I just left one thread where the conversation became increasingly entrenched. I am just as guilty as the others involved. It is important for us to find ways of talking openly and hearing honestly. To hear honestly, it is necessary to begin with the assumption that intentions are pure.

Anyway...thanks Brenton for these thoughts...they are a real blessing to the start of the Sabbath (for me.)

Change is inevitable and no matter what we do, changes will come. Either embrace or reject. Is there another choice? The history of the Christian church has drastically changed since its beginning and without change there is no growth, and without growth there is death.

Progressives are always more tolerant of change and are more ready to accept those who may differ. Conservatives wish to maintain the status quo and change is threatening. Attempting to make bedfellows of these two disparate groups will either become successful or fail. If there can be no community of faith, then there well may be schism. After all, schism is not the worst thing: the Jewish Christians separated from the inherited religion; the Protestants separated from the original church; and since then there have been thousands of new denominations. Has that been so bad?
Did it possibly enable more to become Christians than had it been limited to one church? When essential beliefs cannot be agreed upon, schism will be the result.

"schism is not the worst thing"

Preach it, sister :)

I believe Brenton's blog is an opportunity for this Spectrum community to truly engage in a constructive discussion that just might be the beginning of a new paradigm for Seventh-day Adventism. There are a small number of things I would say though to set some parameters on the discussion.
1) Brenton, you suggest that Jesus demonstrated that love, "draws out lasting peace and unity amidst diversity". Jesus Himself said He did not come to bring peace but a sword. The Sword of Truth will cut deep and separate those who do not truly love Jesus - they are not worthy of Him. If you said Jesus sought lasting peace and unity out of diversity I could happily agree with you.
2) You state, "perhaps understanding the factors involved in this increasing religious polarization will help us to respond with compassion toward those with whom we disagree. Great point! You suggested a number of factors that we may "blame". The factors you mentioned may contribute to our hermeneutic, but surely an organisation that is seeking unity rather than war must agree upon the rules of engagement. If we are to enter the discussion with the hope of at least some progress, we will need to play by the same set of rules. The church has developed a set of "rules" (hermeneutical guidelines) that must be taken seriously if we are to move forward together.
2a) Responding, "with compassion toward those with whom we disagree" is of first importance. Unless we can exhibit Christ-like love toward one another no-one will believe we are Christians. N.B. "Christ-like love places the most favourable construction on the motives and acts of others. It does not needlessly expose their faults; it does not listen eagerly to unfavorable reports, but seeks rather to bring to mind the good qualities of others." AA 319

3) Your tentative suggestion that we are perhaps on the brink of a, "seismic semi-millenial shift in Christian experience" somewhat akin to the Great Reformation sounds both scary and exciting. You characterise this as a "renewal". I like the positiveness of that characterisation. This "renewal" suggests to me not an abandoning of previously (or currently) held viewpoints but a re-evaluation and explanation of them in terms post-moderns can relate to.
More later ...

The civil war in the church is already under way. The progressives' takeover of La Sierra was the Fort Sumter of this civil war, but that particular conflict will be played out many times before this is over. From my perspective, it is extremely important to wake traditional Adventists up to the fact of this ongoing war for control of the institutions, because I think there are still enough of us to win the war, if we knew about it and participated.

For progressives like Brenton, by contrast, it is just as important to tamp down any alarming rhetoric, and keep people complacent and asleep. In fact, progressives did not announce their takeover of La Sierra; it was accomplished stealthily and gradually. It only became public knowledge when Louis Bishop, Educate Truth, and some high profile people like David Asscherick and Jay Gallimore brought attention to it. Stealth and quiet moves behind the scenes will continue to be the model for the progressive takeover of the church.

One thing that amuses me about Brenton's piece is that, even while insisting that there is no war in our church, he points out that what is happening in our church is just one instance of a larger movement in Christianity:

"Our own progressive Adventist movement is a small part of a much larger shift occurring throughout Christianity. Phyllis Tickle calls this shift the Great Emergence. Blame it on science, postmodernity, ecumenicism, technology, or whatever current phenomenon you prefer to vilify; but, due to these and many other related factors, Christianity is changing."

Well, if what is happening in Adventism is just a small part of a much larger shift occurring throughout Christianity, then something is certainly happening in Adventism. You may prefer to call it a "shift" or a "movement," or something less martial than a war, but it is obviously very real. And for those of us whose faith is being rejected, and who are being divested of our institutions, it seems sort of like a war.

Another interesting thing about Brenton's piece is his reliance on the Holy Spirit:

"Thus, Spectrum/AF serves to open space for the exploration of new ideas, allowing individuals to decide together what seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us. . . . Like our early Adventist pioneers, we have the privilege of continuing to discover the Holy Spirit's revelation of present truth for our time."

This seems to be the meme of the moment in progressive Adventism, but it is a false doctrine of the Holy Spirit that imagines that He will now contradict what He has previously taught. The Bible writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit; hence, the Bible represents the teachings of the Holy Spirit. (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 1 Thes. 2:13; 1 Cor. 2:9-13; Acts 4:24-25). The previous teaching is what we use to test subsequent teaching. (Isa. 8:20; 1 John 4:1). A new teaching that contradicts the clear previous teaching of the Holy Spirit is not from the Holy Spirit, but from another spirit altogether. (If you believe that Ellen White was an inspired writer, inspired by the Holy Spirit, then the idea that the Holy Spirit is leading us toward Darwinism is even more absurd and self-contradictory.)

I'll have to add this meme or trope, this false conception of the work of the Holy Spirit, to my growing catalog of progressive rhetoric. It already includes:

If you hold to a high view of Scripture, you are engaged in bibliolatry.

Scripture is not the truth, but contains the truth.

The truth is Jesus, not Scripture, or, “I don’t believe in the Bible, I believe in Jesus.”

If you quote Ellen White, then you reject sola Scriptura.

And several others.

"Why not take your information equally from both sides? Why not read the counter-aguments to the critics?

That presumes that both sides have not been given plenty of time. Some of us have been thoroughly doctrinated in Adventist beliefs for more than half a century. It was only AFTER we discovered that there was another side that the questions began, and they have never been answered, merely a covered over.

Just like politics in the U.S.: if one only listens to one party or one candidate and closes his ears to any other, he will only have a half-way understanding. Just so, the majority of Adventists have only been introduced and indoctrinated into Christianity and never studied the entire history of the Christian church and its many accretions through the years--most of them adopted by Adventists. Knowing only about one religious denomination is to stymie one's religious education.

PrBigKev,

Thank you for your response. I am encouraged that you see an opportunity for constructive discussion. Count me in!

When I used the phrase unity amidst diversity I was thinking of Pentecost. A truly diverse group was brought to unity not through uniformity of speech but through a miracle of understanding. Jesus threw open the doors to the Kingdom of God and Paul had to deal with the messy results of an increasingly diverse church in every way - not an increasingly homogeneous church.

I am not sure what you are getting at with your discussion of hermeneutics. But, if you are suggesting that we all must stick to a single perspective (e.g. historical grammatical method), I think you will have unnecessarily stifled what may have otherwise been an interesting and constructive conversation.

I like the way renewal honors the past as well. Looking forward to more of your thoughts. I won't be able to respond though until tomorrow evening.

