And may God also wash away your self-deception Charles. Your article is another example of Ted Wilson-bashing "in love".

You start off the article well, but then descend into the same old rhetoric, the same president-bashing, the same wavering on truth. You mistake humility for uncertainty, something many writers here do. You equate humility with being permanently uncertain. Permanent uncertainty is not a virtue, it is closer to being a pathological disorder. "Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." G. K. Chesterton

The course to strengthen the church's position on origins is divisive, it has to be. Because we are dealing with mutually contradictory positions, something many writers here pretend not to grasp. The Bible clearly says that God made everything in six days, consisting of evenings and mornings, and chronologically around 6000 years ago. It cannot be reconciled with long ages, the big bang, nor evolution.

Barry Black and Wintley Phipps rant against Ted Wilson and church authority shows the arrogance of both of them. I suggested that they were motivated simply because their activities in mixing constantly with those of other faiths was threatened, not some genuine concern for the welfare of the church. (I suggest you watch an episode of "Higher Ground" with Barry Black and you will see the arrogance in his style of speaking.) I have just been reading Acts 4. You would probably classify Peter and John as arrogant. You may even classify Jesus as arrogant in some of his responses to the leadership as arrogant. How about driving the moneylenders our of the temple? Someone who has the truth and defends it and promotes it is not arrogant. He is doing right in the eyes of God.

Thanks for this. It's important and I'm trying to focus on it. My local church is being revived and reformed to the point where I often don't even feel comfortable expressing an opinion anymore, and it can become so easy to get stuck in an us- versus-them mentality. When I feel I have to speak out about something that seems wrong to me, it's so hard to hold on to humility, to remember that 1) I might be wrong, and 2) even if I'm right, those who disagree with me have as much right to their views as I do to mine.

Tell me, was Elijah arrogant when he organized a showdown on Mt Carrmel with the prophets of Baal, exposed them for being no prophets at all and then slew them at the river? Perhaps he should have dialogued with them, after all, he didn't have a monopoly on the truth!

I'd suggest Charles Scriven that before you attempt to pull a speck out of your brother's eye you take the log out of your own. Self-deception is a two-way street.

Tom Zwemer wrote: Adventist Forums played a key role in making the initial public challenge. That has not been forgotten or forgiven. The suggestion that reformation begin at the top is an echo of that earlier challenge.

Adventist Forums played no role at all. They supported Desmond Ford in his apostasy. He has been exposed as deceptive and his theology has more holes than a block of swiss cheese. Adventist Forums supported the losing side and they fail to admit it. They see Ford as a reformist. No, Ford was a Judas. he betrayed his church and his Lord.

"Ellen White belongs to the ages." What does that vague statement mean? The Bible belongs to the ages as well.

Thank you for this call to humility. I particularly appreciated this paragraph:

God-sent humility—the first criterion of Revival and Reformation—would fit us all for just and loving attention to one another, and surely that could open doors to a more truthful, more aligned, and less angry, Adventism. Humility would serve forgiveness and a forgiving space would help to rinse away our self-deceptions. Each of us, in our stations high or low, could then summon the will to grow by listening and looking. Instead of veering toward inquisition, we could ascend into gracious dialogue.

Pagophilus, we Christians have tended to be either very certain about our own beliefs while excluding or even denigrating others beliefs or very apologetic of our own beliefs while expressing acceptance or even appreciation for others beliefs. Our challenge as followers of Jesus Christ in our polarized age is to find ways to remain certain about our own distinctive beliefs while having the humility to appreciate the perspective and contribution of those who see things differently from us.

Pago, I am shocked. You quoted Chesterton, a very orthodox Catholic. You must be one of those Jesuits! Your cover is blown. Report to the Gesu immediately.

Pagophilus -

I am sorry you misunderstood my entry above. I believe I said, I certainly meant to say, that Adventist Forums were implicit in the Ford Affair on his side of the issue and that has neither been forgotten or foregiven.

As for Ellen White belonging to the Ages. By this I meant that Christ is the Alpha and the Omega--He is from everlasting to everlasting. His message is as relevant today as it was for the Church in the First Century. While Ellen White was a child of her time.

I hope this makes the issue a little clearer and will cool your passions abit. If you wish to disagree be a little more objective in the process. It carries more weight. Tom Z

Mr. Carpenter,

For traditional SDAs, the question of authority is very difficult to process.

We are taught many things, including:

1. Human reasoning is inadequate and untrustworthy.

2. We ought to be ready to die rather than disobey (3 Hebrew boys etc.).

This means among other things that it is not easy to judge things by outcomes. Under a regime like this, the safest thing is to close your eyes and just "apply the formula" rather than risk the wrath of God. Forget about context and moderation. Any resulting mess, God will have to clean up.

I always struggle with this, so I speak from that perspective.

I understand that this kind of attitude frustrated Ellen White, who ended up writing that:

“My mind has been greatly stirred in regard to the idea, ‘Why, Sister White has said so and so, . . . and therefore we are going right up to it.’ God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relation of things.”

So I hope you can understand a bit what's going on in the mind of traditionalists. Maybe you could say that the underlying motive is fear of angering God.

Alex great analysis and excellent advice. Tom Z

the question that everything boils down to is: what does God expect from you and me. what are his expectations? obey or think?
adventists have traditionally been taught to read and understand the bible a certain way; we can't and shouldn't assume this the one and only correct way to read it, this would limit God's diversity, and most of all, would contradict the whole point of the salvation story.
it seems clear that if we trully believe the whole christian story, we must come to the conclusion that God values, above all, free will. if He didn't, we wouldn't be in this mess.
now i can understand that for some, it is tough to unify thinking for oneself and obeying, or even thinking and being humble. Jesus, our example, was both - how can we be?
i believe that, in the context of the salvation story and biblical message, blind obedience is one of things God hates the most. He wants us to know what we are doing, and then do it because we know it is the better way - a not only because it pleases Him.
He wants dialogue and growth, which would have been our main activities were there no sin. He knows we are all different but He still wants us to be together.
we need to find God through our own search for truth and meaning, with his Word and with others on the same path. interpretations will differ, and we need to establish first and foremost that even if there were only one absolute truth or way of seeing things, we wouldn't be able to grasp it anyway.
i think if you look at the bible carefully and try to figure out some of its seemingly contrasting views, it will be a pretty logical step to take the cultural and religious context into account - i think this is obvious to everyone in the discussion. it has to be the same for us and our time now - once it was enough to have a leader say something and everyone follow, and that was okay in some ages and cultures. it is not okay today, if we want to fulfill our mission. people want to know, they ask, they question and doubt. we must focus our shift on personal experience, on trying out God's basic truths, on living them.
to be lead and to obey blindly - it doesn't fit our time and it has little to do with religion (= to reconnect). God desires a relationship, he is relational, that's what drives his creative power. obedience must be natural consequence of reflection, although i do think that sometimes obedience can lead to reflection and affirmation. what i do know is that obedience without humble reflection and relationship is completely useless, and its fruit won't be the fruits of the Spirit, that is clear.

Does anyone know what T.D. Jakes was supposed to present at Oakwood College that Adventists could learn from?

Since many, if not most SDA sermons, are evidence of biblical or S.O.P. diminution..what was going to be so profound or new light that caused all of the fuss?

It's a shame we can't discuss matters without all the name-calling and innuendo. I wonder if our behavior is similar to what brought Jesus to tears when he looked over Jerusalem. I know he wept because they had rejected Him.
Whenever we disagree in a disagreeable fashion we give into the same spirit which led Jerusalem against Jesus in the first century.

Pagophilus

I understand and respect your opinion however I think you may be misreading what conditions the Lord sets upon obedience to earthly government. Actually the best way the see this is to read the full verses in context.

Romans 13 1-4
1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Now is Paul suggesting here that ALL rulers are only a terror to those who do evil. That ALL rulers are ordained by God?

I submit to you that the Biblical record itself rules that conclusion out. The Pharaoh "who knew not Joseph", Ahab, King Herod, Caiaphas, the entire book of Amos is one long sermon against the failings of the political system (including a call for social justice and care for the poor). Saul of Tarsus himself.

What then does Paul mean here? Not that ALL rulers are ordained by God but that those who ARE ordained by God will show it by supporting good and punishing evil.

Paul is saying that those who do not follow this pattern are simply not "authorities" at all. It is not our duty as Christians to obey bad rulers, rather when we see rulers carrying out injustice we are to conclude that these rulers have no authority from God and it is not our obligation to obey them.

Hope that clears things up because the more radical interpretation you suggested causes the Bible to contradict itself which is always a bad sign concerning interpretation.

EGW warned that the General Conference was already corrupt over 100 years ago (see Testimonies to Ministers, p 359; 1888 Materials, vol 4, p 1476; 1888 Materials, p 1566-1568), and it has only increased in corruption. EGW also warned the General Conference leadership that if they "enter into any new organization...it would mean apostasy from the truth" (see Selected Messages, book 2, p 390). This they began to do with the organizational changes adopted in 1903. Ellen supported the minority opinion at that conference, the majority won out.

So Pago, where do you stand now?

tg

Might Ash Wednesday be a good start to seek revival at the bottom?

"Charles wants a church "distrustful of patriarchy," but patriarchy seems to be the scripturally sanctioned model. Our opinion leaders in the Western world have decided to dismantle patriarchy, and eradicate all sexual differences and distinctions, but if the church hastens to go along with that, we're admitting that the world is right and the Bible wrong (just as we are if we go along with Darwinism)."

