The Spectrum Blog

Happy Wittenberg door day

By Alexander Carpenter

I first found the Wittenburg Door in the James White Library. Always a good time, especially on October 31.

Further QOD reflections

By Alexander Carpenter

Blogger and pastor Bill Cork writes two posts after returning from the Questions on Doctrine conference.

Post one:

I’ll have a lengthier post about the content of the weekend (that might not be for a few days). The highlights of the conference were first, that it happened. Two young scholars, Julius Nam and Michael Campbell, succeeded at something that an older generation never attempted: bringing together a wide diversity of protagonists to talk face to face with one another about subjects they have spent years writing about (often very emotionally). The background to this includes Julius Nam’s 2005 Ph.D. dissertation (Reactions to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences and Questions on Doctrine, 1955-1971), and the publishing in 2003 of the annotated edition of QOD (through the efforts of Ron Knott, Director of Andrews University Press, and George Knight, recently retired from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary). It was evident throughout the conference that all the participants benefited from the historical research done by Julius and George, which has given us a common understanding of what happened 50 years ago, and what mistakes were made by people of all sides.

Post two:

Reflecting on this from the perspective of having been away from Adventism for over two decades, having studied at Lutheran and Catholic institutions of higher education, it seems to me that the different parties have more in common than I think they realize or want to admit. All agree Christ was fully human and fully divine, and that his humanity was affected by heredity, and was the weakened, mortal flesh we share. All agree he is substitute and example. All agree as a high priest he is able to sympathize with our weaknesses. They all agree he could have sinned (something Catholic and most Protestant theologians would deny), but never wavered. All agree that while we are born separated from God, his relationship with the Father and the Spirit was never broken. All agree that Seventh-day Adventists are fully Arminian. All agree that Jesus is coming and that there will be a time of trouble and that those who live through it will have a very intense experience that will require them to cling closely to Christ. All agree, I think, that the Holy Spirit will continue to uphold them.

QOD conference bulletin five

By David Larson

Photos by Bronwen Larson

A reflection on the Sabbath meeting

“Dave Larson  and I wept unashamedly as we received communion together ministered from the front by Angel Rodriguez, Colin Standish and George Knight (if the significance of this teamwork eludes you ask either of us),” wrote Jon Paulien, Dean of the School of Religion at Loma Linda University, to his faculty about Sabbath Morning, October 27.  “I have long prayed to experience a day like this.”

Were our tears for the needless pain our church has suffered since the publication of  Questions on Doctrines fifty years ago, or for the visible prospect that it is ending?  Both!

“Look!” Jon had whispered.  I then really saw what previously I had only looked at.  Angel Rodriquez, Director of the General Conference Biblical Research Institute, was standing behind the Bread and Wine of the Lord’s Supper.  Collin Standish, the President of Hartland Institute who is an eloquent spokesperson for the school of Adventist thought that finds QOD objectionable, stood beside him to our right.  George Knight, a retired historian of Adventism and prolific writer who is an equally persuasive advocate of much of QOD, despite the historical shortcomings that he has confirmed, was at his other side, to our left. 

Never had I even imagined such a moment!  “Quickly,” I whispered to Bronwen, my wife.  “Take a picture before it is too late.  People may not believe this.”  The result is a little fuzzy, but maybe that, too, is significant.  The blurriness of tears can make some things more clear.  The Dean of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University asked Bronwen for a copy of her photograph. [see above] History has been made!

Earlier in the morning Michael Campbell welcomed us to worship and then dismissed us for the Ordinance of Humility, one place for men, another for women and yet another for couples.  After washing each other’s feet as Jesus washed the feet of his disciples shortly before he was crucified, we returned to the Seminary Chapel for the Lord’s Supper. 

We all stood as the bread was distributed, sitting only when we had received our portion.  “Take, eat; this is my body.”  Then again we all stood as the unfermented wine was distributed, once more sitting only as we received our cups.  “Drink ye all of it.  This is my blood which is shed for you.” 

Then a congregational hymn:

I’d rather have Jesus than silver or gold;
I’d rather be His than have riches untold;
I’d rather have Jesus than houses or lands,
I’d rather be led by His nail pierced hand.

Than to be a king of a vast domain
Or be held in sin’s dread sway,
I’d rather have Jesus than anything
This world affords today.

