit to the work of Satan"

So, atheism is clearly forgivable, since atheists don't "attribute the work of God's Holy Spirit to... Satan" :) Wait, whom shall I ask for forgiveness? :)

No shinnying and sliding needed, Chris!! You ask, "How are prophesying and casting out demons and doing many mighty works 'not doing the right thing, as defined by God's commandments'?

Easily. It happens all the time, in the ranks of professed Christians. Perhaps even by you and I, if we aren't careful. False prophesying, miracles swathed in theatrics, multiplied deeds of ministry and charity--all done in the name of Jesus, but not as a result of true conversion. (Doesn't anyone remember Heritage USA, Jim and Tammy Bakker, and the mass of lookalikes out there?) I truly thought you had a clearer awareness of the contemporary religious world than to deny the reality of this all-too-common masquerade.

It is a mark of the deep spiritual malaise in so much of contemporary Adventism that the glorious Bible hope of complete victory over sin is scorned as "debilitating." I truly don't find "debilitating" the prospect that an alcoholic, a racist, a child molester, a wife-beater, a pornography addict, and so many others can leave off such destructive choices and by God's grace never make them again! If only this precious, liberating message of total victory had been available to Whitney Houston! She just might still be with us.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

"the prospect that an alcoholic, a racist, a child molester, a wife-beater, a pornography addict, and so many others can leave off such destructive choices"

None of the above find solutions in religion. And, for God's sake!, Whitney was uselessly religious, just like you.

KP: "This so-called 'One Project' gives every evidence of fabricating yet another false christ. May God's faithful be warned."

Before you start casting stones, I'd suggest you talk to some of the folks who participated ... like David Asscherick. On his public Facebook page he wrote, "Met some really wonderful and inspiring people today, and thoroughly enjoyed the fellowship and conversation. (Table 51, my peeps!!) God is so amazingly good. It's beyond words, but not beyond the Word (John 1:1)! Just reflecting as I prepare to fall asleep: I have confidence in the Seventh-day Adventist Church because I have confidence in Jesus."

I guess we now are the place where God bless at the end of each post covers a "multitude of sins." :(

Frank

Allen,

while it's true that "the pure wonder of the existence of us and the universe cry out for explanation", a postulated God (which one? - the list of postulants is incredibly long) is not in any way an explanation, on the contrary, it's a cop-out, a lazy refusal to look for an explanation. I don't deny this sort of laziness was evolutionarily convenient and useful, but an explanation of reality it's not. The idea of God only "explains" something about the way humans think.

Starting with "the pure wonder of the existence of us and the universe", many postulate the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, in the form of usually advanced unknown civilizations that inhabit other parts of the universe. It's a "reasonable postulate", isn't it? Reading the rich literature of personal testimonies of alien abduction, one can easily "confirm the hunch". It's not illogical to make the assumptions underlying ufology. Still, you're no ufologist, or Muslim, or Hindu, or pagan worshiper of Thor.

While we can't operate without some assumptions, we can certainly operate without the assumption of (any) God. I need to assume that I can trust my senses with some degree of confidence (and I have tools of refinement and verification of my perceptions). But I don't need to assume God. To base my entire system of beliefs on a useless assumption is, in the end, utterly illogical. My psychological needs that the delusion of God used to fulfill can easily be met otherwise.

Kevin, please step down from your proud little pulpit (wouldn't a realy perfect Christian drop the title of presumed authority you always sign with?) and let the Holy Spirit do His work without your "help".
Your posting and its tone is the best refutation of "perfection theology" I can imagine. You appear to be on a path, with your attitude towards Chris and the other struggling devotees of this Web site, that makes me want to quote you Jesus words to his beloved but out of line Peter, "get thee behind me, Accuser!"

Bogdon

Good answer.

My comments:

1. The postulated God would have to be the Creator. Surprisingly, there are only a few that make that claim, and poor Thor would not be among them. Still a bunch (see Wikipedia--Creator God). But many of these now have no worshipers. And if any given creator god cannot maintain his people, well... The list is therefore not so incredibly long as you might imagine. Nevertheless, there are several claimants, and it is reasonable to examine each.

2. Belief as a cop out--lazy refusal to look for an explanation. The problem is that there is no scientific or natural explanation for the universe, or life. Both have a beginning that present science cannot explain. At all. And it's not for lack of trying. Check any book on origins for the author's take. Crick (of Watson and Crick fame) believed, or believes in Panspermia, but he has no evidence. That is also the problem with all multi-verse theories: NO evidence; but this is not the only problem with these, there is no way we can even get evidence. So to believe that there is a naturalist-scientific explanation is an act of faith as much as to believe in God. It's not that Deists are lazy, its that there is no other explanation. Steady state theories and the idea of eternal matter have been abandoned with the discovery of the back-ground radiation etc.

As for ufology, none of the aliens that I have heard of are making the claim of Creator, being much more interested, according to testimony, in sexual encounters or the like. Not that sex is an uninteresting topic for exploration, but I would assume a Creator would already know all about that.

3. One can live without assuming God, it is true. You are doing it. But living, as you do, without an explanation for the existence of all things and life etc., it would seem you might be curious. And the Bible presents a Creator that reveals himself in a stunning and shocking way, the cross. And i find such a Creator has enriched my life, rather than taken from it.

You are right, Fella, I am hard on those who pretend a doctrine they don't demonstrate. Some on the other hand are so obviously pastoral that we know it by reading their posts, like yours for example!

Chris. Blake,

First of all, I'm equally dated. I grew up listening to my dad's extensive collection of classical music LPs. I have later purposefully purchased CD versions of certain recordings I'd grown to love on the scratchy plates.