Of course slavery also "seemed to be the "Scripturally sanctioned model." Usually people who makes these arguments do not really mean that the Bible should be read as an endorsement of the Social structures of its own times, but coincidentally that it endorses some social structure of earlier America - say 1950. If you really want to argue that the Bible going along with its social structures is an endorsement of those structures, than you should be consistent and call us back 2000 years in time rather than just fifty years. Also if woman's ordination is wrong because it's not in the Bible than so is the entire concept of ordination. The term is not found in the Bible and the laying on of hands in the Bible was not to be some permanent grant of authority by the global church to distinguish clergy and laity.

When we debate ordination we're debating a practice that is already far removed from the Bible, so you have absolutely no room to throw stones at the other side for contradicting the Bible; you went outside the Bible the minute you entered the debate. Also a more careful translation of the Greek has indicated that there were women pastors in the NT, and a study of early church history indicates that women had pastoral roles in the church, and they were treated much more equally than society treated them. As the church gained political prominence you will find quotes of the church fathers condemning women in pastoral roles, as they sought to bring the church more in line with society. So it could be argued that you're the one putting Roman Catholic tradition and their compromise with society above the practices of the Apostolic church. So I guess maybe you should start your own denomination where they think the church fathers are right and the Bible wrong... or you could admit that there's other reasons for disagreeing with you on the issues besides being an infidel who uses the Bible for toilet paper.

Styrra,

Are you rubbing Aladdin's lamp? Sure you want to use 1 wish on that?

Uh, BTW...check with SNOPES, but I think Ellen White is dead.

Now, as far as the SDA church...I am not interested in getting it "fixed".
Jesus made critical comments to the Jewish leaders but didn't waste time trying to fix their church. He started his own with some guys who were willing to ....work.

Matthew 9:37 Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;

I posted the SOP quote above for the very few workers in the remnant church.

The SDA church has been so paranoid dealing with the legalism accusation/ label, that "work" has become a 4 letter word.

The Puritan work ethic is on the "OUT LIST"

Christianity has become a non participant,spectator, entertainment or therapy experience..
Most who attend church have become sermon soaked, doctrinally constipated pew potatoes....avoiding spiritual exercise.

TJG, that's what Ted Wilson is for. To start a revolution and the big cleanup, together with GYC.

John Mark, it is interesting that you mentioned slavery, because I recently posted a couple of articles about slavery in the Bible at Advindicate.com. "Slavery" (i.e., voluntary debt slavery for 6 years) was part of God's design for ancient Israel; it was to serve as part of what we would call the social safety net.

I didn't mention ordination, but it seems that ordination is being used as a proxy for male headship. We avoid mentioning the phrase "male headship" because that is more directly and immediately in conflict with the prevailing zeitgeist. When I say that the Bible seems to promote patriarchy, I mean the Bible seems to promote a social organization wherein the family is the basic unit of society, not the individual, and sexual expression is normatively restricted to married, opposite-sex couples. Foundational assumptions of this system are that men and women are very different, need each other in long-term relationship to live the fullest, happiest and most productive lives, that children need to be raised in a family that consists of opposite sex parents, and that men and women, being very different, each bring something unique, important and irreplaceable to the rearing of children.

Since the sexual revolution of the late 60s/early 70s, our elites have promoted a social organization in which the basic unit of society is the individual, and sexual expression is normatively anything consenting adults can think of to do. In the new, post-sexual revolution America, there is no stigma to homosexual activity, or sex outside of marriage, or even childbirth outside of marriage. (The result, recently reported in the NY Times, is that, in the U.S., most births to women under 30 are out of wedlock.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occu....

A basic assumption of the new, post-patriarchal social order is that men and women are not significantly different from each other in any meaningful respect, can and should perform all the same jobs, functions, and roles, and it doesn't matter who raises children. Hence, there should not be (and is not) any stigma attached to single parenthood, same-sex marriage, or adoption of children by same-sex couples.

If the basic unit of society is an opposite sex couple, then it doesn't matter, and certainly isn't a fairness or morality issue, that men and women have different role and do different jobs. All families are treated the same; hence the system is fair and moral. But if the basic unit of society is the individual, and it is not assumed that most adults will be, or will have been, married to a person of the opposite sex, then it is not fair or moral that women should not be eligible for every job that men do, and vice versa. To the contrary, it is axiomatic that all individuals should be treated the same.

Rich Hannon, for example, argues on the thread following the article "Adventist Leaders respond to GC/NAD . . ." that the women's ordination issue is an issue of basic morality:

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/02/14/leaders-respond-gcnad-confli....

And if we assume a society whose basic unit is the individual, he's right. But the Bible assumes that society's basic organizational unit is the family, i.e., the Bible assumes patriarchy. Hence the Bible's morality does not assume that there must be no differentiation in roles, functions, jobs or positions.

In short, the debate on women's ordination is just the tip of the iceberg of a much more important and meaningful debate we should be having about patriarchy. The stakes could not be any higher. If you toss patriarchy, you make irrational and unsustainable the entire complex of biblical prescriptions and proscriptions relating to human sexuality. I expect that many Spectrumites are happy to throw out patriarchy and all its vestiges, but Spectrumites do not relate to Scripture in the way that traditional Adventists do. Jettisoning patriarchy effectively means that one accepts what one wants to accept from Scripture, and rejects whatever one wants to reject, and although this is a succinct description of theological liberalism, it is unacceptable to most believing Adventists.

David Read,
As one of this web site's most frequent commenters, are you not a Spectrumite? You suggest that you "have far more in common with a conservative Baptist or even a conservative Episcopalian (assuming any of those are left) than I do with Charles Scriven. We don't belong in the same church, and I would assume that we will not be in the same church indefinitely." Why? Are you leaving? I would doubt that Chuck is leaving Adventism soon. I've heard his love for the church expressed over and over. Your comments the past few days on this thread and others have helped me to understand the depth of the disagreement you see between liberals and conservatives. Yet, here we are. Each side proclaiming their love for the body of Christ in the way we understand best. Perhaps rather than sharpening our differences, we could work at finding our commonalities. You and Ron share a love for traditional music. I think Chuck would affirm that love, also. You and I are both amazed at the gap between liberals and conservatives. There, that wasn't so hard was it? Just because we don't agree doesn't mean that we can't be part of the same church. After all, our differences make for far more entertaining conversations than if we all simply agree. That turns into yadayadayadayada pretty quickly.

The town of Pound, Wisc. is 40 miles straignt north of Green Bay. It once was all timber. When the timber was cut the ony things that would grow were potatoes, sweet potatoes, and deer. The potato farmer's were all of Polish backgroud. Excedllent farmers were expersts in all subjects animal, vergetable, and minieral. "Gus" was the cream of the crop. After cmpleteling his farming choirs he would drive into Pound sit on one of my Uncles farm equipment and spin years. Most were on how dumb his wife Rosie was. This afternoon he was going to sue Standard Oil. It seems that while in the country seat he notice one tire was low. So he began to fill it. His wife keept saying, Gus, I think you have enough air in that tire. Gus would reply--Now Rosie, you don't understand about these things. When there is enough air the bell will rign--as it did in Pound. So he kept filling and filling and Rosie kept reminding Gus enough already!!!!. Gus just igmpred her. Finally the tire blew knocking Gus off his feet and totally destroying the tire.

Now he was telling everyone in Pound---the bell didn't ring and Stardard Oil owed him a new tire.

In is first 70 years Ellen White blew up a lot of tires. and now it is a bunch of Guses!. There are a lot better way to estabish a rational course than the ringing of a bell. . It wa a woman who first annunced a risen Savor. Isn't that the key to all of Christindom? What more important messge could person carry. If a woman brought the first Gospel News, why not the last?
Let us not wait for the bell to ring. Tom Z

Charles Scriven wrote:
"God-sent humility—the first criterion of Revival and Reformation—would fit us all for just and loving attention to one another, and surely that could open doors to a more truthful, more aligned, and less angry, Adventism. Humility would serve forgiveness and a forgiving space would help to rinse away our self-deceptions. Each of us, in our stations high or low, could then summon the will to grow by listening and looking. Instead of veering toward inquisition, we could ascend into gracious dialogue."
************************
Hello Charles,
Wonderful words of life for us to apply in our lives right here on these blogs.
May we cultivate humility, "forgiving space", listening and looking and gracious dialogue; especially with those whom we think are completely wrong.
Cheers,
Mike

"Tom, I can't make any sense out of what you have just written."

Allow me to interpret: Men who don't listen to women become donkeys, don't be a donkey. At least that's what I got out of it, and it's sound advice from a man who's been around long enough to know. :-)

John Thanks

You got it. It waa very poorly written. I think I fractured my left ekbiw just before I am still having trouble must be the pain medicine. I will see the emdergency care doc in about three hours I hope. It has been a long long night. Yes, men underestimate woman. A man donkey is a Jack Ass.

I had to retype this three times Regards Tom

Revival starts wherever it starts. No shoulds at all. Not forced either.