Thanks, Brenton. I couldn't agree more. As you know, I am for hearing all voices, left, right and center. People get to express their opinions, testify to their beliefs and faith, and engage in dialogue with those holding similar and different perspectives. Right now I am helping someone write a column for Spectrum who comes from the far right survivalist fringe of the church. Why? I hold her to be a sister in the faith, and because it is important to overcome isolation and extend love and community to all. This open space for all perspectives is the only place in the whole culture of our church where this can happen. This is my way of trying to help replace the language of war with that of community and conversation.

What this means is that writers will also get direct feedback from others on this site. Some things said may not be very nice. For those who are used to only speaking to those who agree with them, this may be a shock. Others, thinking of Spectrum as an extension of their home life, have not learned courteous ways of interacting yet. All are learning to "give reasons for the faith that is in you," by adding plausible arguments and back-up to their assertions.

None of this means war. It is normal to discuss and disagree, at least in healthy families.

I am not sure what differentiates traditional Adventism from progressive Adventism, but I am very comfortable in describing the abandonment of sola Scriptura in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, wherever it may be found, as characteristic of apostate Adventism.

I regard heresy more as a breakdown in logic and reason than a moral failing. Breakdowns in logic and reason usually occur as a result of psychological/emotional stresses rather than lack of intelligence or spiritual fervor. Accordingly, I favor a patient and long-suffering approach toward those well-intentioned Church members who are confused about the authority of Scripture.

One word to describe the various response to this post....WOW!!!! I'm almost speachless. I don't think Christ will find a unified "church"(organized denomination) when he comes back but rather individuals(2 or 3 gathered in His name) in purpose in goal and heart combined with the Holy Spirt with Love.

Also, I'd like to add the politics of the world has entered the church. I find that the wealthier the congregants a church has the less the love of Christ is in action.

This is my first post here and I have to say this blog post gives me some encouragement, especially through the difficult spiritual path I'm on. I find it harder to accept doctrine as just taught to me by authority of pastors, elders, etc., and it has been my questioning of the very same doctrines that has led me to reasonably conclude what to sift out and what to firmly establish myself on. I certainly hope we all find a way to come together and talk openly with our questions and move on from name calling when someone does not agree your way.

"Do you suggest the conservative evangelical wing and traditionalist wing make a marriage of convenience until the liberal protestant side is defeated . . ."

John Mark, that's an excellent idea. I wish I'd thought of it. Actually I had thought of it, I just hadn't yet said it out loud. As I've told you on another thread, I relate more to the conservative evangelical position than to the pre-QOD people, but that has the feel of an intramural squabble. All parties to that dispute are using the same authorities--the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. I haven't actually made up my mind about those issues, and much depends on who's making the case--the winsome Herbert Douglass, the irritating Kevin Paulson, or some who go even further than Paulson and insist that we are justified by faith and works. (Herbert Douglass I have a great deal of respect for, Kevin Paulson seems overly aggressive and divisive, and I would flat out try to disfellowship anyone who claims we are justified by faith and works.)

That said, the truly progressive or liberal Adventists, the Seventh-day Darwinists, are trying to hang onto the name "Seventh-day Adventist" while totally effacing the content, completely jettisoning everything but the "culture." With them, it does not have the feel of an intramural squabble. They are bringing in a totally alien worldview and theology.

And I'm not being overly dramatic in my rhetoric. When people start suing each other, that's closest thing there is to war without physical violence, and there will likely be more lawsuits. There is plotting going on; the LSU-3 recorded themselves plotting to use WASC to separate LSU from denominational control. There is an actual real live conspiracy underway to separate LSU from church control, and then use that as the template for cutting all of the colleges loose from church control. The parties are getting organized. GYC is the conservatives getting organized, as is, to a lesser extent, ASI.

By the way, I'm pessimistic about the outcome. Conservatives do not like politics, and we're no good at it. Liberals live for politics; politics is their religion, because they reject actual religion. It is a law of life that any institution that isn't explicitly, militantly, and hyper-vigilantly conservative will be liberalized. It will happen to the SDA Church; in fact it is happening with a rapidity that I'm just barely beginning to comprehend.

"The (hidden) goal of Spectrum seems to be to tear down every one of the Adventist church's beliefs and to make you either an atheist or a Roman Catholic." Pagophilus is right on, as usual. I wanted to say what he said in his first paragraph, but he said it better. Thanks, Pag.

"I believe that the majority of Spectrumites will leave the bona fide SDA church, and start a psuedo-evangelical movement that suites their worldly, compromised view of Christianity." - TruthWaved

Yes, and there will be a huge sign in front of every new church,

"CHURCH FOR SINNERS ONLY. SAINTS ARE UNWELCOME"
(Please bring only your Bible!)
--------------------------

John Mark: "You're all giving Truth Wave way to much attention. "

You are right. His comments are so out of any logic.

By the way, his "prophecy" is not going to be fulfilled - which is not a problem for Adventists, we are used to it... But I say it because Spectrumites are strong people - on both sides - and the progressives are going nowhere. Sometimes I have the impression that the conservatives would like to get rid of those who keep seeking some changes, but this is not going to happen. But, don't have a false expectation, the progressives are staying for good, and yes, they envision a changed church.

The most needed change right now is to eliminate women's discrimination and the "machista" control of the church.
(Like in the Congress where a bunch of men decide the contraception issue for women,same happens in the church where a bunch of men decide whether women can be ordained or not)

"It was only AFTER we discovered that there was another side that the questions began, and they have never been answered, merely a covered over."

Elaine,

It's good to have you back at full speed! Hope you are doing well again.

You are 100% right in your statement. I remember how frustrated with the church I became when 30 years ago I learned about the "another side," I had spent my life until then as a very dedicated SDA believer. Even spent 4 years of my college life studying Theology. I remember how painful it was during those months at the end of the 70s when I spent hundreds of hours re-studying the whole package and reading all the new books available about the facts that had been hidden from church members (and clergy as well) for so many years.
Des Ford was certainly the major impact, because he clearly and honestly demonstrated the fallacy of the 1844-IJ doctrine. And than came a domino of books. The plagiarism hit me strong...That's when I became a "Sola Scriptura" defender.

I am amazed that after all those issues being publicized, the church still stand by and teaches those unbiblical doctrines to the new generation(s). Then, when they discover they have been deceived, no wonder many leave the church!

Des Ford was certainly the major impact, because he clearly and honestly demonstrated the fallacy of the 1844-IJ doctrine.

George...I've heard of this but not known much about it. Perhaps you can fill me in. Thanks, Charles

"Conservatives do not like politics, and we're no good at it. Liberals live for politics; politics is their religion, because they reject actual religion." - David Read

David, I liked what you were writing, until I read this, which I found kind of awkward and poor taste to say the least. Your five points are totally untrue:

1) Conservatives don't like politics,
2) Conservatives are not good at politics,
3) Liberals live for politics,
4) Politics is their (liberals') religion,
5) Liberals reject actual religion

Are you sure you really believe this????

Brenton:

As I see it, the centerpiece of your article is "Where now is our authority?" or simply “Where is our authority?” The direction our church is headed is directly related to the answer to this question.