Secondly, I've done my reading too. From what you write, your arguments for belief are versions of the old aesthetical argument - the world without a designer seems "monstrous" to you. That obviously stems from a deeply biased opinion that we are improbably wonderful.

Thirdly, I trust that I don't need to buy your book for our dialogue here to continue. Your ability to condense hundreds of pages of apologetics (none too novel, I'm sure) into a gentle, open minded conversation will be greatly appreciated.

Finally, I was the first to ask what your epistemology is, remember? More acutely, how come you take faith (or scientific incredulity, as you wish) to be a means of knowing?

Many people have believed in a god or gods. Their idea of god is taught by their ancestors, depending on where in this world that they live.

If one is born in China, what and who does he imagine made the world? Does he even question? If one is born in an animist society, what sort of questions does he ask about his world and environment? Does he somehow postulate some superior being or object or does he simply accept what he is told?

We who were brought up in a "Christian society" understood from our earliest memory that there was a god, and were either informed at our mother's knee or observed it in the many churches and synagogues in our environment.

So to automatically assume that the answer to the questions: why am I here; Who made this world; Where did the stars come from; immediately becomes the god of Judaism or Christianity. That does not necessarily follow. There can be many others answers, all equally unprovable. But the final question: if there was God in the beginning, when and from where did God originate? Why speak of "beginnings" if such an idea is so ephermal? Humans cannot admit that there are many questions that we cannot answer, no matter how hard we try.

"Humans cannot admit that there are many questions that we cannot answer, no matter how hard we try."

I wouldn't agree. Any serious teacher (of anything - but certainly theology) will tell you that asking questions is more important than getting all the answers (let alone "right" answers). Asking questions will help us move, answers are likely to create complacency.

Kevin:

Below is reproduced in full your retort to Graeme. "At last, at long last have you no sense of decency?"
If anyone on this web site is a scholar and a gentleman it is Graeme. You are not fit to carry his sandels. Then to end your tripe with God Bless is profanity in its most blatant form.

I refer you to Hymn 114 in the SDA hymnal "There's a Wideness

"There's a wideness in God;'s mercy, Like the widenss of the sea.
There's a kindness in His justice, Which is more than liberty.

The final verse:
If our love were but more simple, We should take Him at His word.
And our lives would be all sunshine in the sweetness of our Lord.

Dear Graeme S:

By this one statement of yours, you have indicted, juried, and convicted of high treason the agenda of this so-called "One Project." The Jesus you speak of is no better than Baal, Moloch, Amun-Ra, Woden, or Quetzalcoatl. Without the definitional truth which Jesus Himself declared to be the identifier and measure of His ministry, we are talking idolatry.

But keep talking. The longer you and others of like mind hold forth, the more firmly the hang rope is braided for your abysmal theology.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

My God foregive you,

Tom Z

Bogdon, Elaine and Bevin,

Bogdon,
There is no scientific explanation for the universe or life. And if you want to discuss the evidence for that, I would be glad to do so.
And I agree that a nonscientific explanation or speculation does not necessarily answer the question of origin. In fact, since none of us were there, there is only inference.
However, Life and the Universe do show evidence of mind rather than chaos. There is law and order. And from our personal experience with life, law and order come from a mind rather than chance and disorder.
Ergo. A mind created the universe. Could be any Creator (but not Thor). And it does not seem to me to be a surprise that more than one "God" would make a claim to be Creator. As Elaine says, men invent all kinds of gods. The fact of counterfeits does not mean there is no genuine, and may even give evidence of its existence.
"the cross" A Creator deserves fear, but a creator on the cross, well, that is a whole different story. That Creator wins my worship, my heart and all. i appreciate that you have recognized the awesome nature of the story.
BTW, you sound more like an agnostic to me than an atheist.

Elaine.
Yes, every culture gives to its young a knowledge of its perceived truth. But you and I (and I think especially you) have the advantage of knowing of most of them, and could then make a judgement on legitimacy and adequacy of explanation.
And I agree, pondering the stars does not of necessity lead to belief in the Christian God, though he is certainly one candidate among many as I noted above.
But your question about where God came come to me is answered by the order of the universe. It shows the evidence of mind, and so has to be explained on that basis. I can't answer where the mind came from , but that mind did it is clear. That question can be answered.
Also, part of the genius of Job is that Job's questions are never answered except by more questions. And these question answers give confidence in God.

Bevin,
The scientific method cannot be used on things that cannot be repeated, such as historical data. Even the geology of the column is speculation, though well educated speculation. You can't prove it. I stand with you on most of what you said, but i have less faith in science to ferret out the answer, as it is a human endeavor.

Dear Bill C:

My good friend David Asscherick is no more infallible than you or I, but I am quite confident, knowing him as I do, that he would view any attempt to facilitate "unity" within the church based on a christ unconstrained and undefined by the clarity and limits of God's written counsel, as doomed to failure. If the devotees of doctrinal and moral ambiguity on this blog are prepared to hail this "One"initiative with the accolades I have noted here, neither David Asscherick nor any other upholder of Biblical authority can in conscience fall into line.

If the Bible is our objective, transcendent measure of right and wrong--and obviously for a number of folks on this site, it is not--it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to be involved in any movement or initiative that seeks to craft a savior apart from the parameters and imperatives of doctrinal and moral truth. The Biblical Jesus knows nothing of such pseudo-salvation, which can only lead its adherents to spiritual disaster.