>>> patriarchy seems to be the scripturally sanctioned model

The Bible is a series of examples of male-dominated heirarchys FAILING

Adam leads - and the pair falls
Noah leads - straight into a drunken state in a tent
Abraham leads - and we get Ishmaelites
Lot leads - straight into Sodom
Moses leads - and they wander for forty years
Samson leads - into the arms of a harlot
Samuel leads - look what happens to his sons
Saul leads, the David, Solomon, and all the other kings
(Note God said they should NOT have a king, but if they really wanted one, here is the BEST!)
Herod leads - great success that was
The High Priests lead - and Jesus is crucified
Peter leads - and Paul has to publically correct him for his treatment of the Gentiles

Even the best leaders - Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Peter - can't keep their organizations out of severe trouble

David Read's claim that the Bible supports patriarchys is thus shown to be wrong.

/Bevin

"Yes, the conference is corrupt. This is why we have issues like LSU teaching evolution (it should have been stopped long ago). This is why we have the push to ordain women. This is why we copy apostate churches in their worship styles, music and partly their theology."

1.) Once again I see the need to point out that the Seventh-Day Adventist Church has no objection to evolution being taught in it's schools. Indeed the basics of evolution with form the foundation of modern genetics are a requires course of study in EVERY SDA college and university with programs in the biological sciences. I refer you to the church's statement following the International Faith and Science Conference below.
http://adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main-stat54.html

2.) The movement for the ordination of women has nothing to do with corruption and everything to do with a Biblically based reexamination of the role of women in the ministry. Opinion may differ but you should refrain from impugning the motives of your fellow believers.

3.) Ironically the most prominent practice which the Adventist church copied from "apostate" churches is the obsession with fighting evolutionary science and reaffirming traditional gender roles. Two things you just did here. These are hallmarks of the mainstream evangelical movement not the Adventism Ellen White would recognize.

This has always struck me as it seems those who most decry dialogue with other faiths seem to be the most impacted by them.

(Hard to edit from phone)

Should we be talking about Greek influence on Christian/Western thinking?

It feels like a certain inevitability has set in. Maybe letting the energy leak out is the healthiest thing to do.

Ted Wilson is not forcing you into unhappy acquiescence. You have separated yourselves from the movement and the message and want to force the majority into acquiescence to your non-biblical ideas.

Once again, humility? My foot!

Revival will only happen if the Church reforms, apologizing to Ford and all the others who were treated like poo for speaking the truth would be a good start.

"Chapter and verse - from the Bible please." -- Sirje

Don't hold your breath on that one.

tg

Chuck,
It's a personality issue.
Some people enjoy to say irritating things and portray "fidelity to God no matter what." It's just a pride issue and a sense of "spiritual superiority" - don't ask me what is it based on. Logical thinking is usually not their strength.
We just have to put up with nonsense once in a while...
Many times I thought that if I started a new church, there would be a big sign in front of it: CHURCH FOR SINNERS ONLY. SAINTS, PLEASE DON'T BOTHER COMING"
May be the only way to avoid the presence of those "saints"...

Chuck

I think the misumndering is do to a small spelling error. Pagophilus should be Pogophilus--remember Popo---"We have met the enemy and they are us"! There are a few like Kevin, and Pogophiilis who in defense of Adventism use a wrecking bar.

Reminds me of the story of the construction worker who arrived at work one morning with a distinct limp. The foreman asked what happened. The workman said, I dropped a cement block on my left foot while I was building a fire pit at home. The next day, the workman arrived without a limp. The foreman said, That was a quick recovery! The workman said, oh no. I dropped another cement block on my right foot.

If one is wrong on both feet they don't even limp. Tom Z

Charles, I jump on here so often because I can. This is an area for comments and discussion. As I see a point to respond to I do so. Not always in a one post because I have other things to do.

And I don't think it's the lack of a real name that's the stumbling block for a conversation. I like to expose illogical thinking, hypocrisy and other matters like twisting the scripture to suit your own purposes. If doing so makes someone angry I don't apologise for this. I like to attack rather than defend on this point. Yes, this is a shortcoming of mine but it is partly due to a lack of time. When I have time I like to write long essays (or sermons) thoroughly covering a topic with evidence (and establishing proof). But since having a child (now 13 months) I have little time because I prefer to spend it with my family. There are others here who can do a better job of defending, so I can just pick on various matters.

But since you asked so nicely, my name is Leo.

See how well nice works, Leo? You state you like to attack but this is not conducive to productive conversation. I would encourage you to seriously rethink that approach. We are intending to tighten up the boundaries of civility in our comments, and you are one of the ones we are concerned about. - website editor

Website editor (Alex I presume) - point taken. However, should you proceed down the path of tightening up the boundaries of civility in the comments, I expect you to hold everyone (leading Spectrumites included) to the same rules. That should include some of the invective used against EGW or Ted Wilson. We will hold you accountable.

This is not Alex. Civility is a skill available to liberals and conservatives alike. - website editor

One more thing about humility - contrast the way Jesus treated the average person to how He treated the Pharisees and the language He used to condemn their actions. Those who should know better , those who claim to be teachers leading others to God, and yet are pulling others away from Him, need to be spoken to in a different way. Their actions need to be exposed and they need to be rebuked in no uncertain terms (like whitewashed tombs).

You are not Jesus Pag, so you should be careful in giving yourself license to condemn. - website editor

Leo, when someone gets threatening it comes across as arrogant & the very opposite of the fruit of the Spirit. Nobody else is fooled by your attempt to pass it off as an expression of righteous indignation in defense of Biblical truth.

@bevin:

You seem not to understand the issue. The choice for the patriarchal model has nothing to do with success or failure, or skills.

You mentioned men failing. What about women failing? There are a score of them in the Bible too beginning with Eve who was the first human being to sin. Strike one for the women!

In fact, it is interesting to see that in the Bible we see disasters occurring when men forsake their leadership role. Most of the examples that you mentioned were not examples of men leading but rather men forgetting they were leaders (you mentioned Moses as if the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years because of his leadership. I don't think you are correct here. But you could have mentioned the time when he forgot/delayed to circumcise his son).

So I think that it would be profitable to try to understand why God chose a patriarchal model in the Bible. God doesn't do things by chance. Surely there is a reason.

hopeful said: "God didn't choose the patriarchal model, God simply worked w/ people where they were. Like polygamy in the OT."

And you have any evidence for that? Of course not.

But when you read the Bible a little bit you see that it is God who chose the male-dominated model:

1) Man was created first and the woman was issued from man (this is a sign above all if you consider that in nature it is the contrary, the mother coming first and the man, coming from her, second. See Gen 4:1 for example)
2) When God spoke to the first couple, He addressed man first.
3) It was to the man Abram that God spoke and asked to leave Ur. He could have spoken to Sarai.
4) The covenant was made with Abraham
5) When we read Genesis we see that it is the patriarch (Isaac, for example, in Genesis with Jacob and Esau, or with Jacob with his sons) who give the blessing
6) It was Abraham who interceded for Sodom and Gomorrah (this is not Sarah and this is not by chance)
7) When it was time to deliver Israel from Egypt, God called a man (He could have called a woman; He didn't)
8) When God established the priesthood system, only men were involved in it. And don't think that it was because God worked with the people where they were because at the time, there were already a lot of pagan religions around Israel in which the women where priestesses. So having women as priestesses was not inconceivable above for a people like Israel that was strongly attracted by pagan religions.
9) At the beginning of the kingship system, it was God who chose the leaders and He chose men exclusively.

I could give more examples.

In most examples, we can see that it was God who took the initiative or set up things in a particular order.

Again, He did it for particular reasons. Drop the simplistic explanations and try to go deeper. There may be more than you expected.

Anon--

There is such a form of esigesis as type and anti-type. Under Moses, the priesthood was limited to the males of the tribe of Levi and the hight Priest to the family line of Aaron. Christ became our High Preist at His enthronement: see Phil 2-5-11. It was foretold in Ps. 24.

The role of the Priest was one of intercession. That role of High Priest now belongs to Christ alone, since Christ is also King of Kings and Lord of Lords He came through the line of Judah. Adventism believes in the priesthood of all believers--consistent with most Protestant Churches.

Thus the Adventist Church chose to call its ordained: Pastor or Ministry rather than Priest.

The gender issue was thus disposed of theological since woman can ministry in the spiritual realm as effectiely as man---see Paul's commendation of women is vairous Churches. Certainly we give our children, in their most tender years to women for guidance and nutrure---see both Church, public, and private pre-school teachers and leaders. Even Mother's Day Out is a woman's Church duty. It is an administrative issue alone that is the present barrier.

In fact, God gave His son to be birthed, nutured, and raised by a woman. What risk did He taken in trusting the entire Covenant of Redemption on a mere female child?

Does that get to the deeper core of the issue--or are we still hung up on the fear of losing members in culturally rigid societies? Tom Z

David Read - Fri, 02/24/2012 - 21:30
I don't think you can honestly make a biblical case that patriarchy is like polygamy in the sense that it was allowed but is not the ideal.

Seriously, other than "The Bible says it; I believe it" what could be the reason for men being able to carry more authority than women? What do you think?

Revival does indeed begin at the top - with God! And God often by-passes those who are at the "top" of the ecclesiastical order because, while they spout the correct words, their actions espouse another agenda. That's why true revival doesn't come at the beck and call of church leadership but, at the instigation of the Holy Spirit Who works on the hearts of God's people to move them into a deeper spiritual connection with the Divine Will. Down through the ages revival came as people's hearts were moved by the Holy Spirit and they responded; and revival swept through the land. Revival doesn't come just because a GC prez calls for it, or a GC committee votes for it.