The Scripture was John 1: 1 – 3 and 14:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made…..And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten son of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

Following the prayer by Ed Reynolds, Ron Knott and William Fagel thrilled us with a stirring duet:

I hear the Savior say,
“Thy strength indeed is small;
Child of weakness, watch and pray,
Find in Me thine all in all.”
Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe;
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.

“You have been good,” Angel Rodriquez declared with a [relieved?] smile to those of us who had participated in the conference since Wednesday evening.  His Homily was titled “Looking Back:  Profiling the Future.”  It invited us to mentally leave our “scholarly bags” in the foyer and, for a few moments at least, to worship the One about whom there had been so much scholarly discussion.  “Be sure to pick them up again on your way out,” he implored, “because you must continue your work.  But for now let us worship.”

Another congregational hymn:
All to Jesus, I surrender;
All to Him I freely give;
I will ever love and trust Him,
In His presence daily live.
I surrender all, I surrender all,
All to Thee, my blessèd Savior,
I surrender all.

Speaking in both Spanish and English, Johnny Ramirez-Johnson articulated the thoughts and feelings of all in a passionate final prayer and benediction.  Finally Julius Nam thanked the conferees for their participation, invited us to continue tearing down the walls that we have built between us and wished us God’s blessing.

The Spirit of Worship continued over lunch at the Wolverine Room of the Campus Cafeteria, albeit in a less formal and more convivial fashion.  Like those who do not want to leave a good party even though it's time to go, we lingered, chatted, took pictures, more pictures and still more pictures. 

The photograph that means the most to me features Julius Nam [R], Michael Campbell [L] and Jerry Moon.  These three young men brought together -- for half a week -- people from all over the world with very different convictions about QOD, accomplishing something that no one else had been able to do in fifty years.  The good results of this historic meeting are beyond calculation.  God has only begun to make good use of their talents and dedication!    

South Pacific Adventist News

By Alexander Carpenter

You can listen to the Spirit of Things interview on spirituality and health here. 

NOW | God and Global Warming | PBS

By Alexander Carpenter

In August, NOW traveled with an unlikely alliance of Evangelical Christians and leading scientists to witness the breathtaking effects of global warming on Alaska's rapidly changing environment. Though many in the evangelical community feel recognition of global warming is in opposition to their mission, the week-long trip inspired new thinking on the relationship between science and religion, and on our moral responsibility to protect the planet. A breathtaking and surprising journey to find common ground between earth and sky.

Watch the episode here.

This web-exclusive special footage is related to the NOW on PBS program "God and Global Warming" which aired Friday, October 26.

Ex vs. anti SDA?

This post, by an former member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, raises some fruitful questions about religious identity:

I don’t actually view myself as “ex” anything, even though we all are ex-something and headed onward to something else, I hope. But I don’t shun contact with members of the church in which I grew up, and thus I sometimes have to deal with the default identity of ex-Seventh-day Adventist.

Now don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of SDAs who see me as a person apart from that one point of identity. There are even some non-SDAs–who were never SDAs–who define me as an ex-SDA. The connection between the church in which I grew up and my present identity cannot be severed in their view. What they would like me to do is cut all ties as clearly as possible and make myself anti-SDA. It’s the old “if you’re not for us, you’re against us” approach. And of course that approach isn’t bad if the question is good and evil, God or satan, constructive or destructive. But for brothers and sisters in Christ, I reject that approach.

I can illustrate this through two experiences. 

Read the rest at Threads from Henry's Web.

Cult/ure

By Alexander Carpenter

I'm spending my Sunday catching up on the current New Yorker. I just enjoyed this paragraph in an article, "The Mission," on GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. 

The application to emerging acculturated Adventism will be clear, for it gets at the deep identity connection in those who love a Christian community for more than its past disappointments and hope.

Many commentators have suggested that Romney will need to make a speech akin to the one that John F. Kennedy gave in 1960 to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, in which he promised to resign if there was ever a collision between his beliefs as a Catholic and the national interest. Jan Shipps [a leading non-Mormon scholar of Mormonism] is skeptical of the idea that Romney could do something similar. “Mormonism was a cult, just as Christianity was a cult in the beginning,” she told me. “But a cult, when it grows up, becomes a culture, and the people who are a part of it take on an ethnic identity, a peoplehood. Romney is not Mormon the way, say, Ted Kennedy is Catholic. Romney is Mormon the way Ted Kennedy is Irish. That’s the difference. And, when it’s that much a part of who you are, it’s very hard to explain it to other people, because you can’t figure out why they can’t see it. [emphasis supplied]

A peculiar peoplehood?   