For the traditionalist their "authority" is threefold: Scripture, Ellen White and the long established traditions of our church. These provide the basis for their authority and they do not question “it.” The traditionalist view themselves as loyal, obedient followers to their “authority” and take it upon themselves to defend it against all attacks. After all, we are talking about eternal life here and their “authority” provides a safe path to get you there in this constantly changing world.

To attack a traditionalist all one needs to do is question their “authority.” Questions, substantive questions that is, are foreign to the traditionalist mindset; that’s not their job. Their job is to be obedient first and foremost and to make sure everyone else is as well. For them, evidence of the Spirit moving is when everyone falls in line and uniformity is achieved.

On the other hand, the progressives are quite different. As they see it, their job is to question everything and take nothing for granted. Because of this, progressives love to ask traditionalist questions regarding their “authority.” This does not sit well with the traditionalists; they really don’t like it. To question is to doubt, and as we all know, doubt comes from the devil (just ask Horatio, Pagophilius or David Reed).

The bottom line is this: Unity in our church will only be achieved under two scenarios:

1. When the traditionalist silence the progressives, or

2. When the progressives quit asking questions.

Neither is likely, and neither will be achieved through Love.

tg

"The struggle is played out in the writings of the New Testament. But the outcome was balanced."

That is an assessment made some 2000 years later. There was no instant communication and the various, scattered churches each had a slightly different version of the Gospel; practiced differently, and as later councils showed, were not at all of one accord. Even in Paul's letters to the churches, he recognized there were differences which should be expected when there could not be unity with all as there is today.

But I agree completely with the church's deception: If your parents continue to lie to you, how long can you trust them with anything they say? The disillusionment hits in the gut and all those pastors, teachers, and denominational employees who were once looked up to now become untrustworthy. Perhaps, reading the minutes of the 1919 Bible conference where there was a deliberate inent to keep the information about EGW under wraps was the last straw.

Admittedly, the majority of members to this day may know nothing about all these revealed facts, but for the curious reader, there was such determined effort to
bolt the door and keep the secrets locked away, that the church lost thousands with those tactics. Many of us decided there was nothing to be gained with having the name of SDA as it had a sullying affect and rather simply not affiliate with any church.
Belonging to any church is like joining a club with mutual interests and when there are
no mutual interests worthy of continuing the relationship, why bother?

I do occasionally attend one of the local "progressive" SDA churches (I've never yet heard distinctive SDA doctrines from the pastor). It is a Christian church far more than a SDA church. Membership not required, attendance welcomed.

I believe that George Tichy raises a most salient point. Traditionalists don't like questions and discussions, they like answers. They consider their so called "unchanging" traditions and authority to be the solid rock on which they stand, all other ground is sinking sand. Thus, when they hear people questioning their authority, they become enraged. They believe them to be deceivers who are tearing people away from the Truth.

Thus, they respond like a warrior on a crusade towards the "enemy." Thus, progressives found themselves pushed away even more by the traditionalists, and the progressives begin to adopt the us vs them mentality.

The only way for the conflict to end is for the traditionalists to embrace the idea of the free marketplace of ideas or for the progressives to simply stay silent. Or for the two groups to recognize their similarities and embrace a spirit of compromise. To our detriment, this rarely occurs.

Bradley, I embrace the free marketplace of ideas. I believe everyone should be free to believe whatever they want, or nothing at all. Freedom of religion is one of the founding pillars of the United States, and very important to all of us.

However, the free marketplace of ideas should not be inside the SDA Church. The SDA Church is a community of shared beliefs. In other words, to be a member the community, you need to share the beliefs of the community.

The competing model of the SDA Church, put forth by the progessives, is that it is a sub-culture or family, and everyone born into it remains a member of it for life, regardless if he continues to believe much, little, or any of the doctrine of the church. I reject that model. The shared belief comes first, and from the shared belief comes the community-ness and the family-ness of the church. The shared belief is primary, the other secondary.

George, I stereotype; it's faster. The five characteristics are stereotypical, but may not be true of you personally, or any other given individual.

Brenton, the covenant of circumcision was only for the descendants of Abraham. (Gen. 17:9-14) Those who were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1) were essentially saying that unless you become a Jew, you can't be saved. Paul rejected this teaching, saying essentially that you don't have to become a Jew first in order to become a Christian. The Holy Spirit was not changing its mind or contradicting its previous teaching.

And you're grasping at straws. Even those Sunday-keepers with a high view of Scripture who argue that the Sabbath commandment is no longer binding do not argue that the history of creation given in the Bible is no longer valid or reliable. They acknowledge the history, just claim that the day of remembrance doesn't need to be observed anymore. But you're going even beyond that. You're arguing that foundation of the SDA Church's signature doctrine is wrong; that the Holy Spirit was leading us to uphold the Sabbath and the creator God just a hundred years ago, but has suddenly changed His mind. That's a non-starter.

David Read,

I see some practical difficulties in your call to unite against the enlightenment protestant wing of the church. The primary problem is that this fight is simply not happening at the level of the pews and local churches (maybe it is in CA, I haven't seen it in the Midwest) we have much more pressing issues. I have never heard someone propose evolution or higher criticism in the church; the only Adventist places I have heard these ideas promoted was the college classroom. What I do see as a very growing and prevalent problem on the ground level, is growing anti-intellectual conspiracy minded fanaticism. Walter Veith has become a household name in the church and his ideas are spreading like wildfire, when they should only be shared confidentially between him and a mental health professional. And then there's the hysteria of the omega apostasy which has convinced a large portion of the church that one of our strongest and most conservative institutions (from a conservative evangelical perspective not from a 1930s Adventist perspective), the Seminary, has fallen to eastern religion.

These are the problems I see from a pastoral perspective that are truly threatening the spiritual life of the flock. These are the things that are taking people's eyes off of Jesus and the gospel, and toward fighting fellow believers (even the most conservative ones), and imaginary problems. For the church to remain a healthy a vital place focused on a truly Biblical message these problems must not be allowed to fester. Therefore, while I am as opposed to evolution as you are, I am not inclined to call a truce on the forces that are wreaking havoc at the level of the pews in order to purify our tertiary institutions.

There's also a problem with your approach from a strategical standpoint. If we have such fanaticism on the right wing that they're convinced our most conservative institutions are fallen; they are not going to be inclined to try to save any of it. They won't be satisfied with anything short of a Weimar type institution which could never attain the academic standards of our current institutions. So, in my mind, the fires on the right are just as threatening as those one the left. But then I'm sure it looks different when you're sitting in CA instead of SW MI, the church sure looked a lot healthier in KS-NE.

I wish the leadership would publicly condemn the Walter Veith and the omega apostasy hysteria, but instead we hear dog whistles toward this group that fan the flame. I can't blame the people in the pews, because some people have weaker, unbalanced minds, that are easily given to such ideas. However, that's why we're a community and we have leaders to steer people into greener pastures. So far I'm not seeing that, at least on the GC level we have a leadership that is focusing on protecting us from eastern religions, which is currently about as big of a threat as Pentecostals forgetting to emphasize tongues.

Michael,

I too am pleased that you have conservative friends interested in collaboration, dialogue, and acceptance. That is my experience as well in the local church communities I have been a part of. I wish more conservative voices with that perspective would join the discussion here on the blog.