Some of the most humble people I know seem to be the most denominationally arrogant. They may walk meekly with Jesus on a personal level but their concept of His corporate body is so exclusive and triumphalistic that they are inescapably arrogant toward anyone outside the narrow circle of their sacred remnance.

John Mark, you are right that the biblical ideal of leadership is servant leadership. Mat. 20:25-28. And this is also the biblical ideal for patriarchal leadership in the family. Eph. 5:25-33. The husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church and gave up His life for her.

David,
You stated that because the Bible sets up the patriarchal social order it must be God ordained - forever. Someone asked whether God was simply working with people where they were; and you stated that patriarchy wasn't on the same level as polygamy (which God allowed).

I'm asking what reason God would have to set man up above woman, other than "working with people where they are"?

Interesting views on "patriarchy." Patriarchy could, and does, represent a lot of different things. Patriarchy could mean the system by which wealth is passed on generationally. Patriarchy could mean that estate assets bypassed wives and went straight to male heirs. It could mean some kind of power transmission in which governance/leadership is passed on generationally from male to male, kind of like kings and clan. It could mean the restriction of women's activities so they are precluded from functioning to any meaningful extent outside their home, like say, for example, they couldn't drive as is the case in Saudi Arabia. Maybe patriarchy means women shouldn't vote in civic affairs or hold office..

And of course, when you have patriarchy, it's the men who get to decide all this stuff! So maybe women shouldn't even have a seat a the table to influence the decisions about the meaning of patriarchy. (I suspect there is a fair amount of opinion among Adventist women that this is already the case.) The women just need to hear the outcome of the discussion among the men. Right? So for those of you promoting patriarchy, what is your point? How far down the range of possibilities do you want to take patriarchy? Do you want to take it just far enough that women can't have full ministerial status in the Adventist church? Or would you like to go for the whole patriarchal enchilada?

David,
You cite Ephesians 5:25-33 as the "biblical ideal for patriarchal leadership in the family." You miss the principle which introduces this section in verse 21. The further amplification cannot be used to negate it.

"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Ephesians 5:21

David, if you're intent on binding patriarchy to the preservation of civilization, how is it that civilization teeters on the brink of destruction by many sober measures?

How much worse does it have to get before we admit we're listing to port and are taking on water faster than we can bail?

>>>>>> If women want the best things why not ask for the gift of prophecy?
(Anon7)

Anyone, women included, can easily acquire this gift.
Nowadays "copy and paste" is much easier than in the late 1800s / early 1900s; and the resources are everywhere on the Internet (don't have to buy the books to copy from). And there is no need for secretaries to proofread anything: the spellin/grammar checkes work pretty good. Automatic translations like Google's work pretty good but need some revision.
Visa/MasterCard are great to sell the "stuff"....

We don't need more prophecy! We need more equality and less discrimination. Just this would do a lot.

I am glad for two things:

1) That I am a man, not a woman in church,
2) Several guys I have heard from are not really GOD (though they speak as if they were..)

Anon

Once again you persist on transfering an Old Testament type into a New Testament setting.

The transition from priest to pastor or minister is entirely confused. Christ is our Priest. We are his children--to which capable servants are assigned or ordained to serve Him and us. The gender issue is mute. The pastor is a teacher guide not an intercessor. Thus skill, experience, learning, and commitment are essential to the "calling" .

This issue is Does the Adventist Church want to restore Moses or follow Christ---seems that following Christ into the Most Holy Place as the central thesis of Adventism would demand the ordination of women. Tom Z

TJG and George,

This is reminiscent of Thaddeus Stevens comment on the happiness of slavery:

"Gentlemen on this floor [Congress], and in the Senate, had repeatedly, during this
discussion, asserted that slavery was a moral, political, and personal blessing; that the
slave was free from care, contented, happy, fat, and sleek. Comparisons have been
instituted between slaves and laboring freemen, much to the advantage of the condition
of slavery. Instances are cited where the slave, after having tried freedom, had
voluntarily returned to resume his yoke. Well, if this be so, let us give all a chance to
enjoy this blessing. Let the slaves, who choose, go free; and the free, who choose,
become slaves. If these gentlemen believe there is a word of truth in what they preach,
the slaveholder need be under no apprehension that he will ever lack bondsmen. Their
slaves would remain, and many freemen would seek admission into this happy
condition. Let them be active in propagating their principles. We will not complain if
they establish societies in the South for that purpose -- abolition societies to abolish
freedom. Nor will we rob the mails to search for incendiary publications in favor of
slavery, even if they contain seductive pictures, and cuts of those implements of
happiness -- handcuffs, iron yokes and cat-o'-nine-tails." Selected Papers of Thaddeus
Stevens, Vol. 1, by Beverly Wilson Palmer and Holly Byers Ochoa, page 117"

One of my favorite politicians just for his sardonic wit.

What is w/ this spiritualizing of patriarchy?! I can only surmise that in searching for ammunition in their creationism/evolution battle, some commenters have picked up the connected emphasis of the so-called Christian/Biblical patriarchy folks.

---------

David,
I'm going to trust the linguistic & theological scholarship of the NIV translators over yours. 
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5&version=NIV

---------

Anon7,

TGJ & Tom Z express it well. 

You're denying the foundational changes brought by Christ's life, death & resurrection, & the reason we have a NT.  You're not even reflecting what First Peter states. Your religion for all apparent purposes resides in the OT, & to be consistent must not eschew slavery, polygamy, war in the name of God, the purity laws, or an-eye-for-an-eye. 

"But they [women] can minister in positions that are even more spiritually important than being pastors or leaders." -- Anon7

Wow. An old & worn-out argument gets pulled out of the trash bin of history. Women are by nature too spiritual, too delicate, too tender, & too refined to take part in: medicine as a career, voting, &--of course--pastoral ministry. Being a wife/mother was the only worthy "sphere" for such superiority.

That's church stuff, girls. Don't worry your pretty little heads about it. We big strong pastors & leaders are taking care of of everything. God--He wants it that way. And we're going to let you be prophets! Well, the thing is we believe Ellen was the last one of those, but still, you could be one & that's the most important position of all!

Revivals generally start at the fringes and the grassroots. Rarely the top. While constantly called for, the results of revivals are devastating to the staus quo and controlling people in power

@Hopeful:

You are totally wrong here. My religion is not in the OT but my religion takes into account both OT AND NT. I am not using, like you seems to be doing, the NT to nullify the principles found in the OT (or vice versa). Jesus didn't come and die for us so that we may decide to do whatever we want. He showed us a model of obedience. He is still the Head and we are supposed to be the Body, not the other way around.

"A mini-theme in many responses on this website is: you work for one Adventist entity or another, so how can you be critical of Adventism, or anyone in leadership? Well, no matter what organization may pay me, I think I must attempt (in the spirit of love) to speak the truth." Scriven

Chuck, how can anyone buy that type of spin? Shouldn't loyalty be a mark of a true Christian? Truth as you characterize it may well be rebellion as others view it. One cannot be a law unto oneself. It is a pretty sad situation and a misguided one. If so many things, as you have described them over the years, are wrong how can you stay with an organization as you depict it?

Revival happens in individuals and not in organizations. After leaving Adventism over 5 years ago because of their doctrinal errors, I have come to the conclusion that I will never belong to organized religion again. It is corrupt and deceiving.

Chuck, I'm in the middle of writing a series of articles on slavery and the Bible/Christianity at Advindicate.com (two of which have been finished and posted) and I'm disinclined to discuss it here. I am, however, intrigued by the premise of your question, which is that slavery and patriarchy are both obsolete forms of social organization, and comparable in their undesirability in modern times.

I reject that premise. I think that God allowed the Israelites to practice a modified form of slavery as a concession to when and where they were. As my friend Phil Brantley recently wrote on this site, "Because the law of God is as much a reflection of our fallen humanity as it is of God’s righteousness, there are limits to what God as lawgiver can do." God, in the position of civil legislator for the ancient Israelites, had to concede somewhat to their historical circumstances.

By contrast, the family (a marriage of male and female) was established in Eden, before the Fall, for the benefit of mankind. There was no concession to circumstances; to the contrary, this was the originally created ideal. I believe that we will be happier, healthier, and live more fulfilled lives if we continue in that model of social organization. Adam was created first, so an implied male headship is part of the original creation (Gen. 2:18-23; 2 Tim. 2:12-13), but became more pronounced after the Fall, as a result of the Fall. (Gen. 3:16)

But suppose your premise is correct, and the brave new post-patriarchal world is a paradise in which everyone will be liberated and happy, free to practice whatever form of sexual expression works best for them. What are the implications for the church and Christianity? For the church to embrace that, we have to jettison the entire biblical corpus of prescriptions and proscriptions relating to human sexuality, the entire mode of sexual behavior that heretofore has been closely identified with Christianity. The over-arching problem is that we will no longer relate to Scripture as authoritative, or as anything but ancient, irrelevant literature (which is the exact same problem with embracing Darwinism, which goes to your desire for a church "open to science"). The only way we can have a church "open to science" (in the sense you mean that phrase) and "distrustful of patriarchy," is if we have a church that is dismissive of Scripture.

>>>> As for comment on plagiarism, well... You are free to have your opinions.(Anon7)

I am glad we have the freedom to have our "opinions".
But, still much more important, is that we were able to have access to information that not always has been available to everyone in church. Information about issues like..., EGW's unrepentant plagiarism!