Science Sunday: Phantoms in the Brain

By Alexander Carpenter

As regular readers of the Spectrum Blog know, I'm a big fan of the TED Talks (Technology, Entertainment, Design) that happen in Monterey, California each October. I really enjoyed this lecture by Dr. Vilayanur Ramachandran on "phantom limb pain, synesthesia (when people hear color or smell sounds), and the Capgras delusion, when brain-damaged people believe their closest friends and family have been replaced with imposters." While I watched it, I reflected on our recent discussions over homosexuality and climate change, as well as the interesting bulletins and conversation surrounding the QOD conference.

"Missing the metaphorical meaning." I wonder in what ways, how we read scripture, or human sin, or scientific evidence, or this blog post, depends in part on the cellular structures of our mind?

Mediation and peace with Thich Nhat Hanh

By Alexander Carpenter

Thanks to Raymond's post about the Dalai Lama, a discussion about religious leaders has broken out on the blog. Since Thich Nhat Hanh has come up in discussions, I wanted to give commenters an opportunity to see what all the fuss is about.

This video comes from an Asia Society meeting on October 10, 2007 in which he leads a meditation and then discusses the Kingdom of God, Suffering, Consumption, and the Environmental Impact of Meat and Alcohol in addition to the comparisons between Viet Nam, Iraq and Burma. I love what he says about the relation between spiritual leadership in this country and Iraq. (Click on Open Tools to select chapters.)

"World-renowned Vietnamese-born Buddhist teacher, scholar, and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh talks with Vishakha N. Desai, President, Asia Society, about his controversial and distinguished life as a Buddhist and a voice for peace from the days of the Vietnam War to the ongoing conflicts of the 21st century. Hanh is author of the national bestseller Peace Is Every Step and his new book is The Art of Power."

QOD conference bulletin four

By Richard Rice

Friday, October 26, 2007

Today was the final full day of the QOD Conference, emphasis on “full.” It began with a stirring appeal from John McVay, president of Walla Walla University, based on Paul’s exhortation in Ephesians to Christians to put away all animosity and treat each other with consideration and love. The various presentations and discussions that followed were variously characterized by scholarly impassivity and spiritual fervor, giving the overall atmosphere a rather strange mix of campmeeting, testimony meeting, and academic seminar.

Roy Adams and I had the first two papers on the theology of QOD, and we both addressed the question of Christ’s humanity. Roy wrote his dissertation on M L Andreasen, so he had a lot to offer about the historical and theological backstory of QOD. But we agreed, I think, that in his human nature Christ was not subject to sin either experientially or inherently. Adams detailed the various faux pas of those who prepared QOD—the same problems noted by a number of presenters--and concluded with a critique of “final generation” theology, the view of Andreasen, Douglass and others that the last generation of God’s people on earth will attain an unprecedented level of spiritual excellence, and will thereby demonstrate conclusively that Satan’s charges against God’s character are false. “To bend theology to fit our eschatological goals and objectives,” Adams asserted, “is neither sound nor prudent.”

The other morning papers offered impassioned pleas for opposing views of perfectionism. Colin Standish, Russell’s twin and close collaborator, took emphatic exception to the two problematic elements in QOD, the affirmation of Christ’s sinless humanity, and the notion that the atonement was complete on the cross, rather than continuing with Christ’s ministry as high priest. He too railed against the authors of QOD, describing their work as “a planned attempt to reshape the beliefs of our church.” For Standish, the concept of original sin is particularly objectionable, since it describes sin as a condition rather than an act of transgression.

Woodrow Whidden matched Standish’s rhetorical flair as he talked through his paper on the “enduring theological legacy” of QOD. A historian of SDAm, Whidden finds a great deal of Wesleyan theology in the background of EGW's doctrine of salvation, and he faults “last generation” theology for a failure to appreciate the difference between sanctification and glorification. Sinlessness comes only with the latter, he argues, and not before. For Whidden, “effective forensic justification” and “penal substitutionary atonement” are the key concepts in a valid doctrine of salvation, and last generation theology is a huge mistake.

LeRoy Moore argued that it is possible to pull together competing strands from both groups by affirming the paradoxical nature of truth. In his view, Christ had “a post-fall inheritance” but a “sinless spiritual nature," resisting sin throughout his life by relying on the Holy Spirit. I’m not sure just how these pieces fit together, but I like Moore’s irenic motives and his confidence that we can all get along.