I am deeply saddened by the tone of so many here, bespeaking as it does the opaque fog of postmodernism and its upside-down worldview, in which confidence in the written Word is mistaken for arrogance and permissiveness mistaken for humility. The principal value I see in exchanges such as these is: (1) the fact that honest observers remain, who are still willing to weigh and consider the Biblical evidence; and (2) the increasing boldness and brazenness of the unscriptural views promoted by certain ones, making it ever so clear that no harmony is possible between those with the Biblical worldview and those seeking to establish a spirituality outside of that view.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

I've been thinking about the story Jesus told about the diffferent kinds of soil and applying it to events like those we are discussing. Twenty five years from now his predictions will be justified again.Tr tR

Bogdan,

What would you accept as being adequate evidence for God's existence? Is there any possibility?

Dear Chris B:

I would hope that neither our love for one another, nor God's love for either of us, is the issue here. Biblical faithfulness and clarity of thought as defined by Scripture, by contrast, are very much the issue.

The Gamaliel story is an interesting one, as it seems to be generally used in the church by those who want their theological opponents to "back off" in seeking to hold them accountable. Frankly, I have long maintained that this intervention in the Jewish council by this wise man was little more than God's way of throwing a monkey wrench into the plots and plans of those seeking to destroy the early church. There is certainly no Biblical evidence, from the apostles' writings or elsewhere, that such a "hands off" approach was divinely recommended as a means of addressing problems inside the faith community. Paul certainly didn't take this approach in dealing with problems in the various churches to which he wrote epistles, and one can hardly make the case that at any other time in sacred history, God through His prophets advocated such a course on the part of those responsible for leading His people.

At the bottom line, it is probably correct to say very few if any of us, when pressed, would take the position that no behavior or worldview of any kind is capable of disqualifying a person from being part of the fellowship of believers. I suspect nearly all of us believe there should be limits. The only question is where we choose to set them, and on what basis. If, for example, it were discovered that a local Adventist church elder was an official of the local Ku Klux Klan, somehow I don't think too many of us would talk about "letting the wheat and tares grow together." I doubt that any, even on this blog, would argue for retaining such a one as a member of the body of Christ.

What is perhaps most ironic of all, regarding your use of the Gamaliel experience, is how I see so little practice of this way of addressing problems by the people on this Web site. Nearly no one here seems of the opinion that the conservative Adventist ideas and practices they despise so deeply will simply "die out" of their own accord. If they did believe this, we would likely read far fewer screeds of venom directed at Ellen White and our fundamental doctrines from the folks on these discussion threads.

My perspective on the Gamaliel story, and his counsel to the Sanhedrin, is based on my own study of inspired writings. My question to you is, How often have you proffered this advice to liberal Adventists who spend so much time and energy venting rage against our classic faith?

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Jesus asked Peter who people thought he was. Throughout the bible it was Jesus wish for people to have an accurate they of who he was. This multiplicity of views of who Jesus is as expressed in this one project is unbiblical. While all are purporting to be celebrating Christ, for some Christ gives a blank cheque to sin, for some he is just a good guy, for some he is a guy who does not care what you believe. This one project while well intended may be unwittingly promoting idolatry

Dear Zane YI:

It was the Jesus recorded in the Gospels who declared, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). That is why I cannot accept a definition of Jesus confined to what is recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Jesus Himself declares that our eternal life comes through appropriating the vision of God which we find throughout the Sacred Scriptures. That includes Daniel 8:14 as much as John 3:16, Revelation 13 as surely as I Corinthians 13, the beasts in Daniel 7 as surely as the Beatitudes in Matthew 5.

And by the way, how can one focus solely on the "Jesus recorded in the Gospels" and yet do as Graeme said in "temporarily" setting aside not only the Jesus of the sanctuary, but the Jesus who is coming again? In Matthew 24 Jesus spoke at length about His second coming, as He did in Luke 17 and 21 and in John 14. How can we focus even on the "Jesus of the Gospels" and leave out such key doctrinal issues?

What Graeme spoke of, sadly, is a partial Jesus, one not defined by the whole of God's written counsel. Such a partial view, like any human attempt to contrive the divine, can legitimately be called idolatry--a sin in which all of us, if we aren't careful, can be found accomplices.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Atheists to the left of me, LGs to the right.
How'd I come to be in this fight?

Bogdan Gheorghita,
As you're aware, in classical philosophy nothing can be actually proved--only disproved. For example, you cannot prove the existence of love, yet you likely "believe" in it, as do I. Perhaps my unprovable belief in God runs along the same lines as love.

Moreover, you have conveniently and selectively ignored invitations and commentary by me, and also noteworthy distinctions and comments by Bevin and Allen, so that you can continue your gadfly persona; I never sense actual searching.

You assess that my belief in God "stems from a deeply biased opinion" that is "none too novel, I'm sure." H'mmm. (Who's carrying a deeply biased opinion, again?) ;)

Yes, "gentle, open-minded conversation" is greatly appreciated. I also appreciate constructively wrestling with issues and agreeing with opposing viewpoints where I can. Neither is taking place in our exchange.

So, friend, while I wish you all the best, I have better things to do with my time. And that I am entirely able to prove.

Kevin D.,

Every act of focusing involves "temporarily setting aside" some other perhaps equally important matter. Your portrayal of Graeme's point is too graceless. So, too, is your interpretation of Philippians 4:8. What can you think about in everything you encounter that is praiseworthy and true? (Yes, even in comments here.)