Hopeful, it isn't a leap at all. To the contrary, it is a conclusion that is difficult to avoid. The 1984 version of the NIV has the header for "husbands and wives" coming after verse 21: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." The current NIV has the header, "Instructions for Christian households" after verse 20, above verse 21, effectively putting the mutual submission advice in the section on husbands and wives, where it had not been before.

Did the Greek text change after 1984? Obviously not. What changed is that the cultural pressure in favor of gender eradication and against patriarchy waxes stronger and ever stronger, and progressive Christians (who are predominant among the scholars and academics involved in translation committees) do not want to be out of step with the prevailing zeitgeist.

This change clearly was not made to make the Bible consistent with itself. If we allow the Bible to interpret itself, we will follow the 1984 NIV in applying the mutual submission advice to the church, which is consistent with other such passages (Phil. 2:3-8; 1 Tim. 5:1; Rom. 15:1-3), and the female submission advice to the family, which is consistent with other such passages (Col. 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1; Tit. 2:5). This reading makes the Bible consistent with itself.

You speak of complementarianism, but this does you no good at all if your goal is women's ordination. The idea that men and women have equal but complementary roles implies that men have some roles women do not have, and vice versa. But your goal necessarily demands the view that women and men do not have complementary roles, but always exactly the same roles. You need to find a way not toward complementarianism but toward sameness, toward gender obliteration.

David, and others,

The push for equality of the genders in public life is not about eradication of gender. It is placing equal value on each person, regardless of their gender.

It is not gender that is at issue, it is ideas in human minds that restrict a person to one way of life or the other based on perceived differences atributed to their gender. It is the same as race. Race is not the issue, it is the ideas that humans have cultured that people of a given race are limited to a particular way of life based on perceived differences.

Carlitas, what DL said. :)

You gotta hear Desmond Tutu's poignant story about the first time he flew on a plane with two black pilots...and then ran into "the mother and father of turbulence." Absolutely priceless.

He emphasizes that everyone in Apartheid, black and white, was gravely socially injured, and that we must accept that it takes a great deal of time to heal, and not give up.

http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2010/tutu/

"The push for equality of the genders in public life is not about eradication of gender. It is placing equal value on each person, regardless of their gender."

Carlitas, it is not about equal value, it is about sameness of roles (as you make clear in your second paragraph). It is very possible to put equal value on each person without assuming that they should fill identical or interchangeable roles. For example, the Bible puts equal value on men and women (Gal. 3:28), while never hinting that they have the same roles, and explicitly stating the contrary.

The ironic bit is that the modern gender sameness advocates do not value female attributes or traditionally female roles. In their unspoken but painfully obvious opinion, only what men do has any real value, hence any attempt to restrict traditionally male roles to men is the grossest sort of injustice: it prevents women from having any worth, which they will only attain when they do what men do.

I reject your argument that the very real differences between men and women should have no effect whatsoever on the organization of society, anymore than a racist's perception of racial differences should lead to discrimination in employment (although I'm aware that many people have accepted that false analogy).

I don't want to find out how far this experiment in gender eradication can proceed before civilization breaks down and we return to barbarism, but I'm going to be forced to find out. We all are.

David, I think you make a valid point in that how society views "woman's work" tends to put more value on "men's work" and for some this may be a motivating factor to remove "gender roles" from the equation.
Clearly from a biological/anatomical standpoint different genders have different roles. ( a good thing in my experience :>) ) The problem as I see it is in areas that are not "physiologically" defined such as in the workplace or in the spreading of the Gospel etc. where do you draw the boundaries?? You clearly think the "patriarchal" system is God ordained and has no boundaries whereas many in modern society, me included, think that in modern times the boundaries need to reflect a better understanding of those roles/boundaries and that "woman's ordination" (for instance) doesn't make gender roles go away but rather is an area of "shared responsibility" by God's design and the blocking of WO has more to do with "power and control" by the "brethern" than "perpetuating God's plan"!!
Unfortunately the "strongest defenders" of the "patriarchal hierarchy" seem to have a "conflict of interest" you might say, and should consider "recusing" themselves from taking such a "cast in concrete" stand on this and similar issues.
All the best
Fred

It is kind of like Congress continuing to vote themselves "pay increases" rather than putting it to a "vote of the people", where I suspect the people would not vote a "tax increase" so our legislators could get a "much deserved" pay increase. Yet our congressmen/women continue to vote for increases inspite of their job primarily being to "represent the will of the people" which seems to have been conveniently "forgotten".
Fred

George
The problem with "mandates" whether for contraceptives or viagra is the governments role in "mandating" our behaviour and undermining our freedom of choice.
I agree with you that it is a "control issue" both in government and in the church.
Fred

Does anyone else see the paradox of the party wanting less government also wants government intrusion in the most intimate areas of our lives? "No more taxes" "keep the government off our backs" but "make the most personal decisions for them!"

The spiritualizing of patriarchy in some comments here is supported by certain conservative groups. Loss of patriarchy is the diagnosis for the ills of church & society, & increasing/restoring patriarchy is the cure.

Aren't Christians supposed to believe that Christ is our one Cure? And He calls us to mutual submission.

Another problem, as if that one weren't enough. I don't see any recognition that the general consensus among cultural anthropologists is that there never has been a matriarchal society. So patriarchy is what we have & have had all through human history (even the so-called barbarians). Why so many problems when there's so much of it practiced? Plainly, there's nothing divine about patriarchy or its earthly alternatives.

Scripture says that this whole world is twisted by evil & needs to be re-created. All the power one-up, one-down relationships are addressed this way,
"So the last will be first, and the first will be last." Mt 20:16 (cf Mt 19:30; Lk 13:30; Mk 10:31)

Patriarchy is alive and well: Just listen to some of the presidential nominees who publicly affirm: women should not work outside the home; women should not be in combat; men know much better than you females about your health and personal questions; public schools and colleges are indoctrinating young people by the "liberal" professors."

These remarks reflect the Religious Right audiences. Evidently, it is also well represented in Adventism.

So, for example, we cannot now stone women to death for sexual impropriety.

Tell it to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and if you're ever in the 'moud for a truly harrowing movie [sorry], check out The Stoning of Soraya M.

. . . anything wrong with that, or does patriarchy continue to give Christian men that right?

I don't understand the logic of your argument. Does the fact that God prescribed the death penalty for adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22 [and stoning for some sexual misconduct--Deut. 22:21, 23-24]), but such penalties are no longer enforced, mean that adultery is now acceptable?

Does the fact that God prescribed the death penalty for Sabbath-breaking (Num. 15:32-36), but that penalty is no longer enforced, mean that keeping the Sabbath is no longer important?

I would draw the contrary conclusion: The fact that there were such severe penalties for sexual misconduct corrosive of the patriarchal system underscores the importance of that system, even though the harsh punishments have since been abandoned.

You say you reject patriarchy "on Biblical grounds," but where in the Bible does this post-patriarchal "Grand Ideal" come into focus? Indeed, where is it even hinted at? We know what the Old Testament says, we know what Jesus said about divorce (Mat. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18), and we know what Paul said about all this. Is it perhaps John's kind words in Revelation about the prostitute riding the beast that create this new post-patriarchal ideal? Is maybe Ellen White's post-canonical writings that create the new post-patriarchal Grand Ideal?

Or are you falling back on Brenton's and Hopeful's argument that the Holy Spirit will now guide us into all truth, albeit contrary to what the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible writers to write?

Here's what I "don't understand the logic of," David:

To move away from patriarchy is to move away backwards from civilization towards a Hobbesian state of nature.

Sounds like a primitive fear of women and nature to me.

I think the war of all against all is the outcome of being in an unnatural social state, and that Leviathan is just the result of that unfortunate trajectory away from nature and the Feminine.

evolutionary creationists

Brenton, please don't let's coin any new terms at this late date in the origins controversy, especially oxymoronic terms. Theistic evolutionist will do just fine.

David, is it possible that men are capable of therapeutic socialization, aka love, also but that a primitive fear of women and nature (their own softer side) keeps them isolated in the ivory tower of power?

David,

I didn't coin the term evolutionary creationists. But, it is my preferred term for where I currently find myself on the question of creation. Theistic evolution places the emphasis on evolution with God as simply a modifier. Evolutionary creation more accurately reflects my primary belief in a creator God with change over time as only a modifier describing the increasingly apparent process through which God created the universe.

As Denis Lamoureux writes, "To be sure, the category of evolutionary creation seems like a contradiction in terms. This would indeed be the case if the words “evolution” and “creation” were restricted to their popular meanings. That is, if the former is fused to an atheistic worldview, and if the latter refers exclusively to creation in six literal days about six thousand years ago. But evolutionary creationists reject the black-and-white categorization of origins and move beyond the so-called “evolution vs. creation debate.” Regrettably, this common approach traps individuals into a dichotomy, leaving them with only two options, and limiting their ability to make informed choices. The either/or view of origins has led many both inside and outside of the church to assume that there is a conflict or warfare between scientific discoveries and Christian faith. Evolutionary creation rejects this simplistic understanding of the relationship between science and religion, and underlines that the origins dichotomy is a false dichotomy."

"The most important word in the term evolutionary creation is the noun “creation.” These Christian evolutionists are first and foremost thoroughly committed and unapologetic creationists. They believe that the world is a creation that is absolutely dependent for every instant of its existence on the will and grace of the Creator. The qualifying word in this category is the adjective “evolutionary,” indicating simply the method through which the Lord made the cosmos and living organisms. This view of origins is often referred to as “theistic evolution.” However, such a word arrangement places the process of evolution as the primary term, and makes the Creator secondary as merely a qualifying adjective. Such an inversion in priority is unacceptable to me and other evolutionary creationists."