Marcio,

Thank you for sharing your fascinating international perspective. I hope your last sentence becomes our shared reality.

I mention it specifically because the rationale, indeed, the very authority they gave for their decision regarding this issue, which was tearing the church apart, was, "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us," not "It is written..."

Brenton, the taking of the gospel to the gentiles was accompanied by extraordinary manifestations of the Holy Spirit. (See, Acts 10 and 11) At the Jerusalem council, these "signs and wonders" were discussed: "God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us (Acts 15:8) . . . The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them." (Acts 15:12)

But the miraculous manifestations by themselves might not have carried the day. So, after Paul and Barnabas finished telling of them, James stood up and added an "it is written" component to the argument:

"When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

“‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’"

Acts 15:13-17, quoting the Septuagint of Amos 9:11-12.

Even with the supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit, there was still a felt need to cite Scripture, where it was foretold that the gentiles would come to the Lord. The end result of the miraculous manifestation combined with the "it is written" component of the argument, was the judgment "that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." Acts 15:19.

This is a far cry from "well, it seemed like a good idea at the time." We've been told that "there is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Prov. 14:12; 16:25. There's no safety in something seeming right. And as we learn from the Jerusalem council, there's not even complete safety in miraculous manifestations. The ultimate test is the word of God.

David, I don't agree.
The errors of evolution are not the cornerstone of our faith. I have been taught like you, that evolution is all together a fairy tale (and I still believe in Creation), but this turned out to be not so accurate at all. And it has made many of us suspicious of science (and very uncritical in pseudo-science and conspiracy ideas à la Veith..)
So at least 2 bad sides of this treatment of evolution. Did that threaten my faith in Jesus? It would have done so, if it had been the cornerstone of my faith...
So I think the question is not, what reason does the SDA church have to exist (focussing too much on differences), but the question should always be: does it harm my faith in Jesus. And in that case, I think Walter Veith is very dangerous. May be his doctrine is sound, as you put it. But so was the doctrine of many pharisees. Sound doctrine doesn't automatically make someone into a follower of Christ. Sound doctrine can still focus on the wrong things and reject the true cornerstone.
Veith focusses on conspiracy and fear and leads many people away from our center. Veith's focus is not on Christ, even though he might talk about Christ with his lips.
Ask people what they remember after listening to him...Has his speach drawn them closer to Christ out of love, or has it rather evoced fear and some kind of proudness to belong to the small group of people who share some "secret" knowledge..?
His wrong focus is much more dangerous in my eyes than the way evolution is taught in LaSierra, (also because I doubt your description of the actual teaching).

"Veith focusses on conspiracy and fear and leads many people away from our center. Veith's focus is not on Christ, even though he might talk about Christ with his lips.
Ask people what they remember after listening to him...Has his speach drawn them closer to Christ out of love, or has it rather evoced fear and some kind of proudness to belong to the small group of people who share some "secret" knowledge..?"

Marianne...I think this is a valid point and question. There is so much I don't know about what Veith teaches, so I'm not speaking to veracity. I think veracity is very important, and I wonder what, if anything, he's suggesting has any real basis. That said, I'd like to add a secondary thought...we should ask people if attending his lectures causes them to pause and reevaluate their previous set of beliefs. In other words, do the lectures spark a new journey of discovery concerning SDA understanding of the Bible, or do they result in a sense of arrogant pride in secret knowledge about secret societies. Again...the problem with Veith as an example is that the veracity of his claims is highly questionable.

I've been mulling around a theory about "conspiracy"...that it can ignite an openness in us to explore something. You could argue that Darwin encountered a conspiracy as he pieced together his observations and arrived at the possibility that things evolved, as opposed to being created. It changed his paradigm.

In this forum, I've seen so many people patently dismiss those who would engage in 'conspiracy' as feeble minded, mentally ill, intellectually weak, lazy, or.... But I've been pondering this question because I see it play out in my life, and in the lives of everyone around me based on the undeniable popularity of conspiracy promoters...most of whom are not religious.

One personal example. When my wife was pregnant with our first baby, we first went to a 'normal' doctor. In each session, the doctor asked what our questions were. We never knew what to ask, and he didn't volunteer much. We felt like we were along for the ride with zero sense of control. My wife heard from a friend about a midwife, and she decided we should look into it. From the beginning, we felt like a part of the process, getting real information to work with. Then the midwife recommended a birthing class. This class employed the conspiracy (grounded in veracity). Not only did they teach us what they thought we needed to know to successfully navigate a natural child birth, they went to great lengths exposing the problems created by the modern medical establishment (hospital procedure, pharmaceutical pressure, narrowly focused education of doctors, artificial time demands, etc.) The class told us about these things and presented tools for circumventing these mistakes. It really was an "us or them" reality. When we discussed what we had learned with our sister-in-law...a young doctor who'd just finished her internship in obstetrics, she told us that this was all false and did not match what she had just learned in med school. As the day drew nearer, we received more and more pressure from people around us to reconsider and trust the modern medical approach. But in our guts, what we had learned in our "little club" of the birthing class had exposed the dangers and limitations of the modern medical approach. My wife delivered our son using her God given tools...no medicine...no surgery...no real intervention. After that, she delivered two more relying on this knowledge...and we've shared it with many others.

Something about the conspiracy element...the fact that we felt like we knew something that our naysayers did not understand...this opened us. It sparked not only a willingness to learn more and go forward, but changed the paradigm of how we viewed modern medicine. It generated a healthy skepticism in us.

Again...I'm not arguing that this excuses Veith for false teachings. And you may be 100% accurate in supposing that his presentations do not actually generate any real interest in Christ. But I am questioning the way that so many people on Spectrum are so quick to dismiss 'conspiracy' as the drivel for the feeble mind. This is a tricky subject, and I don't hold a definitive answer, but more of us are motivated or instigated by conspiracy than this forum is allowing.

charles,
i grew up here and i wanted to come back - purely nostalgic reason, i guess!

Marcio,
I lived in São Paulo, next to the former Colegio adventista Brasileiro (CAB), which then changed to Instituto Adventista de Ensino (IAE) and now it's UNASP. I studied in that school from 1st grade until finishing college (Theology) in 1972.

Adventism in Brazil (actually, BraSil) was built on the salvation by works approach. The theology changed significantly when JEROME P. JUSTESEN went down there to teach theology in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He was almost crucified by the "conservative teachers" down there but he was able to train several classes of new pastors finishing the college degree teaching them a new theological perspective. He taught Justification by Faith. He changed theology in Brasil. I was his student secretary for two years, and kept the friendship throughout the years until He passed away in Florida, in August/2010.

I have been out of the country for 22 years now, and I have not followed much what has happened down there. But I bet they still rely a lot on salvation by works. This is actually an easier way to convert Catholics in a very Catholic country. Catholics in general have poor knowledge of theological issues. They just go to the mass, and this is understood as their salvation path. Thus, it's easy to convert them from one "salvation by works system" to another, and then advance the proper "indoctrination".

Another point is that they are very strong in utilizing EGW in their proselytism. Just convince someone that she was appointed by God and that her message is perfect and impeccable, and BINGO, people fall for it easily. It's like a trap. Of course they don't disclose everything that is known about the SOP. Even the pastors are usually poorly informed about it all.