As for your question to me: "How often have you proffered this advice to liberal Adventists who spend so much time and energy venting rage against our classic faith?" First, I don't know what a "liberal Adventist" is. You yourself are considered "liberal" [gasp] by some for your views (many of which I share) on biblical social responsibility. I continue to wage war on this toxic "conservative/liberal" language, this false dichotomy that serves merely to brand, divide, and dismiss--an abomination to love and to God. I'm desirous of turning minds instead, as Jesus did, to what is peripheral and central. "Peripheral/central" talk is often productive and salutary.

But to your main point, I have often made the same Gamalielian (!) case for GYC, for classics of all ages, and even for you on this site. Yes, I battle diligently against evils--against sloth, lust, egoism, and deception, particularly in myself--and I also do not wish to become a dragon as I fight the dragon.

A little humor and humility goes a long way.

Dear Chris B:

None would deny the inadequacy of the liberal and conservative labels in any line, whether sacred or secular. I am reminded of the late Senator Eugene McCarthy's book A Liberal Answer to the Conservative Challenge, published in 1964. He frankly acknowledged the shortcomings of these labels, yet simultaneously admitted, "There is not enough time to change the flags."

I think the same principle holds true with the use of these labels in the context of contemporary Adventism. We would both concur that these terms fall seriously short of fully addressing the dilemmas we face. Yet they are still in general use, and they still characterize with essential accuracy the perspectives of those who hold to the reality of an objective, transcendent measure of right and wrong as set forth in Scripture and the writings of Ellen White, as distinct from those with a view of truth significantly tempered by scholarly speculation and personal experience.

When people ask me where I place myself on the conservative/liberal spectrum in the denomination, I am always careful to identify myself as a conservative whose sole objective is to "conserve" the Bible-based, Spirit of Prophecy-affirmed tenets of our doctrinal and moral witness. I am not, by contrast, interested in reviving time-honored cultural or social taboos simply because they were practiced or revered in previous times. The "good old days" mentality is frankly one quite incompatible with Last Generation Theology, which correctly recognizes that while previous ages may have seen greater purity in our profession of faith as Seventh-day Adventists, they did not see the church rise to the level of holiness and victory God is seeking from His end-time church.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Classical logic?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/

Oh, Oh... Bogdan, I don't know what just happen, but let me say good bye while you are still here. I guess that after your last post above... we won't see you here that often...

Oooops, that post was just removed...

How deliciously ironic. I just proved I'm not a logician.

(No worries, Bogdan.)

Dear Zane Yi:

You may have to clarify exactly which aspect of the great controversy motif is disturbing you. As far as the Jesus of Scripture is concerned, He must be taken entirely, not in pieces. Any attempt to fabricate unity apart from doctrinal and moral harmony is a violation of the Biblical adage that two cannot walk together except they be agreed (Amos 3:3). It is simple presumption to associate the name of our Lord with any such initiative, especially as His prayer for the unity of His followers was prefaced by His plea that they be sanctified by His Father's Word of truth (John 17:17-21).

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

"I am deeply saddened by the tone of so many here, bespeaking as it does the opaque fog of postmodernism and its upside-down worldview, in which confidence in the written Word is mistaken for arrogance and permissiveness mistaken for humility."

Huh? Modernism didn't exactly provide most people with confidence in the written Word. I can't defend post-modernism in all its tendencies but modernism is no less an imperfect human paradigm. My view on epistemology is this. Jesus is the absolute truth, and he gave us minds to grasp truth both through His word and general revelation. So in Jesus there's an objective, absolute, static truth, but as human subjects we only connect with it in a dynamic relationship. So the moderns we're wrong in assuming we could wholly own absolute truth in our minds, and the post-moderns are wrong in insisting that no absolute truth exists.

Kevin,
You state, "None would deny the inadequacy of the liberal and conservative labels in any line, whether sacred or secular. I am reminded of the late Senator Eugene McCarthy's book A Liberal Answer to the Conservative Challenge, published in 1964. He frankly acknowledged the shortcomings of these [liberal/conservative] labels, yet simultaneously admitted, 'There is not enough time to change the flags.'"

Today, we live nearly a half century after Eugene McCarthy's lament of "not enough time." Hundreds of words and idioms have changed during the intervening decades.

What comes to my mind is Martin Luther King's pronouncement from "Letter from Birmingham Jail": "The time is always right to do what is right."

Dear John Mark:

The dilemma we face is not between modernism and postmodernism. There is another, much better option. Uncompromising faithfulness to the transcendent, self-interpreting, objective counsel of God. It is that counsel to which I strive, by the grace of God, to be faithful.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

>>> The moral ambiguity of theological liberalism, such as is heard on this site every moment

Please explain what is the "moral ambiguity" that you are referring to.
You usually talk with such an arrogant attitude, utilizing words that may impress some neophytes, but, please, be precise on what you mean this time. What is precisely the "moral ambiguity?"

I find that looking up each NASA "Astronomy Picture of the Day" helps me to take myself and my ideas somewhat less seriously. I recommend the experience

This October 6-minute video on the speed of light is especially striking: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111018.html.

Enjoy!

dl
Yes! Thanks for noticing!!
Dave

Thanks Jack. You have a realistic perspective on church, the evolution of human understanding of truth, and the humanness of Pastor Ellen White.

Bogdon,
I am sorry that the conversation has to end this way, if in fact that is the case. I read the two deleted posts, and was saddened by them, You and Chris are certainly beyond me in your mastery of the literature of philosophy. And I just keep learning here. Too bad.
Perhaps another day.
May the unknown God bless you both.

Dear Zane Yi:

You have precisely articulated my understanding of the great controversy, because it is very much the Bible's understanding also. You and I are very much the focus of the great controversy between good and evil, because we are the ones who have fallen and thus stand in need of redemption. If it was all up to God to end the controversy, He would have done so long, long ago--far in advance of the Inquisition, Auschwitz, Darfur, and the mounting tragedies with which the human experience continues to grapple.