David,

It is not pointlessly multiplying terms if evolutionary creationism is a more accurate, succinct, and preferred description for the perspective of those who believe in God as creator first and also accept the evidence for the universe evolving over time.

Denis didn't admit that evolutionary creationist is the same thing as a theistic evolutionist. The two paragraphs I quoted are devoted to differentiating between the two. Just because those who want to polarize the dialogue on creation and evolution into a simplistic, false dichotomy attempt to conflate the terms doesn't mean there isn't a need to recognize the difference that Denis is describing. Along the continuum of atheistic, naturalistic evolution to young earth creation, I see evolutionary creation closer to young earth creation than theistic evolution is.

Why the push to emphasize differences and separation when there are points of genuine agreement on which we could focus?

To answer your question, the most honest answer is simply I don't know. How does God act in the world? This is a question which minds more brilliant than mine have struggled from Aquinas to Polkinghorne.

But, if you want my opinion, I think in the beginning God is the primary cause which created and fine tuned the universe, establishing the secondary laws and processes that have unfolded to bring us together. I believe that the One in Whom we live and move and have our being sustains and energizes the entire material universe from the flaming stars to the fingers I am typing with. I also believe that although acts of divine intervention (i.e. miracles) are not necessary for the processes God created and sustains to continue, God chooses to be relationally incarnated in creation calling but never forcing all creation forward toward a "Grand Ideal" of genuine love and universal interdependence.

Creation is continually happening on many levels of reality. I'm amused how Adventists subscribe generally to a Divine Big Bang week to start it all off and talk and act like its occasional fiddling with things, miracles, from time to time since setting it all in motion.

But there wasn't any special creation in six literal days a few thousand years ago, right?

David,

As Laplace famously observed when confronted by Napoleon with why he didn't include Newton's intermittently intervening God in his description of celestial mechanics, "I [have] no need of that hypothesis."

Huh? Of course, God doesn't need the sun, so I'm not really sure what you're arguing against with that one. However, the earth in relation to the sun is how we measure days, so how can we say days, not measured by that, were exactly of the same nature? This assumes that God's light, whatever it was, operated identically in relation to the earth as the sun does; again this is possible but I just don't see how the text deals with it. Also what do we mean by saying the day had twenty four hours? Hours are just fractions of a day so that statment seems about as meaninful as saying a 10 has 10 "1"s in it. You still have the problem of making an absolute statement about a relative measurement, without that which gives definition to the measurement. I may be making a fool out of myself on this one, though, I'm out of my depth when it comes to physics, so maybe someone who had a better grasp of physics and the nature of time could make sense out of all that. Granted I'd probably still not get it.

David,

I agree with you that Genesis is a polemic against idolatry (and polytheism). I think this is one very helpful way to understand the purpose of Genesis in its original context.

On the other hand, John Mark's questions highlight just a few of the difficulties in attempting to force the ancient perspective and cosmology of Genesis to speak to our scientific context and answer questions the original author and readers could not have conceived even if God had tried to reveal all truth to them at once.

I also have a problem with the idea that God took one of the seven original days and gave it a special blessing only because He stopped His work of creation. What makes more sense, in a deeper way, is the idea that the days of creation were progressive steps, culminating with man. The creation of man seems to be the object of the whole process. Everything in creation was to provide a habitation for man - on even a larger scale than fruit trees and pretty gardens, as astrophysics tells us that everything in the universe is connected to everything else by one type of force or another; and that earth wouldn't even exist in it present location if just a small change in the composition of the UNIVERSE were different.

In any case, the seventh day is not like the other six since it has no "evening and morning" designation. It appears to be on-going. God blessed the universe He had placed in motion and blessed its future,making every day holy in a sense - a God-given time to be handled with reverence. If later, man was to celebrate the life God has provided by honoring it on one day out of seven - fine; but nowhere in Genesis does God direct man to dress up and sit in a pew for x number of hours. Worship can't be commanded, or it loses its point as well. Worship rises out of the heart of the worshiper and is not an acquiescence to a command. And this is what drives Adventist apologetics of Genesis.

the earth in relation to the sun is how we measure days,

No, John Mark, it isn't. The earth in relation to the sun is how we measure years, because it takes a year for the earth to make a complete orbit of the sun. A day is the length of time it takes the earth to make a complete revolution on its own axis. A day would still be a day even if there were no sun, or even if there were some other light source, which Genesis 1:3 tells us there was.

It seems to me like the argument for commemorating seven days of creation by the Sabbath is founded on the Great I Am, thundering it out on Mt. Sinai and then carving it into stone;

The rationale for keeping the Sabbath was, indeed, given by the Great I Am, thundering it out on Mt. Sinai and then carving it into stone: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Now, what are we to think of God if he thundered out and carved in stone a lie? The only way God is not a liar is if He's telling the truth about that which He thundered from Mt. Sinai and etched in stone with His own finger, if He's telling the truth about creation being in six days.

John Mark, I'm going to make an observation about you that will probably anger you, but I ask that you reflect on it prayerfully. What comes through loud and clear in your comments is intellectual pride, and this is the lever by which Satan hopes to pry you loose from Christ's fold. There's nothing wrong with being intelligent and well educated, but there is a species of pseudo-intellectualism that causes people to doubt the plain teachings of Scripture. Those who nurture a skeptical attitude toward Scripture, an attitude of intellectual pride that manifests in caviling at plain biblical teachings, cannot be of use to Christ. And I know you genuinely do want to serve Him. I mention it out of concern and love for you, and only because I have high hopes for you and your future ministry.

Intellectual pride is when someone smarter than me demonstrates it and I'm secretly peeved off about it!

P.S. As Gerald Schroeder says in one of his books, when two disciplines talk to each other, like theology and science try to do, the theologian is comparing his seminary educated concepts with his seventh grade science experience; and the scientist is comparing his PhD in whatever, to his Sunday school experience at the age of ten; unless you're Polkinghorn or Collins, of course.

David,

We have wandered afield of the point of Chuck's initial post and I am partially to blame. Thank you for bringing the topic back around to humility and allowing God to wash away our self deceptions. Intellectual pride or arrogance as with spiritual pride or arrogance demonstrates a lack of proper humility -- an unwillingness to admit, "I may be wrong."

I have strong opinions on the question of creation which are informed by the Bible, my Adventist Christian tradition, interaction with the broad community of believers, and scientific evidence. However, I admit unequivocally that I may be wrong. The cliche is true. The more I learn, the more I am aware of the increasingly vast amount that I don't know. I am always interested in hearing what others have to say on the topic, including you.

I am afraid that in quoting Laplace, I may have sounded arrogant. I am sorry. You asked whether I thought there was a creation in six literal days a few thousand years ago. There have been ample observations made that indicate life has been on this earth for much longer than a few thousand years. While the author of Genesis 1 may have had literal days in mind, I don't find the argument for God intending to overcome the ancient context in which the author wrote in order to address specific questions of the scientific age compelling. Also, my belief that God is the primary cause for creation and chooses to remain involved removes for me the necessity to find specific one-time interventions in order to confirm that God acts in the world.

I quoted Laplace because I see correlations between religion and cosmology and astronomy in his day and religion and biology and geology in ours. While I could be wrong, I think creation in six literal days a few thousand years ago is unlikely and I don't need to prop up my belief in God as creator, the importance of Sabbath, or the reality of the present and yet to be fulfilled kin-dom of God with that particular theory.

Asking questions is not a sign of intellectual pride. Shutting down questions on the other hand demonstrates a lack of humility.

Are you able to admit that you may be wrong?

>>> If later, man was to celebrate the life God has provided by honoring it on one day out of seven - fine; but nowhere in Genesis does God direct man to dress up and sit in a pew for x number of hours

Exactly Sirje.

God appears to want us to think, to be nice to each other, and to use our time and other resources wisely.

Organized religion wants us to give money and time to a central organization, to conform to that organization's culture (it makes it harder for us to leave the organization), and to attract others into the same trap.

It is stunning, absolutely stunning, how little of a denomination's money is spent on anything other than making the denomination a nice employer and a nice social club.

/Bevin

David Read,

I appreciate your kind concern for my soul. Intellectual pride is something I have a tendency toward (though, it's pride in the ability to think not what I know, I generally feel quite inadequate in what I know compared to what there is to know), I appreciate your prayers on that and it is certainly something I will watch out for. However, I do not agree with you on what you seem to think the solution is to this pride. What humbles me is a walk in the quiet evening, seeing the stars overhead and feeling the cool breeze; all attended to by the sweet presence of the Great I AM. This makes all our logical and rhetorical games in which we try to find some verbal expression for the relationship between God and man fade into insigificance. I then ponder the vastness of a universe which would take thousands of times the history of the earth, at a speed that circles circles the earth several times in one second, to traverse. I ponder how an all loving, all knowing, all powerful, God who is self existant and the very reason for existence; stood before time and called this forth. That is humbling.

Your solution seems to be that I shut down my mind from asking questions that happen to challenge tradition Adventist understandings. I have several problems with that approach.

1. I just couldn't do it. I could no more convince myself of something by not questioning than I could choke myself. The self awareness that I was decieving myself makes it impossible to force myself to believe anything.