Well, what about you, where did you live?
George

Marcio, if you go to the Gemeindeakademie in Mühlenrahmede, we might meet one day. My 4 children are half Brazilians...But we live in Tübingen... nice to hear about you...

David Read,

The harmfulness of a threat should be measured with the likelihood and widespread nature of the threat. Certainly lightening will be much more harmful to those it hits than fast foods, but that doesn't mean public health officials should ignore fast food until they get lightening under control. I'd also disagree with you that Walter Veith's theology is sound; his view of the world requires Satan to be in complete control at all levels of society and all other churches except the Adventist church; it denies the salt of the earth paradigm, it narrows the Kingdom of God and the great controversy to one narrow level, giving Satan almost completely sovereignty. This cosmology is seriously at odds with the Bible, not to mention lacking factual basis, and it's a heresy that has serious real life consequences for how people interact with the world and other Christians, you know how we keep the second greatest commandment. And then there's the fact that he's constantly breaking the commandment about not bearing false witness.

However, there's no reason the church can't walk and chew gum at the same time, and confront both sides head on; however, it seems all energy is being focused on La Sierra and being aware of supposed eastern mysticism in the Seminary because horror of horrors they're teaching pastors to have a personal walk with God.

Graeme Sharrock,

I do not use those terms lightly as a put down, or to be unkind. Mental in-balance, fanaticism, and such problems, are not something I take at all lightly as I've seen a lot of it up close. Walter Veith's thinking quite frankly sound like to me like someone suffering from a form of paranoid schizophrenia. That seems like the more generous explanation, as if he's a mentally balanced person, he should know better, and he's making money on other people who are less mentally balanced. It may not seem nice to talk about people like that, but at some point we have to face the music. Calling Islam a conspiracy of the Catholic church goes beyond being eccentric.

I also don't think you can compare those who were suspicious of Hitler or other despots to Walter Veith conspiracy thinking. There were solid rational reasons to fear these leaders. Veith's conspiracies could be more accurately compared to anti-Semetic conspiracies that led up to the holocaust. Such things as Henry Ford's Protocols of the Elders of Zion, belong to same genre of thought as Walter Veith. Replace Jewish elders running the world with Catholic bishops, cardinals, and Jesuits; and I'm afraid you might find the two ideas quite similar.

""why haven't we found real, undeniable proof of macro evolution after these many years of searching?"

There are thousands of dinosaur and other repitilian fossils. From whence or where did they evolve or emerge? Where are their ancestors? The ancient bones of humanoids, dated hundreds of thousands of years have yet to be explained by the YEC believers. Scientific discoveries have raised many more questions than Creationists have adequately and satisfactorily explained.

Ooops wrong thread...never mind. :-)

With science, the "jury is always out" which means that new discoveries may topple previous ones. For years, evolution was vigorously denied but with the advances demonstrating microevolution, that had to be accepted.

No one has presented a better position to which I subscribe than that religion and science are two different magesteria and trying to combine them into a rational and logical way will never be achieved. This is how many scientists can study evolution and still believe in Creation by faith as reasoning would never lead to that conclusion. Scientists write of their studies and discoveries but what new can be discovered or written about faith that is not subjective? Is it not a very personal choice? Science must be objectively substantiated; faith is always subjective.

Elaine, you need to become more familiar with biology. But, you asked a good question: where are the ancestors of the dinosaurs? Since they did not evolve, but were either created by God, or were the product of genetic engineering, their supposed evolutionary ancestors do not exist. The existing fossils were buried by the flood, of course. I keep asking where the transitional fossils are, but no one has an answer. Why? Because evolution did not occur. If it did, the fossil record would be dominated by transitional forms. As for human fossils, they are not hundreds of thousands of years old. The dating methods are seriously flawed. Spectrumites hate to hear this and love to mock those of us who make these assertions, but they cannot prove us wrong. They can only foam at the mouth and wish for us to go away.

It's not confusing at all. Does that Bible say that Noah took only adult animals on the ark? Reptiles continue to grow their entire lives. Young dinosaurs would have easily fit on the ark. And it also says plainly that there were 2 of the unclean and 7 of the clean animals. Some authorities believe it means 2 pairs and 7 pairs. Either way, it's pretty plain.

Brenton Reading,

The subject of the community's relationship to the text and authority is a subject that greatly interests me and I have been pondering lately. It seems to me, the model for discerning truth in the Roman Catholic Church was like a monarchy and then in the reformation it turns to an almost libertarian mini-archy, as every individual is said to have to be able discern the truth with all certainty by himself with the Scriptures and the Spirit's illumination. The new spirit can be seen in Martin Luther's debate with Erasmus on freedom of the will. Erasmus states his position tentatively, in a spirit of academic camaraderie. Luther responds by bashing him for his lack of certainty, calls it a sign of weakness, and basically throws the olive branch back in his face. Fundamentalism hadn't begun, but you might say it's spirit was born.

Anyway this leaves me wondering if there isn't middle ground between the authoritarian Roman Catholic model and the libertarian chaos of the Protestant model. A Catholic friend I discuss these issues with, made a good point that the protestant model often allows for a survival of the fittest kind of theology. It seems most impractical to me to suggest that any individual can pick up the Bible and come up with a balanced healthy view. I think people can do much better than the Catholic Church gave them credit for, but four centuries of Protestantism would suggest that plenty of people come to the Bible and come out of it with unhealthy and unbalanced views. We could suggest that they're just not doing proper exegesis or they're not utilizing a proper hermeneutic with a proper understanding of Greek and Hebrew...but all that either requires that we accept that doubtful proposition that everybody can do such studies equally well, or that we subscribe to some kind of survival of the fittest model.

Then there's the problem of a strict Sola Scriptura being a bit of an inner contradiction, considering neither the cannon nor the doctrine of Sola Scriptura are found in Scripture. Both of these were conclusions a community came to. So my hypothesis is that we need to come to affirmation of the communities role in understanding truth, but the community must involve all the members; thus incorporating the priesthood of all believers. My Catholic friend says my Protestantism can't survive asking such questions and that I'm on the road to Rome...

Similar to the recent power of crowd sourcing and communal movements, I think it is likely that we will increasingly answer this question of primary authority with Spirit-led community.

Brenton, at the risk of making another divisive, polarizing mischaracterization, it sounds like you're arguing that because we have cell phones and can organize flash mobs, we can do away with biblical authority and decide truth by a majority vote. But truth comes from the word of God. When that ceases to be your primary authority, you are being led by a spirit, but it is not the Spirit of God.

David Read, there is an Adventist problem which makes us like Rome.

That Roman problem is that you and I and a few million other Adventists have made Sister White into an infallible Adventist pope. We believed that every word she spoke ex cathedra, like the doctrine of Papal Infalability, had to be true and free of error.

This is the basic reason I used to, and you and others in our church still do cling to increasingly impossible opinions like a short term chronology for Creation.

I have not become a Darwinist, I just have seen that a short term chronlogy for Creation is not possible based on overwhelming evidence. The Bible and Ellen White are true that God is the Creator. And as you well know there is abundant scientific evidence for Intelligent Design.

Sister Ellen used the common understanding of Christians in her day in speaking of a 6,000 year old world, and as usual God does not correct the science of his prophets.