Without the great controversy theme and Last Generation Theology, God becomes solely and arbitrarily responsible for evil and suffering, perpetuating these horrors until such a time as He arbitrarily chooses to end them. By contrast, the classic Adventist scenario and Last Generation Theology inform us that God is waiting for a people to demonstrate, through His grace and by His power, that perfect holiness can be lived and the right choices made even in the worst and most disagreeable of circumstances.

When this happens, the universe will be ultimately persuaded of divine justice and will at last be secure against a recurrence of the sin problem.

I believe this position represents the Biblical consensus as well as the core of Ellen White's theology and that of classic Adventism. To set up the dilemma as to whether "God is saving us," or "we are saving God," is to set up a contrast the Bible does not acknowledge. We must permit the Biblical consensus to define the basis of our theology, and yes, to permit the inspired and authoritative writings of Ellen White to affirm what the Word of God teaches.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

>>>>When there is no standard of right and wrong that is both real and knowable by finite mortals, transcendent of time and circumstance, you have both moral and theoretical ambiguity. And when this happens, as in the days of Israel's judges, everyone does what is right in his or her own eyes (Judges 21:25).

This is the prevailing ideology on this blog, and it is ruinous to Biblical faith and spirituality.
Kevin Paulson
- - - - - -

I rarely have seen any worse arrogance and pride than this. It's so pathetic!
Not even worth to waste time commenting on it. It speaks for itself in a loud voice!

Kevin,

Paul asks the question (rhetorically) that, I think, gets to the central issue at stake in our discussion of the Great Controversy:

"[D]o you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?" (Romans 2:4)

In other words, it is not our repentance that proves God kind, rather God's kindness softens our hearts to change.

Relatedly, it is not our obedience that proves God good or just. Rather, it is God's goodness and justice as proclaimed and demonstrated by Jesus that leads us to trust and obey him.

And, just to say it a slightly different way, God is not lovable because we love him. Rather, we love God because God first loved us (1 John 4:19).

That, to me, is the Biblical consensus.

Zane Yi

Let me ask you a question. How is God going to ensure that sin never happens again in the new world without infringing on free will?

If you do not subscribe to LGT, how do you explain suffering in the world and his delay in ending the suffering?

Final question, how is God going to convince heaven and the universe that those who are saved will not relapse? And that nothing further could have been done for the lost?

P.s let me preempt you of a possible answer, Adam, Eve, Lucifer and lost angels had sinless natures before they sinned

.One of the features of polite conversation is that each person gets to label his or her own position. For example I am neither a relativist, materialist, reductionist, determinist or atheist and the same is true of the overwhelming of those who post here. That some continue to assert the contrary tells more about them than else. This often tells us that those who speak this way do so fromIi great pain and worry. This is what we should try to hear instead of focusing on the strident language. The point of these covvetsations is to listen and not speak, learn and not teach, clarify and not crucify. We succeed when we can say that we have a better understanding of what someone believes and, more importantly, why.

David,'

Agreed that each person gets to name his own opinion. But this does not include labeling individuals or denigrating their opinions. Opinions should be limited to the message, not the messenger.

Elaine
Right! That some of friends continie to break these basic rules despite many pleas that they stop puzzles me. What's the point? I've come to think that they are in such pain that they cannot
realize that they are hurting their own cause. We ned to listem very intensely in hopes of undetstanding that pain and attend to it while not worrying too much about how it is expressed. Sorry for the typos. We're sitting in the Saint Louis airport waiting for a late flight.g hU

Kevin,

That's just a wee bit of an exegetical stretch to get Isaiah 40:1-5, to mean eschatological perfectionism when it is clearly meaning the return of Judah from exile in the first instance, and was understood by the early Church to refer to the ministry of John the Baptist and the coming of the Messiah.

And Isaiah 60 is understood by the NT to refer to the presentation of the Lord in the temple and to his manifestation to the Magi.

How can you take clearly Christological texts and turn them into support for this ...?

Either Jesus is the fullness of God's revelation, or he is not the Son of God.

But Hebrews is clear. God's revelation in Christ cannot be surpassed. He is the focal point of salvation history. He has triumphed, and is sat down at his Father's throne, where he rules and is high priest. He will come again, not to deal with sin, but to save those waiting for him. Waiting for HIM.

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

13But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Getting back to the article ... I think I got a better feel for the gathering from John McLarty's piece at Adventist Today. http://www.atoday.org/article.php?id=1031

But the discussion raises the question--is Jesus the focus of the Great Controversy ... or are we? Is Jesus' victory the greatest thing ... or ours? Did God vindicate himself by giving his only Son ... or do we do that? Is Jesus our focus ... or are we? I think the New Testament would clearly say Jesus is.

I think the people on other worlds would be more impressed by someone stopping the suffering - not by some little group becoming perfect. I know I would. And I think that some little group becoming perfect cannot make up for the Holocaust let alone everything else. How could it possibly?

>>> How is God going to ensure that sin never happens again in the new world without infringing on free will?

The biggest difference between the universe before Lucifer's fall and the universe after Satan's defeat will be the availability of knowledge of the period between.

It is knowledge of consequences that stops a loving intelligent being from making a mistakes, not externally imposed constraints.

Personally, I think that the absence of this knowledge in a complex universe is what made the fall unavoidable - and the presence of the knowledge makes its repetition avoidable.