Dave Larson began his remarks with a touching remembrance of his father, the late Ralph Larson, who is well known for his extensive discussion of the issues of the conference, especially his treatment of Christ’s humanity. For his part, David believes the denominational preoccupation with the person of Christ and the question of whether the atonement was or was not completed on the cross are not worth the theological energy SDAs have spent on them. On the one hand, the whole idea of human nature is problematic, as Buddhist views of the ephemeral self indicate. On the other, there are suggestive elements in SDA thought that deserve much more attention, such as Sabbath time, God’s ongoing work of salvation throughout human history, and the affirmation of human freedom, and our concern for “the state of the living.” To those mired in a concern for the precise nature of Christ’s humanity and the precise locus of the atonement, Larson had a strong piece of advice: “Get a life!”

At the close of the day, the deans of the three sponsoring institutions, Andrews, Loma Linda and Oakwood, offered some concluding observations on the conference and its themes, along the lines of where we have been and where we might go from here.

In retrospect, the conference gave me an overload of things to think about. I learned a great deal more about the production of QOD than I ever knew; I heard from people who have been energized by its controversial themes for years, and I still have a hard time understanding why it has attracted so much attention. It is a persistent challenge to me as a theologian to relate issues of such specific denominational dimensions to some of the larger issues in Christian thought. There are other elements in Adventism, and there are certainly other elements in Christianity, that deserve more consideration.

At the same time, I recognize that doctrinal diversity includes not just conceptual differences, but emotional differences, too—for want of a better word. What is a minor matter to one SDA may be an issue of crucial importance to another. Learning to live together requires us to accept different ideas and different personalities, too, and sometimes the latter pose the greater challenge. However, in this supposedly postmodern age, in which beliefs allegedly no longer matter, it was encouraging to me as a theologian to find so many people intensely interested in doctrinal issues. It gives pause to consider the fact that virtually every theological question has been, for someone sometime, a matter of life and death.

One final note. The organizers of the conference deserve enormous credit for pulling it off. They did all they could to plan an interesting program (in the face of widespread suspicion) and to make things run smoothly, from setting an appropriate tone in the first meeting, to providing various ways for us to interact with each other, from group prayer to common meals, and for so efficiently covering all the details that no one thinks about until something goes wrong, like getting us meal tickets and parking permits. Kudos to all of them, Michael Campbell, Jerry Moon, Julius Nam, and their associates. 

Note enough QOD for you. . .check out the QOD wikipedia page.

Learning to love the Psalter

by Johnny A. Ramírez

This post is the first of what may become a series of journals from divinity and seminary students. At the end of the post there is a note requesting feedback on how interesting readers find this concept.

Called by Luther the little bible, the Psalms have sustained Christian life since its inception even forming a rich part of Christs own reflection up to and including His dying words.  Before Bibles were in broad circulation the Psalms would have been one of the best known segments of Scripture familiar to Christians as they formed a central part of early and medieval Christian liturgy. 

By the time John Wesley came onto the scene this sort of ritualized recitation of the Psalms had become routine to the point where (although he never left Anglicanism) his offspring churches seem to share his lack of any sort of aesthetic sensitivity.  The Puritans had outright contempt and scorn for 'high church' ritualized worship including the reading of the Psalms.  These outlooks have affected many American churches including our own American-born denomination.

Bonhoeffer, who in the secret seminary of his Confessional church instituted a regular reading of the Psalms, said that after praying the Psalms you could never go back since any other prayer seems woefully inadequate.  He also proposed that the Lords prayer is actually the summary of main themes of the Psalms.

Even if you read the Psalms regularly on your own you lose much as the Psalms were intended to form part of communal worship.  Indeed monastic recitations of the Psalms incite physiological changes in the part of the participant as they move, and breathe, with fellow readers as they go through the text.

My report is that my experience of the past few weeks of attending morning prayer at Kings College chapel has positively impacted my daily outlook in relationship to Scripture. The service has two regular leaders, Brian Brock and John Webster faculty members in practical theology and systematic theology respectively, who alternate in leading the prayers.  The leader reads one verse and we read  together the following verse. Brock has an American evangelical background and Webster is a life long Anglican.  This comes across as a marked difference as although Brock has been attending morning prayer for several years his readings lack the tempo, cadence and memorization of Webster who has, after years of this, obviously memorized quite a bit of these texts. 