2. Even if I could somehow turn my mind off from asking questions, this would only turn intelectual pride into spiritual pride.

3. I am not questioning Scripture. I am questioning a proposed dogma of the church that is thought to be implicit in Scripture; but nonetheless uses words and terminology not found in it. I am questioning whether this goes beyond the testimony of Scripture. I have questioned Scripture in my life; but I experienced Scripture as the voice of God. I did not handle my doubts by simply turning them off, but struggled with them and faced them, until God revealed Himself to me. Therefore, if I was struggling with doubts on Scripture, I would still believe they needed to be faced rather than stuffed. However, I fully believe in Scripture as the Word of God; so while you're right in saying I can have a tendency to struggle with intelectual pride, you're off base in saying I cavile at the Word of God.

Bevin and Sirje, I echo your statement:
'
There is nothing in the entire story of creation telling man to observe the seventh day. In fact, there is no record of man's recognition of that day as a special time until Sinai!
And yet, in all the apologetics for the seventh day it is repeated ad nauseum that man was given the seventh day as sabbath and observed it since creation!

God rested, period. Man began tilling the garden and learning about his environment on the first day following their creation. We do not have the slightest inkling of the time that elapsed beween man's first day and the serpent entering the garden; nor do we have any details of how sin was to have effected the whole creation other than a few very short sentences. Yet there have been whole forests felled to fill the books written on the effects of sin on man and especially animals. Why can't we be honest and admit that we have absolutely no information on animal life before sin! All we know is the world we now live in but much fiction has been conjured about the complete changes in animals "before" and "after" sin. Jurassic Park is a movie: many Christians have done the same but as biblical facts.

This would seem to be why the Sabbath has become so central, and that one that has received the most attacks. It is the one commandment above all others that speaks of God's grace of righteousness by faith, and redemption as well as his creation.

John,
If that were so, don't you think, when Jesus was asked which was the most important commandment, he would have quoted the fourth?

I believe Genesis was written after Exodus and Deuteronomy. Perhaps the seventh day became such a focal point after Mt. Sinai. Whatever the case, the commandments were given Jews who had been slaves. They certainly didn't know how to live in freedom, in a nation they built themselves. There were specific issues addressed in the 10 Commandments, which, tied to important principles, but were not all-encompassing through time. Several other issue have since cropped up which would need our attention if we're to be godly people.

It's pretty clear that Jesus' answer tells us that love for our fellow man is the guiding principle in a Christian society. This is the basis of the 10 commandments and our behavior in every other situation we are to encounter.

Paul went further, and actually said that some keep one day and others keep all of them alike - let each be convinced in his own mind. Here would have been an obvious time for Paul to have zeroed in on the all-importance of the Sabbath, if you are right. that's not to say we should go out of our way to NOT worship on Sabbath; but we sure shouldn't make an icon out of it, and transgress the first and second commandments.

John,
A good debater should be able to argue a point from both sides. I realize this is more than a debate, but nevertheless, that's how it's set up. So I do understand and even sympathize with your viewpoint; but I have a deep concern about it, for my point of view - and it's not about negating the Sabbath. I have spent most of my life quite happy with the Sabbath. Annoyed at times how superficially it's being promoted by the church. But that's another story.

Yes, God thundering His will from the mountain top is impressive, as is the writing on the stone. (I just noticed the writing was ON the stone, not carved IN the stone.) Here we find one of those instances where the Bible does contradicts itself. In Deut.10 God does, indeed rewrite the commandments on the stone; however, in Exodus 34, God tells Moses to rewrite the commandments on the new tablets (Ex.34:28). Perhaps that doesn't make any difference, but who knows...

If the Bible, taken as a whole, was all about "keeping commandments" (the 10 in particular) you might have a point; but it's not. For the Christian, the Bible is about Christ, as this new program in Oregon asserts. Christ brought salvation to sinful man. Evidently the commandments didn't do the job. Christ came to FULFILL those commandments. Fulfill means to "to satisfy" and "to bring to consummation," by definition. Christ brought a new deal - the first one didn't work (Heb. 9 ?I think). Now why would Christ come to give us a new chance at salvation and bring those commandments along - the commandments that the Jews never were able to keep; and which was one reason he came anyway.

In essence, mankind was given its freedom to "do it our way", and even given a list of commandments that help them accomplish their struggle for salvation; but they blew it anyway (as God knew they would).

The Sabbath isn't the focal point of the Bible or the plan of salvation - God become man in Christ, is. To borrow from C.S. Lewis, either Christ means everything, or he means nothing. There isn't Salvation = the free gift of grace plus the commandments. I think you know that.

Let me just say, it's mighty difficult, after being immersed (pardon the pun) in Adventism for most of one's life, to admit that some of this stuff just doesn't make sense. C.S. Lewis said something else - I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. Adventists have, in practice, substituted the Christ-centered view by the Sabbath. The Sabbath governs every theological stand throughout the Bible, even where it's never mentioned. It's the one point of doctrine that has to be preserved no matter what. That kind of loyalty and emphasis belongs to Christ; not to one of 10 commandments no one has ever been able to keep sufficiently - except Christ, and he was admonished for breaking it according human understanding. And that is the point in the NT. No matter how many rules, written or unwritten we make about "how to keep the Sabbath", we can't do it - not the Sabbath or the other 9. That does not mean we can go out and break every one of them, but it does mean that "keeping" them mean a whole lot more than we ever imagined (Sermon on the Mount) - and who is up for that?

Sirje,

Of course Christ as the savior is the center and it is only His grace that saves us. However, I believe (as do other Evangelical Christians, at least those from the more Wesleyan tradition) that this grace is transformative and leads to righteousness living. Christ's death really seems to me to indicate the unalterable nature of the law. If the law could be destroyed it would not have needed to have been satisified by the death of Christ. Of course, I'm sure you don't believe the law was destroyed nor do most Christians hold to anti-nomianism. Generally Christians agree that grace would lead a Christian to observing nine out of ten commandment, but the Sabbath is an exception. We're not saved by the law, but our salvation should lead us keeping it, which is a point I don't see anybody disagreeing on until we get to the fourth commandment. You are absolutely right, though, that the spirit means so much more than the letter of the law; I'm not comfortable saying it means less though.

Bevin,

I was adressing Elaine. I did not mean to say that not taking the Bible literally is not believing in the Bible. From what I have seen Elaine write, she is not a believer, in any special revelation, but believes the Bible to be as human as any other book. I didn't mean this as an insult, it's just what I understood her position to be; she can correct me if I'm wrong. I was simply puzzled why she found significance in the fact that the Sabbath does not show up in Gen. Whatever ones views on Revelation-Inspiration are I'm not familiar with people who think Gen. is different in inspiration quality from Ex.

Generally Christians agree that grace would lead a Christian to observing nine out of ten commandment, but the Sabbath is an exception.

John,
That is a tired cliche that's supposed to deliver the punch line for SDA, in particular; but from my perspective it's not true. " The Ten Commandments" were a specific adaptation of the "Great Commandment" that Jesus focused on when asked which of the ten was most important. They do not cover every human situation. By some accounts in the news, not all parents have the right to be honored; telling the truth is not always the loving thing to do; and what should the Christian response be to the slaughter and rape of children, men, and women being carried out in Syria tonight? Some would call it situational ethics, but the truth is, the commandment to "love our neighbor" can't always be carried out if the ten commandments were to be literally upheld.

And so we have "Christians", who are so concerned about their own standing in "the judgment" that they are willing to ignore the commandment to love our fellow man, in order to comply with the letter of a law meant for another circumstance, and another people. That's not to say there is no overlapping in the "letter" of the law and the "spirit" of the law. The spirit of the law is love , which is a respect and concern for the well being of our fellowman to the degree to which we are concerned about our own. That is much more difficult to "keep" as a commandment than to give lip service to the commandments, while we are really just trying to qualify for salvation.

There can never be a "revival" at the top or bottom if we can't grasp the far-reaching implications of the Gospel - which is about UNCONDITIONAL pardon - and which is the only motivation to even begin to keep the spirit of any commandment. the way it's set up now, a candidate for "redemption" gives assent to a string of SDA teachings; goes on a five-day plan to stop smoking; throws out the tea and coffee from the cupboard; and dresses up every Saturday and goes to church, to name only a few life-changing alterations.

And there you have it - a life transformed. Really?

John,
Perhaps this will be my last comment on the subject. As I said, there is certainly and overlapping in that when we aim to keep the spirit of Christ's view of the law, we also end up "keeping" the letter. That's not the problem in the SDA perspective.

You can't have two fulcrums when doing the heavy lifting. Either the life revolves around a selfless concern for others, or it's about trying to keep the commandments to gain salvation. The former requires a self--forgetfulness; the latter,by definition, is all about the self. How we view the message of the Bible, determines the life path. There is an overlap here, as well. I'm sure, in the process of trying to keep up with the commandments, we end up doing some good; but the the two motivation (fulcrums) are miles apart.

The revival this article is talking about; and being promoted is about a change in behavior - and that's not enough.

Maggie,
It seems to me the whole scope of the Bible and especially the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to highlight the differnces between self-centeredness and other-centeredness, specifically God-centeredness which God declairs to be serving others based on His will.
If there is another way, please illuminate us.

"Why should one have a selfless concern for others?"