/Bevin

Kevin,

I'd be interested in hearing your understanding of what "sinless perfection" is. (I've shared mine above in my comments about Wesley.) In addition to your seeming emphasis on human will and effort, your comments make it seem as if you understand it primarily in negative terms--"living without sin" or what one does not do.

This does not seem to be the way Jesus understood holiness. He openly and purposefulness defied negative and puritanical interpretations of Torah when it came to Sabbath observance, dealing with women, Gentiles, and those that were "unclean." (Jesus' interpretation of Torah is distinct from that of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes, who by the way, all claimed to have the true "Biblical" view of spirituality.)

Like Beth, I, along with many others would find the theology you are articulating much more compelling, if its proponents emphasized and modeled what Jesus taught and did--alleviating the suffering of others.

Most expressions of last generation theology I've heard is a blend of teachings akin to what I understand the Pharisees and Essenes to have taught--emphasis on/understanding of holiness as obeying law and withdrawal from society. This is not the way of Jesus.

All this brings us back to the point of needing to get back to the Jesus of the gospels and making this central to our understanding of the Christian/Adventist life.

What Must I Do To Be Saved?
At least two people are quoted in the New Testament as asking: “What must I do to be saved?” First was the rich young ruler; (Matt 19:16-22; Mark 10: 17-22; Luke 18: l8-23) and, second, the jailer at Philippi (Acts 16: 22-40). They received entirely different responses. Is there more than one way to be saved? Or are there different reasons or motivations for asking the same question?
The rich young ruler put the question this way: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mark 10: 17 ISV) A seemingly sincere but ingratiating question, as the following exchange demonstrates. Jesus replies by asking a question: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except for one—God.” ( Mark 10: 18 ISV) Implicit was the question: Are you recognizing Me as the Messiah or are you just “buttering Me up”? Naturally, given his status as a son of Abraham, his good looks, and well known zealous religiosity, the young man thought he would get a pat on the back and the assurance: “Son, you have nothing to worry about!
Instead, Jesus replied; “Keep the commandments”, even citing several. The young man replied; “Teacher, I have kept all of these since I was a young man.” (Mark 10:20 ISV) Then Jesus goes directly to the heart of the matter: “You’re missing one thing. Go and sell everything you own, give the money to the destitute and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come back and follow me.” (Mark 10: 21 ISV) The young man came for commendation and for negotiation. He felt he possessed wealth and a moral history which he proposed putting on the table for at least a down payment on eternal life.
Jesus quickly demolished all thoughts and possibilities for a bargaining session. The young man’s plea was much the same as that of Cain (Gen. 4: 3-16) and similar in intent to that of Abraham: “Oh let Ishmael live before thee!” (Gen. 17:18) KJV) Unspoken was an inner motive parallel to the prayer of the Pharisee: a litany of works followed by a moral comparison with the brokenhearted publican. (Luke 18: 9-14)
It was Christ who gave up all in order to “buy the pearl of great price”. If one had to do something to inherit eternal life it would have to be the whole nine yards: nothing less that the Action Plan Jesus laid out in detail in the Sermon on the Mount. “Be ye therefore, perfect even as your father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Mat: 5: 48 KJV)
Christ demonstrated that perfection in His ministry, in His trial, and in His sacrifice. Every jot and tittle of the law was fulfilled in that moment when Jesus cried out: “It is finished!” The finished work of Jesus Christ was pronounced both necessary and sufficient by His resurrection, ascension, and installation at the right hand of the throne of God.
It was not the question the young man posed that Jesus focused on. It was his motivation in asking it. Did he really want to know or did he expect affirmation of his attention to moral detail? From the subsequent dialogue it appears that the rich young ruler had a works orientation to redemption, not a gift-by-Grace understanding of salvation. Rather than a pat on the head, the young man’s soul was exposed as trusting in his own merits, a trust he refused to surrender to the only One capable of offering assurance of eternal life.
The young man had a merit badge fixation. He fully expected that Jesus would be overwhelmed in meeting such a well-appointed, well-mannered, moral, eager young man. Naturally, Jesus loved the young man, but immediately saw the basic fault in his approach to eternal life as a reward, not as a gift from above. They parted in sorrow.
In contrast is the question raised by the jailer in the city of Philippi. The story is well known. Paul and Silas were falsely accused of disrupting commerce; they were convicted, beaten, and imprisoned and shackled; and placed in charge of the jailer. That night a severe earthquake opened the doors of the jail and unlocked the shackles. The jailer, thinking the prisoners had escaped, attempted suicide, rather than face death for failure of duty.
But Paul “shouted in a loud voice, “Don’t hurt yourself, for we are all here!” (Acts 16:28 ISV) In gratitude the jailer brought Paul and Silas out and asked: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16: 30 ISV) Paul and Silas responded to the question in a way totally different from how Jesus answered the rich young ruler. “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you and your family will be saved.” (Acts 16: 31 ISV) Yet in this respect it was the same: belief requires a life changing commitment. What Must I Do To Be Saved?

Why the difference in response to basically the same question? Is there a dichotomous Gospel, one for the Jews and another for the Greeks? Or is there a sharp distinction between the motivations of the questioners? The preponderance of the Scriptural evidence strongly suggests the latter. The rich young ruler was propelled by pride. The jailer was stricken with guilt. The jailer instead of committing suicide gave up his former life and took up the cross and following the healing ministry of his new-found Lord and Savior.
The answer to the puzzle is in the response of each questioner. The rich young ruler clung to his moral superiority while the jailer immediately accepted the role of healer, a visible sign of acceptance not only of Paul and Silas but of their witness to Jesus Christ. The jailer readily accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and acted upon that assurance. Having been healed in heart he now turned to minister to those in need. The rich young ruler passed the poor and needy by as did the priest and Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan. ( Luke 19: 25-37)
The jailer gave a compelling demonstration of the power of the Gospel. The good news of redemption in Christ alone brings forth gratitude and generosity in the believer. One comes to Christ for healing and goes out to serve. Such a one is known as Christian.