I can't help but feel that such familiarity with Scripture should be present within all of us especially those who would pretend to make Christian ministry our life's work.  I've struggled to keep up with what feels to me to be a fast reading and also to pause at appropriate times and for the proper duration. I also had to be told how to find that mornings prayer in the book of common prayer (it's numbered by the day of the month). 

My deepest impression has been the experience of immersing myself in the Psalms and beginning my day with regular readings from Scripture. This is something that I had not experienced in the same way with private extemporaneous prayers following devotional readings on my own. I'm not suggesting that we take up a prayer book or structure our worship like "high church" denominations.  I do however think that a daily worship practice would be a positive addition to the life of any Christian. 

This is a practice which with time will become habit and in turn contribute to forming a character rooted in Christ and reflection on the word.  I have fast come to look forward to, and depend on, morning prayer to bring me closer to the word and the Word, Christ.

I hope that some readers can share how weekly morning worships look at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary on the campus of Andrews University, the seminaries at Southern and La Sierra and Adventist seminaries beyond North America.

I personally would love to read reports from Adventist seminary and divinity school students on the Spectrum blog.  Any volunteers please email our Campus News editor alexander [at] spectrummagazine [dot] org.  Thanks!

QOD conference bulletin three

By Richard Rice, reflecting on Thursday

If the organizers of the QOD Conference wanted a variety of viewpoints, they certainly got it today, with nine different presentations, two panel discussions, and second evening keynote address, this time from Herbert Douglass.

In the first session after the morning worship by Nik Satelmajer, Julius Nam neatly divided the various reactions to QOD into four groups—pro- and anti-Adventist Evangelicals, and pro- and anti-QOD Adventists. Among the nine observations he made following this division, was the unlikely fact that the first and fourth groups agreed that QOD represented a change in SDA theology, and the second and fourth agreed that it didn’t. Nam also noted the “tactics” of the QOD authors in excluding M L Andreasen from the preparation of the material and “finessing” the EGW material to support a position that significantly shifted the traditional view of Christ’s human nature. Describing himself as “a heart-broken member” of the SDA church, Russell Standish left no doubt about his views of QOD. It represented “compromise,” “alterations” in basic Adventist beliefs, “the destruction of this body of truth,” “this intrusion of rank apostasy,” “rank error,” as well as a misguided attempt to please “those who despised our faith” on the part of those who “suffered from a strange denominational inferiority complex.”

Another Australian, Arthur Patrick took a strikingly different approach. As he sees it, the QOD controversy as it emerged in Australia reflected in part the disillusionment that followed the end of WW2, when people who thought the end of the world was upon them found out it wasn’t. In reaction, some saw in the QOD controversy a sign of prophesied apostasy. Others saw it as a call to reconsider unexamined certainties and rethink SDA identity. Patrick issued a thoughtful appeal to SDAs to open all the QOD material to thoughtful research. Ciro Sepulveda presented the interesting thesis that the QOD discussion reflected to a significant degree demographic and economic transitions. As church members become more sophisticated and affluent, they wanted a “more enlightened theology,” to match the growth of their educational institutions and their movement into respectable society. QOD provides yet another example of the way religious movements change from sect to denomination.

Alberto Timm provided a detailed account of the QOD in Latin America, where a Portuguese translation is just about to appear. Various parts of the book were published in the form of articles. For the most part the continent was spared the controversy that engulfed the book elsewhere. The membership in Latin America is generally respectful of church leadership, and even those who opposed QOD had not even read it. He also noted, to the amusement of the audience, some critics of QOD presented their views to Brazilian SDAs in Spanish, not realizing that Portuguese was their national language.

The afternoon session, “QOD and the Evangelicals,” presented contrasting views of the theological changes represented in QOD. Paul McGraw detailed the vigorous objections of many Evangelicals to the view of Martin and Barnhouse that SDAs, for all their distinctive beliefs, should be considered fellow Christians. For vocal critics like Louis Talbot, E B Jones, and Harold Lindsell, the distinctives of SDAs posed an insuperable obstacle to any such judgment. For all the supposed changes in other areas, these unique beliefs exclude them from the Evangelical fold. Larry Christoffel gave a straightforward affirmation of Evangelical Adventism, with its emphasis on the central themes of Reformation theology—the Trinity, the sinless nature of Christ, the complete substitutionary atonement of the cross, and justification by faith alone, to mention just a few. These common themes call for a closer alliance between Adventists and other members of the larger Evangelical community.