It does not require belief in god at all. Check the internet for the many different ways that cultures have spelled out the Golden Rule. This is found in many countries that never heard of the Christian God or Christ. It is a basic law of humans and nature: if we wish to be respected and treated well, we must first respect our fellow man in the same way.

While it may be of help to some who credit God for those feelings; it is quite apparent that the god many profess has not blessed them with the belief and practice of the Golden Rule, which both the Old and New Testaments repeated. Belief in God and having membership in a religious body does not give one love and respect for his neighbor simply by claiming a religion. Sometimes, religion causes "good" people to do bad things (most of us can give examples). Whether my neighbor is a religious believer or not makes no difference with me. But it does make a difference if he practices the Golden Rule.

Sirje, yes, I am very perverse on this keyboard, best be careful about being drawn in.... lol

I believe the exact text in the Old and New Testaments reads "love thy neighbor as thyself."

Either we've got some very tough choices to make, or we're going to have to go to work on the subject-object philosophical split we have here in the West.

I think we should go to work on the philosophy, but I think your "pre-destined instincts" have a very interesting ring...please elaborate!

And, yes I agree, Elaine, this can most certainly be discussed without religious scaffolding.

And also, I think we need to spend a lot of time clarifying what "revival" means in 2012, before we decide who *should* be doing it first.

We've got a lot of baggage from the Burnt Over District, it seems to me.

Ooohhh yeah there's an analogy there! Keep going, Elaine!!! :)

"Either the life revolves around a selfless concern for others, or it's about trying to keep the commandments to gain salvation."

Excellent points. If you're trying to refute someone who's spouting the heresy that we should try to keep the commandments to gain salvation, then I'm fully on your side; I certainly never suggested any such idea. Love means we willingly keep the commandments not to gain salvation but because we are saved.

God's love for us and His righteousness compells Him to give us good advice.
Revival comes by understanding God's righteousness and love for us!!

Fred,
It's not about "good advice". It's about the nature of God and the laws by which the universe operates, both physical and spiritual. Gravity isn't advice given to objects we throw to the sky. It's physical law - a property of material existence. There are spiritual laws that govern spiritual properties - something with which we are far less familiar. That's not about a list of behaviors, since behavior is a result of complex interaction between nature and nurture. The nature part must have retained some of that "likeness" created within us, I think.

Maybe we'll find out that the opposite of what we know as self-centered beings is actually true - you know, like "cast your bread upon the waters..." concept. We only keep what we give away. These are spiritual concepts we don't understand, but may be what govern the universe, in the end. Maybe love is more of a "law" than we think; and without it, eternity may not be possible.

Fred, regarding "doing right because it is right," I'm here in Austin attending a seminar on helping children with trauma backgrounds who are acting out antisocially.

These are children who do not have caregivers who can help them learn to self-regulate emotionally, and so they do not develop properly.

Typically these are children who get yelled at a lot to "do the right thing," but they cannot.

I think that moralism further damages many people who could be helped by a more relational approach.

What do you think?

Sirje, I think we're homing in on the same thing, but I think we need to qualify why giving all one's goods to the poor and one's body to be burned doesn't suffice, why only charity suffices.

What is charity?

Maggie
By doing the "right thing" I am specifically refering to "right relationships" founded on the ultimate understanding of the "law of love"!!
My daughter is on the child psych rotation in med school as we speak and the stories she relates to me these past few days are truly heartbreaking....
Again I say Christ showed us the "way" so that we all might understand and follow!!
Fred

Fred, I agree, but let's delve into some of these heartbreaking stories, shall we?

The woman giving the seminar adopted two children from Russian orphanages. I heard stories at the seminar from other adoption parents. These children force one to plumb the depths of one's own woundedness in order to help them, because they will push all one's buttons to the point of desperation and exhaustion, world without end.

Hot Sauce Mom:

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJJhYRiwV-7c&v=JJ...

I haven't had the heart to look at that thread...probably won't....

But here's a question: can we sit with the woundedness of people like Hot Sauce Mom, or do we reserve empathy only for her son/victim?

Gravity isn't advice given to objects we throw to the sky.

Now that's a keeper, Sirje!

I plan to flog that, with or without permission. :)

The question asked in this thread: "Should Revival Begin at the Top" is a non-sequitor.
When has revival ever begun at the top? When has a great movement in history been
designed and instituted from the "top" of any organization?

Grassroots movements are a groundswell from the common people who are willing to fight for change. See Arab Spring; Civil Rights; Women's Equality; the Christian Reformation, the list is endless. To suggest that they COULD begin at the top defies history.

Oops - I see that the Hot Sauce Mom link I gave from my mobile doesn't work on laptop. This should work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJhYRiwV-7c

Warning, this is very painful to watch. My guess is that it's going to be painful to talk about also, if anyone cares to wade into the swamp.

I do think that it is on precisely these bedrock human issues that revival pivots, however.

Your mileage may vary.

Maggie - Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:09
Sirje, I think we're homing in on the same thing, but I think we need to qualify why giving all one's goods to the poor and one's body to be burned doesn't suffice, why only charity suffices.
What is charity?

I'm not referring to giving away all of our goods, nor throwing ourselves on the pyre. Those types of actions are only bravado that masks our own insufficiency.

For me the litmus test is my relationship to my children/grandchildren. This is the only picture of love I can begin to understand (to recognize). I don't ever have to make deliberate choices; or weigh for benefits when it comes to my relationship with them. It's not even an option - you know that. If I could come even a bit closer to that kind of care towards the stranger ..... The payback is nothing that can be predicted or calculated. It just is.

At the end of the day, we can't even remember what it was we did - or gave - or what the interest rate would be.

"For me the litmus test is my relationship to my children/grandchildren. This is the only picture of love I can begin to understand (to recognize). I don't ever have to make deliberate choices; or weigh for benefits when it comes to my relationship with them. It's not even an option - you know that."

That's why I posted Hot Sauce Mom, Sirje. Are you saying she doesn't love Kristov? (Could this be an adopted Russian child?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJhYRiwV-7c

No matter if Kristov is a biological or an adopted child, do you think this woman adopted him or bore him just to abuse him?

Did you see the maps on the shower curtain? Does someone with no parenting ideals choose a child's shower curtain with maps on it?

We'll talk about whether I know "that's not even an option" later, if you hang around to get sucked in. :)

What kind of education did this woman receive, and at what age, do you think, Sirje?

Thanks.

S Styrra, I believe you. Where did that revival go? Could it have been sustained? How?

Are we reduced to sitting around and hoping it comes back?

I like the "practical and deep" part.

Especially after watching Hot Sauce Mom.

Does everyone agree with S Styrra's premises that revival is emotionally and spiritually intense and cannot be sustained because it is unnatural to do so, and can only result in burnout, if pushed?

Also, the premise that revival and reformation are intrinsically authoritarian in nature?

What kind of education did this woman receive, and at what age, do you think, Sirje?

I'm sure she's repeating her own experience. Either that, or she thinks she adopted a dog and read too much B.F.Skiinner at Berkley.

Revival will be based on how seriously the church, especially the clergy, reacts to next quarter's SS lesson quarterly's theme.

Revive is what you need when exhausted and or near dead!

I think R&R should be looking back to the relationship shared in the Garden of Eden where God personally related to His created beings one on one/face to face. We should be working to revive that today in our relationships with all those we come into contact with and also how we represent the God of "healing" for the world.
Fred

Maggie - Wed, 03/07/2012 - 10:04
Sirje, you're cooking!

Actually I am - the best crunchy bran muffins in the world!

George,

Page 9

http://www.absg.adventist.org/2012/1Q/SE/PDFs/EAQ112_13.pdf

OR

http://www.absg.adventist.org/Scope.htm

I just discovers that the church has an official "Revival and Reformation Committee."
Revival. by. committee. Hot-sauce mom on the agenda?

Revival and reformation" and "committee" are oxymoronic.

Planning for a revival and reformation is trying to play God.

If you want to grow fruit, plant the trees, water them, fertilize them, care for them, and the fruit will come - but it still depends on the season, the nature of the tree, etc. There is no guarantee of anything.

Revival and reformation are a fruit. You can't force it. Can't make it happen.

I have been part of planning and creating numerous worship experiences and retreats. I have seen individuals and groups who have had ongoing reviving and reforming of their lives at the time and as a result. But we only ever do our best to create an environment and experience that is open and nurturing. We never know when that extra something takes place ad don't try to force it. The spirit blows as it will and we are always pleasantly surprised when something dramatic happens. Many times deep quiet less visible magic takes place in people's lives.

To think that we can make revival and reformation take place and that it will bring Jesus back is arrogant and pompous and out of touch with reality. Blasphemous too!

If your church closed down today, would anyone in the surrounding community know? Would anyone care?

Oh, and my parents were white supremacists. Unacceptably Bad. Can't be on the Walking Wounded Compassion List, just like my friend David Koresh, I guess....

No? Yes? Maybe?

That' s so refreshing...and downright revolutionary, S Styrra!

So you envision a church that could equally embrace racists, Branch Davidians, Hot Sauce Mom, and even authoritarian people who resist women's ordination?

That's tall cotton....

(I was going to add 'mouthy ex-Adventists,' but that's pushing it, I realize....)

LOL...that's funny George. But that's why I brought up Hot Sauce Mom to begin with. We don't know how to help her son and we sure don't know how to help her.

If they joined the church, they'd surely end up on the vast list of Adventist Exiles sooner or later.