Tom Z

Dear Zane Yi:

I believe inspired writings should be permitted to define sinless perfection. For me, that means the Bible first, as foundation, and secondly, the amplification of Bible truth which I find in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy.

These writings define such perfection both in negative and in positive terms. When we speak of living without sinning, this primarily addresses the negative aspect of this equation, of course. The Bible says we must first "cease to do evil" (Isa. 1:16), before we can "learn to do well" (verse 17). And this passage speaks at length of those social aspects of holiness with which I suspect we all agree in this conversation--relieving the oppressed, attending to the needs of the downtrodden, etc.

A multitude of Bible texts are clear that ceasing to sin through God's power is the duty of the earthly believer (e.g. Psalm 119:1-3,11; Zeph. 3:13; Rom. 8:4; I Cor. 15:34; II Cor. 7:1; 10:4-5; Eph. 5:27; I Thess. 5:23; I Peter 2:21-22; 4:1; II Peter 3:10-14; I John 1:7,9; 2:1; 3:2-3,7; Jude 24; Rev. 3:21; 14:5). But really, this is but the first step in our spiritual growth. This only involves the removal from our lives of that which contradicts the divine will. The positive aspects of holiness must also be implemented, though the extent to which this happens is far more open-ended and less codified in the Sacred Pages. The point about the Biblical requirement of sinless perfection is that while the positive aspects are equally important, it is the negative aspects which must be complete in preparation for heaven. The positive aspects will keep improving throughout our eternal journey.

Ellen White speaks of how, even at Jesus' coming, our growth in sanctification will not cease, even though in advance of that event it will be successfully removed all sin from our lives. In her words:

"It is your work to advance toward perfection, making constant improvement, until at last you are pronounced worthy to receive immortal life. And even then the work of progression will not cease, but will continue throughout eternity" (IHP 186).

How does this work continue throughout eternity? Obviously not through the continuous removal of sin, as this has been accomplished before the second advent. But in terms of growth in service to others and appreciation of the love and grace of our Lord, this will be an eternal process.

I am saddened that your perception of people who believe in Last Generation Theology is primarily one of ascetic isolation and inattention to human suffering. I won't deny that perhaps this has been a shortcoming in the experience of certain devotees of this teaching. But this has most assuredly not been my experience with those who believe this way, most of whom are exceedingly active in helping their neighbors and working to improve the lives of others. I think this is a stereotype you have partaken of which does not mirror reality, especially with the thousands of contemporary Adventist youth and young adults who are embracing the Last Generation message.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

I just figure that God's got a hundred and fourty-four thousand worlds out there waiting to find out what the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil really is, and there are only a few of us, universally speaking, that have been through that experience. (I sure hope those that get sent to reveal that fruit get together and 'flesh' out their experience, such that it is The Universal Knowledge of Good and Evil.) Once that equation is balanced, there are some of us He wants to take along for the ride because of our fathfulness.
I'm following Jesus.

Kevin

I am not interested in what Augustine taught. I am interested in what Paul wrote.

Also M. L. Andreasen was totally rejected for a short period in the mid 50'S. Hebert Douglass revived his theology without attribution in the Book Why Jesus Waits. Although he did quote a host of other sources. He claims he didn't know about Andreasen until it was pointed out after publication. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. Tom Z

Tom Z.
What a delightful commentary on the question of salvation and the two answers! I love such contrasts as these, for they reveal the many faceted characteristics of truth.
And I don't even have to write a sermon this week! I can just copy the post and add a few comments and viola, sermon. Thanks for your insight.

Kevin

You got me, I know who ghost wrote Paxton so I can't comment except to say that he wasn't being complementary just accurate. How long does one hold an error to make it a right?

If Paxton had a purpose it was to dissuade Adventism from this triumphalism. He was pointing out one of the inherent errors of Adventism that was gaining a foothold in the period of his study. Tom Z

To claim that any human can reach sinless perfection and the perfect obedience of Christ is utter blasphemy, an attempt to make humans equal with the sinlessness of Christ--the ONLY sinless one. It is one of the Devil's slickest lies and it implies an arrogance and "works" related earning of salvation, which is the concept at the heart of every heathen religion.

May God remove the scales from the eyes of those who believe this unscripturally supported concept of "last generation perfection" and turn to Christ as their only hope, the center of the Gospel, and the Saviour who saves them completely with His blood, not of works lest any man or woman should boast.

George, you are absolutely right. What is the theory of last-generation perfection good for? It's good for deceiving yet another generation and swerving their focus away from the powerful grace of Jesus Christ to focus on their own belly buttons and whether they are measuring up. This is utter insanity since every teen catches on really quickly to this impossibility. When this is coupled with eternal salvation and they see they cannot attain this since they are human, they turn away--just what the Devil has designed this insidious theory to accomplish.

Instead, the powerful Christ story, his gift of the white robes of righteousness, his deep love is exchanged for a checklsit, as Tom says, to focus on right, wrong, sin and error instead of Jesus's wonderful power to forgive and provide fresh starts and new life.

To insist on Final Generation Sinlessness, is the epitomy of blasphemy since it says that humans can reach the same "level" of sinlessness that Christ did. If so, we did not need part of the Godhead to save us; other humans, sinless, could have accomplished the same and there would not ever been the need for a Saviour. One of the Devil's clever lies.