Two of the non-SDA participants were notable for the differences in their views of the transition that QOD represents in SDA theology. Kenneth Samples, an Evangelical Calvinist who worked for a time with Walter Martin, welcomes the theological changes that QOD embodies, noting that EGW helped the Church toward full-fledged Trinitarianism and an orthodox understanding of the nature of Christ. While noting the differences between traditional, evangelical and liberal SDAs, Samples indicated that Walter Martin regarded the revisionary perspective on SDAm that he encouraged as one of his most important accomplishments. If Samples sees the developments in QOD as a move in the right direction, Donald Dayton, a Wesleyan scholar, takes a different approach. He finds the familiar categories such as conservative, liberal, fundamentalism, and evangelicalism, unhelpful when one takes a close look at the origins and development of religious movements, including SDAm. For him the move away from our roots represents a loss of the distinctive insights that we have to offer the world, and the real driving force behind the SDA ethos (my expression) is eschatology. His paper concludes with this ominous caveat: “I fear that Adventism may sell its heritage for a mess of pottage.”

Herbert Douglass ended the day with a long paper based on the image of clashing tectonic plates, symbols of Calvinism and Arminianism. No summary will do justice to the care with which his presentation was constructed or convey the personal passion with which is was delivered. But he is clearly dismayed at the maneuverings of those who produced QOD in excluding Andreasen from the discussion and manipulating EGW quotations to support unprecedented doctrinal positions, a straightforward example of “fraud.” The greatest tragedy of the whole episode, his view seems to be, was the missed opportunity on the part of the Church to present to Barnhouse and Martin the great controversy perspective that is unique to SDAs and that affects the full range of SDA doctrines, particularly the view of Christ’s humanity and the importance of sanctification.

I’ll have to wrap this up, since I have an early presentation of my own tomorrow morning, but I would like to see more reflection on the nature of theological change at this conference. Religious movements always change over time in lots of ways, beliefs included. But what do these changes represent? Gains or losses? Growth or decay? Refinement or apostasy? When it comes to QOD, opinions obviously vary, widely. But addressing theological change in general might help us to understand just what has been going on for the past fifty years.

Vessels of Divine Love and Compassion: Adventism & the Dalai Lama

By Raymond Roccograndi, a student at Southern Adventist University & a Spectrum collegiate correspondent

"Let us cultivate love and compassion, both of which give true meaning to life. This is the religion I preach, more so than Buddhism itself. It is simple. Its temple is the heart. Its teaching is love and compassion. Its moral values are loving and respecting others, whoever they may be. Whether one is a layperson or a monastic, we have no other option if we wish to survive in this world" – His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama.

On Monday, October 22, 2007 along with ten-thousand plus other people twenty students from Southern Adventist University (SAU) attended the “public talk” of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. These twenty students were members of SAU Amnesty International and College Democrats of Southern. I am their leader. It was my idea to attend the Emory University hosted event. I thought that Southern’s students might gain some insight from this humble Buddhist monk that has advocated so vehemently the causes of world peace and nonviolent resistance to the oppression of Communist China on the people of Tibet.

After all, the Dalai Lama is a Nobel Peace Laureate, recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal, and a Distinguished Presidential Professor at Emory University. I naïvely thought that no one could possibly be against a message of tolerance, understanding, compassion, and peace. I knew from history that Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa, and Jesus Christ of Nazareth all had their “protesters,” but this was the twenty-first century, an age that claims to understand the harvest of hate. Harvests chillingly exemplified in the horrors of the Holocaust, tragedy of the Armenian Genocide, terrors of Rwanda, tragic aftermath of the War in Iraq, and the current Genocide in Darfur.