That is why Moses was not corrected when he felt the firmament was firm and the rain came from windows in the heavens that periodically opened. Or that the earth had foundations or pillars holding it up (on what? Turtles all the way down?). Or that the sun moves around the Earth.

That is why Jesus spoke of curing epilepsy as casting out demons. Epilepsy is demonic in a sense. But you know it is not caused by a fallen angel sitting insite your patient's head. Peter, James, and John didn't know that and Jesus did not give them scientific corrections.

If you permit dear Sister White to be a spokeswoman for God, but fallible or permitted to use her science to express God's truth, then the reinterpretation of Genesis in the face of new scientific facts becomes our church's exciting task, instead of our death knell.

And you would start a web site helping our theologians and our scientists synthesize an expanded Creation story, instead of supressing this needed task.

We as a church need to begin to study and pray for new light to see how to re-interpret the story. I assure you based on my own experience, Sabbath becomes more precious when I now have to study a 13.8 Billion year Creation story, than it ever was when thinking it was all magical just a short time ago, with my childlike thinking.

Speculating that the 6 great days of creation might not only be God's adaptation of the truth about Creation to the world view of the ancients, but maybe 6 literal Heavenly day of a Heavenly duration, instead of 6 solar days, has offered new possible explanations of how 2,000 BC explanations can be compatible with 2000 AD knowledge in a general way.

Please don't call me an Adventist Darwinian Evolutionist. I don't believe creation happened by itself, and I don't believe Darwin explained how life happened or progressed. Genesis outlines my beliefs, but I now see how each day was a battle in the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, starting in darkness and after God's interventions ending in light. So the abundant Geological evidence of an ongoing war during the creation days is not surprising to someone who was taught the Great Controversy by my church leaders. I just now see that the controversy continued during Creation, not just after Adam's fall.
As CS Lewis believed, Satan's fall before the beginning of Creation of Earth, explains why death was here. As Jesus said, Satan was a liar and murderer "from the Beginning" of Creation, not from the fall of Adam.

If you can agree to disagree with me, but not call me an Adventist Darwinian, then I'll agree to not call you an Occult Adventist Papist.

David,

At the risk of belaboring the point, I think that while the early church was in conversation with scripture, there was simply no precedent for the situation they found themselves in. Their hearts, minds, and community had been expanded and a new paradigm had to be established in order to move forward and keep the diverse fledgling movement together. The very clear textual guidance regarding circumcision was not applicable in their new context.

To Jack's point, we are in a similar situation now which is again without biblical precedent in terms of our cosmology and scientific understanding. To base our response to our current situation entirely on the cosmology and prescientific revolution understanding of the incarnationally limited though I believe divinely inspired biblical authors is as untenable as attempting to enforce Jewish customs on the growing early Gentile church would have been.

Our own hearts, minds, and communal human understanding have been expanded exponentially in the past 150 years not to mention the past 500 years or even 2000 years and just like the time of the Great Reformation and the time of the early church, the church is again going through the painful process of entering a new paradigm.

I appreciate the role traditionalists have to play in ensuring that change does not happen in a premature, irresponsible way. However, I also appreciate the role progressives have to play in moving us forward into the future to which God calls us.

David Read,

I never said only the trained theologians can interpret Scripture. It is a completely individualistic approach that encourages such a view, because people with less skill in interpreting the Bible cannot turn to a community to broaden their understanding and keep them from falling into some kind of heresy. Or do you really think every single person has equal skill at coming to a proper understanding of the Bible? This leaves you with the problem of how to explain the fact that even according to our understanding most people get it wrong. You could blame all that upon their sinfulness clouding their reasoning, but I don't feel I can say I'm any less sinful than the guy who read the Bible and came up with a different conclusion, even those who derive dangerous heresy.

Ironically, however it is the conservative who want a more top-down community understanding of Scripture in the church, that is tending more toward Catholic ecclesiology. They are the ones that to make a statement of belief voted on by the majority (if you can call 60,000 people degrees removed from the conference constituency which is elected by committees itself spending a week to deliberate on five years, a majority) the ultimate authority in the governance of the church. It is your side that cheered when this centralized agency enforced it's beliefs on the NAD. So it is rather ironic that you accuse your foes of jettisoning Sola Scriptura for majority rule, when your side of the war is calling more and more centralized control and for everyone to be judged by GC sanctioned beliefs.

John Mark: All well said!

The belief that righteousness requires us to fight or exclude other believers due to disagreement is so sadly off-base. The history of Protestantism is clear about the never-ending nature of splitting that is required by such logic. How many denominations/sects are we up to, & counting? It's a blight on the reputation of Christianity.

Cutting off is not healthy in human relationships. Not in families, & not in churches. In some situations it may prove to be the lesser of evils, but is an evil nonetheless. A split is a tragic failure for Christians just as divorce is a tragic failure for individuals, & certainly not something to be promoting in either relationship as the best solution to differences.

I appreciate this article & hope we all let it sink into our hearts & minds. It's easy to get along w/ people who are most like us. It takes the miracle of love to hold us together when we are dissimilar. Our witness to our Lord is infinitely greater when we reach across the divides than demonstrating we get along no better than those who make no claim to follow the God who is love.

John Mark, you may not have said precisely, "only the trained theologians can interpret Scripture," but that seemed to be the clear import of this paragraph:

It seems most impractical to me to suggest that any individual can pick up the Bible and come up with a balanced healthy view. I think people can do much better than the Catholic Church gave them credit for, but four centuries of Protestantism would suggest that plenty of people come to the Bible and come out of it with unhealthy and unbalanced views. We could suggest that they're just not doing proper exegesis or they're not utilizing a proper hermeneutic with a proper understanding of Greek and Hebrew...but all that either requires that we accept that doubtful proposition that everybody can do such studies equally well . . .

I'd be hard-pressed to find a more eloquent argument for the notion that the Bible should be taken out of the hands of the people and reserved to an official magisterium, properly tutored in Greek and Hebrew. I seriously doubt that even Fr. Jim could have done better than that.

As to majority votes, they are not the way to arrive at truth, but they are a reasonable way to govern a body of believers once truth has been arrived at by prayerfully studying Scripture.

And I'm glad to read what you report about the seminary.

Brenton, at the risk of belaboring the point, the rite of circumcision was a national and ethnic rite, a physical identifier of the Jewish nation. But the Jewish Christians, including Peter and Paul, did not think it necessary that the gentile Christians should be forced to symbolically join the Jewish nation. I don't consider that an example of the Holy Spirit changing His mind, so to speak.

But if your point is that the Holy Spirit can change His mind, and lead in a direction opposite to His previous leading of the Bible writers, why do you need an example from Scripture? If Scripture is not authoritative, you don't need an example from Scripture. That you're searching for an example, even stretching for one, suggests that you know that Scripture is authoritative.