George, thanks for continuing to hold the banner high of Jesus Christ and not "hope in humans," something utterly impossible.

The Gospel story is centered on Jesus, his gift, and the good news of eternal life--not the good news of sinlessness in this life.

Anonymous1

I am curious to know what is your endgame of this world? what is your eschatological view? while you are at it can you also answer my questions

Let me ask you a question. How is God going to ensure that sin never happens again in the new world without infringing on free will?

If you do not subscribe to LGT, how do you explain suffering in the world and his delay in ending the suffering?

Final question, how is God going to convince heaven and the universe that those who are saved will not relapse? And that nothing further could have been done for the lost?

P.s let me preempt you of a possible answer, Adam, Eve, Lucifer and lost angels had sinless natures before they sinned

are you also saying that Christ cannot keep us from falling?

where is your faith? Jesus can reproduce characters in us that fully reflect him. yours is a denial of Christ's power of saving FROM sin. Do not betray him with a kiss, do not deny the power thereof

Dear "Anonymous1", whoever you are:

I guess the Bible itself is the instigator of this "blasphemy" you abominate so strongly. Consider the following texts, which clearly uphold both the possibility and necessity of sinless obedience on this earth:

"Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord.
"Blessed are they that keep His testimonies, and that seek Him with the whole heart.
"They also do no iniquity; they walk in His ways. . . .
"Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against Thee" (Psalm 119:1-3,11).

"The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies, neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth; for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid" (Zeph. 3:13).

"For what the law could not do, in that in was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.
"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom. 8:3-4).

"Awake to righteousness, and sin not" (I Cor. 15:34).

"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" (II Cor. 7:1).

"For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.
"Casting down imagination, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (II Cor. 10:4-5).

"That He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:27).

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly, and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (I Thess. 5:23).

"Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow in His steps.
"Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth" (I Peter 2:21-22).

"He that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin" (I Peter 4:1).

"Wherefore, brethren, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless" (II Peter 3:14).

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9).

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
"And every man that hath this hope in Him purifieth himself, even as He is pure" (I John 3:2-3).

"Little children, let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous" (I John 3:7).

"Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory, with exceeding joy" (Jude 24).

"And in their mouth was found no guile, for they are without fault before the throne of God" (Rev. 14:5).

It would seem that what you passionately denounce as "blasphemy" is in fact the consistent testimony of Holy Scripture, in both Old and New Testaments. God is able, through His power and by His grace, to make human beings free from sin here on this earth. How can it possibly be "blasphemy" to exalt the power of God to accomplish this triumph in the lives of men and women? The twisted thinking and absence of logic here is absolutely breathtaking!

Is it blasphemy to affirm that the sinless angels are without sin? The Godhead is not the only sinless entity in the universe, though They are surely the only Source of sinlessness. That is the whole point here. How can we be guilty of taking the focus away from God and His grace by promoting this glorious prospect, when in fact it is only God and His grace that make it possible?

Today's young Adventists who are catching this glorious vision have set aside the experiential baggage, self-accommodation, and faintheartedness of past generations. For them, high standards neither intimidate nor discourage, but inspire. It is like President Kennedy's challenge to the rising generation of his day, that "we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe." We too, in contemporary Adventism, presently confront--in Kennedy's words--our own "hour of maximum danger." And like the youthful President, today's striving faithful in Adventism do not shrink from this responsibility. They welcome it.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

As TJG indicates--It is in vain to extenuate the matter. However, I feel compelled to add a note of historical interest to some. I have before me a copy of Edward Heppenstall's book Salvation Unlimited.

It is not just any old copy. On the inside cover in black ink is stamped: "Ministrial Assocaition Library
General Conference of S.D. A. Takoma Park, U.S.A.

On the title page stamped in red is: "Withdrawn from G.C. Library" no date given.

On the inside of the back cover is a library Card to indicate who and when the book was checked out of the library stacks. The card is entirely free from entries.

Of course this series of actions raises questions:

1. Did everone in the Ministrial Association already have a personal copy?

2. Was there fear of thought police might check names of those who might have checked out the book?

3. Why was one of the principal persons in the conversion of Robert Brinsmead--shunned?

4.Was this a quiet war against a theology cross-wise of the Review?

5. Was it because the citations were primarily from reform scholars rather than the "Spirit of Prophecy"?

Given the above, I can understand the venum of Kevin Paulson. I just wish he paid as much attention to the fait of Weimar, Harland, and a host of "sefl-supporting insitutions" in the Bible Belt.

Interesting that the final perfect generation is touted by the likes of the makers of Little Debbie's which sell their products with the slogan: "Liffle Debbie has something for you!"

Seems perfectionism is still a reach. Tom Z

I think that honestly speaking, if you never attended the One gathering in Seattle or if you've not heard any of the messages, not stood in any of the worship sessions, you have an uninformed opinion at best, and a very limited idea of anything Onenish at worse. The article was good but the reality of these One gatherings are realised at the tables, in the the discussions, that were mainly about people retracing their personal Jesus steps, finding first love again and regaining confidence in our reason for being as a church community.
So wait till the sermons come out in a few weeks at www.the1project.org or better still sign up for the next gathering in either Denmark or Chicago and you'll really have something to write about.
In the meantime, I think that 'Haystacks' should be outlawed in the SDA Church, as a schizophrenic salad and not fit for sabbath lunchtimes, except as a ice breaking appetizer!
WHO'S WITH ME???

Eddie, the Haystack Lady would agree with you, as long as you are not promoting getting rid of the One True Haystack.