George T. and David Read,

Certainly I don't mean to imply one needs to be a theologian to understand the gospel. However, it's increasingly seeming to me that the wisdom of community, which is about a lot more than theologians is an important safeguard in not losing the gospel. Neither you nor David Read has explained the case of people how the Bible alone takes care of people who read it and yet still fall off the rails into this or that heresy. Cannot the Christian community provide a diversity and wideness of thought that protects the individual from tripping on the narrowness of their singular view? And George you say anyone with a little education and the ability to read and think will be able to think will be able to understand the gospel, which I generally agree with; but what about the few people who cannot read or think? The gospel is them as well is it not? If we say the gospel is completely limited to a text and the community has no role, then where is the gospel for illiterate? Finally I still haven't heard a good answer for how we can completely deny the wisdom of the community when it was a community that handed the Bible itself, and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to us. The cannon didn't drop out of the sky with a front page instruction manual giving the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I still have full faith, I'm just honestly deal with those questions. I am not willing to accept the Catholic explanation which puts man above the Word of God, nonetheless these challenges which Catholics have brought up, demand an answer, at least to my mind. My pursuit is always the truth, so I'll appreciate any serious insights regarding these questions, telling me I'm going Catholic or that I'm not being faithful to the reformation is not a serious answer.

>>> but what about the few people who cannot read or think?

John,

Those people will surely need assistance from someone to read the Bible to them.

By the way, about that semi-quote of yours,... smart move to "dissuade any..." :-)

Since I have written a great deal here, and there's the chance of me being taken out of context allow me to make one thing crystal clear. Contrary to David's assertion, I am absolutely, completely, 100% opposed to any effort to take the Bible out of anybody's hands! There is pretty much no action I could oppose more vehemently. My question is not whether we should take any of God's light away from anybody, of course we absolutely should not, but whether God has left us with any further guidance. Of course, whatever role the community might have it must always be about bringing God's light to more people, never about taking it away.

Charles, I too have noticed how frequently the quarterly reviews basic doctrines, over and over. I think I understand why: because the number of self-identified Adventists who publicly deny these basic doctrines keeps growing and growing. Poor Cliff Goldstein Seems to think that if he will just explain the doctrines clearly enough and often enough, people (at least Adventist people) will believe them.

Unfortunately, that isn't true. Cultural Adventists understand the doctrines, they just don't believe them, and they don't think that believing them is a significant part of being an Adventist. For the cultural Adventist, Adventism is not a belief system, it is a sub-culture you're born into. And you can't be born again (so to speak) just because you've become an atheist, or a Darwinist; so you will always be an Adventist no matter what you believe.

To John Mark

First of all, I've begun to appreciate you as a thinker from your posts here. You engage in a way that credits you and moves the conversation forward. I'm glad you are here.

Above, you referred to W Veith's mental condition, in response to my post about ad hominem arguments, Here is a way to think about this. In the long term, I believe, a person's mental status cannot be used as an argument for or against their ideas. History is full of cases where not only have great ideas come from people who at that time or later were unhinged in some way, but they often suffered greatly in the meanwhile from social prejudice and persecution. The art and literary worlds are full of persons with bi-polar disorders, depression, schizophrenia, etc., and this became at times an advantage in creative thought and expression against abusive social norms. Pathologizing is easy compared to the more difficult task of weighing someone's contributions critically, and in the end is unproductive.

Second, mental status is a very precarious thing, and many of us are closer to the edge than we let on. Unless we have specialty training, it is unwise to make diagnoses of others in public forums. However, if we see someone threatening or doing harm to themselves or others, it is right to intervene. Perhaps this is what you think is happening. In which case, I'd be interested in the pastoral or psychological guidelines that you think should be employed.

tg...

Thanks for the information. For what it is worth, I don't think any founders of any denomination would recognize their denominations today. That is part of the point of Brenton's article...society has changed.

Best,
Charles

>> Unfortunately, that isn't true. Cultural Adventists understand the doctrines, they just don't believe them, and they don't think that believing them is a significant part of being an Adventist. For the cultural Adventist, Adventism is not a belief system, it is a sub-culture you're born into

David Read, you are correctly describing one of the categories of SDA, but there are more

There are SDA who see the denomination as having intrinsic value
) fundamentalist SDA, who want a literal reading of the Pentateuch and EGW
) moderate SDA, who treat EGW with respect but not awe, who value the Sabbath and the health message but not unclean foods or 1844
) liberal SDA, who want a return to the time where there was no creed, but instead a search for truth

There are SDA who attend basically for family reasons,
) mainstream Christians
) non-churched Christians
) agnostics or atheists

Then there are the under 18's, who are all there because their parents took/take them, who fall into any one of the above categories, but who really have never had a chance to make up their own minds without having someone putting pressure on them

So, you see, you are describing one end of a spectrum while inhabitting the other - but missing the 90% in the middle

/Bevin

Thank you,

it wasn't that hard, was it? Would you also expunge my name from the authors list? Tx again.

That may take some time as the list is periodically auto-generated. - website editor

Bogdan,
I am an experienced Psychologist and I can easily recognize when someone is angry. They may be in denial, but they are angry. May be you don't see it this way, but remember that anger often is disguised.
Well, don't tell me you have been HAPPY with all this, right?

And more, there is nothing wrong in becoming angry when something or someone really gets on your nerves. Just the expression of anger can be handled better than it usually is.
One thing I know: you feel relieved now. After you "took action" you feel better about yourself. Now you can have a cup of tea and relax. So, do it!
Then come to talk to us again when you feel more relaxed. Even if nobody listens to you, I promise I will. You are a good thinker, and certainly a good person.

George

Unfortunately, Bogdan's behavior has resulted in his no longer being welcome to post. As you can see there are ways to circumvent blocking people and Bogdan did that. But his behavior this morning has reinforced this decision. He can, if he wishes, repeat his performance and we will be forced to respond and spend our time removing the spam. I hope, now that his article has been removed, that he will just move on. But he will not be allowed to post regularly again. I hope he no longer desires to do so. - website editor

Fair enough.
George

as my mom used to remind my dad, after he lost a job due to his outspokenness.....*

....."its not enuf to be right.....you also have to be persuasive".

* as a guidance counselor at a public HS, he explained he had told a kid to stop fooling around, and get down to work, raise his grades, or he;'d NEVER get into college......forgetting that the kids high powered father sat on a college board, and also on the HS school board in charge of hiring and firing!!!

John Mark says : "Also, yes I absolutely think he is a harm to others, not a physical threat, but very much a spiritual one. I have seen people's spiritual walk become entirely consumed with paranoia...."

I'm not a pastor per se but a psychotherapist and teacher. I tread the precarious minefield located between the forces of religion and those of academia and the world of human experience. Here I find wounded persons as well as courageous soldiers of faith and those helping others out of their own wounds. I hope that pastors such as yourself are given enough education and insight into this most important work--the kind that in fact affects every congregation, even when energetic figures such as W Veith are not wreaking "spiritual" havoc.

In my view, meeting ideas with counter-deas performs some good, but only for those who have solid faith in the pastors who might pronounce against Veith. Beyond whatever part the "church" should play, by coming out against another pastor, as you wish, how do we help the paranoid, the perplexed, the spiritually vulnerable?

Hi John Mark. Good questions. I can share from my personal experience and from working with people for 25 years. My primary modes of working with people have been individual counseling, group therapy, seminars, and weekend retreats.

In my world, we focus clients on PRESENT reality (away from the past and the future) and on matters they can do something about, now. This helps reduce anxiety (which is always about the future), pain and anger (which are always about the past). As people develop the capacity to deal with thoughts, feelings, sensations, memories in the PRESENT, we help them extend these skills into dealing with the future and past.

Personally, I think reason is one tool to help people align with reality, but there are many others. People who dart after sensationalist speakers are often "ungrounded" in their identity, and in their physical and and mental worlds, and need to learn how to live in their bodies, not ingest more intellectual material that keeps them spinning in their heads. The question "What's that to you?" helps people look at deeper questions and face their current responsibilities. For some, writing their spiritual autobiography has been helpful, as it provides a sense of identity and experience often filled by exciting presenters and persuaders. The spiritually vulnerable need stable, confident, yet humble people who are willing to put aside their own needs at times and help them feel safe. Practices such as prayer, journaling, service to others, meditation, yoga, exercise, etc. are helpful tools for bringing people into the present.

The key thing in helping people is the kind of relationship you offer. Who are you--not what you know or even believe, but your compassionate humanness. Jesus's relationship with his disciples and those around has been an unerring guide for me. I think 6-12 months of CPE or personal therapy / spiritual direction and counseling classes are essential for anyone clergy expecting to work with people as their focus.

I pray you will do well in your studies and become a gifted supporter and inspiration to the many members and friends who will look to you in your ministerial career. Peace.

George, Graeme, John Mark,

There's nothing quite like a liberal "group therapy" session...
Glad you all are feeling better now :)

Growing up in 'the truth' I am under no illusion that traditional Adventists are in any angst over uncertainty. I just wish we could all humbly realize that reality is a vast mystery the depths of which our finite minds cannot begin to fathom.

I don't consider myself a liberal Christian given my conservative Christocentric beliefs. I prefer the progressive label given my belief that the Holy Spirit is guiding humanity steadily into present truth.

I understand that traditional Adventists would like to send progressives packing. But, while they draw circles to keep us out, progressives are happy to give a reason for our beliefs while respecting those with different opinions and drawing even bigger circles or just erasing them altogether to include us all.

Just because I like big circles or better yet centered/relational sets doesn't mean that I don't understand and have empathy for those who are more comfortable in smaller circles. Are you suggesting we should just leave traditional Adventists to their cramped quarters? How would we then fulfill the role we have to play in the diverse body of Christ?

"Rest. Isn't that our deepest vision?"

I think our deepest vision is: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all our soul and all our mind and all your strength and love your neighbor as yourself. And who is my neighbor? Samaritans. Meaning for us... liberals, conservatives, men, women, gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, atheist, red, and yellow, black, and, white... Loving those like us is easy. Jesus calls us to love others. Some of us have had enough of the Protestant proclivity to divide over every major disagreement. If the center holds in Jesus isn't there be room for diversity on the periphery?

Then again, perhaps a community based on love is only possible in Rhode Island. Right now I live in the heartland and I hope to see if it is possible right here.

Fear is what causes people to withdraw into the corner and barricade themselves behind a variety of walls they believe will keep them safe from all aggressors, real and imagined. It's about the fetal position with which we all start our journeys. Some of us never feel comfortable in any other pose. The problem is, what do you do when your own realizations begin to encroach on the little world you've managed to keep yourself in.. How do you hide from truth? You make the walls thicker - you make the rules tighter, and circle smaller.

Conversation changes things; and change is scary. When the crack first appeared in my little fortress all I wanted to do is pull the blanket tighter and hope it would all just go away. Some of us are content to stay that way; others have to see daylight eventually, shed the covers and take the first tentative steps into this new world where truth and security had to be fought for. The battle had broken through the lines and we have no choice but to fight.

Security does not come with freedom. Newborns are cocooned in security blankets for a reason. The church can be the ultimate security blanket. But we can carry it around with us so long that eventually the ends will inevitably begin to fray and holes appear; but we will fight anyone who dares take the ragged thing away from us.

The popular perception seems to be that Christian security comes from being involved with the church - the endless array of meetings of all kinds; the work we accept when the nominating committee meets; the hustle and bustle of keeping Sabbath - just being involved "in the church" keeps us feeling secure. No wonder when you then meet others who seem to want to take that away from you, that you lash out, even in righteous anger.

These are days of uncertainty. Society is failing us; the church is failing us; even nature seems to have it in for us. For an Adventist, it all sounds too familiar - it all sounds like Matthew 24 in real time - and we draw the circle ever smaller.

We are looking for security in the wrong places.

I wish the author of this article could have been more explicit in what he means by "progressive" versus "tradional" Adventism.

What do progressive Adventists believe? Where do they worship? Do they want to change Adventist doctrines/teachings?

What does the author mean when he claims that Adventists can learn from other denominations? What can we learn from them when they do not have the truth?

Give me that old time religion. It's good enough for me.

......"they draw circles to keep us out, progressives are happy to give a reason for our beliefs while respecting those with different opinions and drawing even bigger circles or just erasing them altogether to include us all.".........Brenton

He drew a circle that shut me out —
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in.
....Ed Markham

........."Fear is what causes people to withdraw into the corner and barricade themselves behind a variety of walls they believe will keep them safe from all aggressors, real and imagined. It's about the fetal position with which we all start our journeys......Sirje

great analogy.... we fear to take the wrong steps on our journey.....fear that much of that EGW stuff we were told to believe may be myth....not unlike Moses reed basket borrowed from Sargon's legend.....fear that the word "heaven" merely comes from the German "hafen" meaning we hope to reach seaport, "safe haven" after crossing the stormy seas of life, and reach the "golden strand" (german for "beach").....in the sunset years of our lives.

and if that's all there is.....maybe the journey of discovery has to be its own reward.

.."These are days of uncertainty. Society is failing us; the church is failing us; even nature seems to have it in for us.".Sirje

...and very few know the worst of it!!!!

the Yellowstone hotspot (which itself may...repeat, may...have been caused by a huge meteorite plunging deep into the earth mega yrs ago) seems to cause an eruption every 600,000 yrs based on the historical record in the rocks (which some still choose to ignore).... and its been over 640,000 years since the last big blow....so if Yellowstone is on ones bucket list, it might be a good idea to see it soon!!!
http://geology.com/usgs/yellowstone-volcano/
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/could-an-eruption-of-the-yello...

and there is a hypothetical way that all our journeys could be over any time soon based on the "Shiva Hypothesis".... a not-quite-fully appreciated theory that the solar systems cyclical journey thru the milky way, up and down like a hobby horse on a merry go round every 32 million years may cause either an increase in cosmic "bow wave" radiation or an influx of space junk on a cyclical basis.....

this cyclical nature is seen in numerous "extinction" events which seem well timed to impacts in earths past back some 450 million years.....
http://users.tpg.com.au/horsts/crater.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Hypothesis

and since scientists date the dinos demise at 65 myo, due in part to a well studied asteroid impact, and since there is new evidence of an impact buried beneath Chesapeake Bay some 32 myo, astronomers speculate that we could be overdue for another major 32 million year cyclical space hit beyond our control......

and while some draw such small circles that they are forced to deny any earth history before 4004 BC because God didn't reveal radiometric dating to Moses or EGW, a very few of us are worried about bigger circular, cyclical issues which may "impact" everybody!!!

either way, everybody should have a good trip no matter where they think they are headed. just in case the journey itself is the real destination