It had been my belief that this generation was going to hold themselves to the exclamation of the previous generation of “never again.” Never again will genocide go unchallenged - as can be seen in the support around the globe for the immediate deployment of U.N. and African Union peace-keepers into Darfur, Sudan and northern Chad due to the efforts of student-led movements and organizations; never again will war be a solution to our diplomatic problems - as can be seen in the unprecedented world-wide protests to the war in Iraq; never again will our society be complacent in the affairs of the world but become involved and concerned about the interconnectedness of the world around us. This is the zeitgeist of my generation and I believed of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Imagine then how surprised I was when members of my generation as well as professors told me that the Dalai Lama was an agent of the devil. I was completely shocked and almost baffled – I write "almost," because after all this is a church that has yet to accept scientific research in the area of human sexuality or which openly refuses to fully value women by barring them from ordained ministry, but I digress. Still I had hoped that in the matter of world peace and nonviolence resistance that the Adventist Church might find a fellow-traveler in the Dalai Lama. That our church, having advocated for healthy living practices of wholeness, having open conscientious objection to war, having had prominent Adventists involved in the American antislavery movement, would suggest that the ethos of Adventism was more in tune with my generation than other denominations. Instead I found that there was a majority at Southern who viewed the Dalai Lama as an agent of evil.

It has been my experience that when such convoluted statements as “he is an agent of the devil” or “one driven by evil forces” are the product of ignorance or intolerance. When pressed on their knowledge of Buddhism most of those who had stated the Dalai Lama’s allegiances to Satan were, indeed, ignorant of what Buddhism was and what it is not. This is not atypical of mainstream Adventists.

There is this fear in the Adventist Church that some of my friends' expressed. They said that it is best typified as a strong caution and willful ignorance of other faith traditions other than our own. This worries me greatly as we are a growing church. The notion that at an institution of “higher learning” one would be dissuaded from attending a lecture on peace by someone no affiliated with the Adventist Church is astounding. It is my sincere belief that this incident is indicative of a greater insecurity that these Adventists have with respect to other faiths.

I cannot help but imagine: would that our church be those “peculiar people” written about in the Spirit of Prophecy; would that our membership was so filled with the love of God for man that we had such a Godly-driven desire for the nourishment of mankind through interpersonal relationships.    

As for me, I can read the words of the Dalai Lama, "let us cultivate love and compassion,” - what I believe is the very essence of God - and connect instantly on a spiritual level. Those who attended the public talk expressed that, “It is such an awesome feeling to be able to put aside religious differences - labels, whether they be Christian, Buddhist - I like to put it this way when discussing my faith, "I'm a believer in a Higher Power - greater than my existence, yet interconnected with my being - and a follower of 'The Way,' manifested in many faith traditions.”

I fully understand that this comes off as "New Age" to some and I'm, quite frankly, openly and unabashedly alright with that. I believe that our understanding of God must grow and constantly evolve. Living life with a stagnant view of God only produces, at best, bitter Christians or, at worst, broken atheists. God inspired the biblical author to write, "My ways are not your ways." It is interesting to recall that Christ continually challenged the contemporary view of God and the "religious community" in his day.

With respect to the Adventist Church and the greater Christian Community, I have observed that, too often, it is unfortunately the so-called “religious” that typifies a faith tradition; this is an unfortunate axiom because it limits the expression of a particular faith to its most conservative and fundamentalist elements - our religious communities are much more diverse than that, Adventism emphatically included. I asked members of our Southern Democrats and Amnesty group attending the Dalai Lama’s lecture to ask themselves, “what does it mean to be an Adventist?” It is important to have these questions in the back of our mind and to have an answer should a question arise within ourselves or be provoked by others. 

Yet the answer to that quest must be different for everyone. For me, it means "cultivating love and compassion." I let my temple be my heart - welcoming the Spirit of the Lord to dwell within me and God to work through me, i.e. having and upholding "moral values [of] loving and respecting others, whoever they may be." This includes the "outcasts" of society - homosexuals, women, nonbelievers, believers of other faiths, AIDS victims, the poor, those who have a different "non-orthodox theology" than ours, etc. When Jesus ministered to the people, he widened the inclusion of his ministry and outreach.

Christ included the outcasts of society - his moral values were centered on loving and respecting others. His life dramatically portrayed the Divine Love and Compassion that God has for humanity. May we as a church community learn to respect and love the "outcasts of Adventism." May we cherish the spiritual wisdom of other faith traditions and may we strive to be vessels that express the Divine Love and Compassion that our Lord has for all of humanity.

QOD conference bulletin two

By Richard Rice

Thursday, October 25, 2007

I got to the Seminary Chapel last evening right on time for the first meeting of the QOD conference and discovered I was late. Every pew on the main floor was filled, and I was lucky to find a seat in the small balcony. The meeting began on a decidedly religious tone, with congregational singing “I Would Be Like Jesus,” prayer and a beautiful soprano solo for special music. Jerry Moon introduced the conference and laid down some ground rules for the proceedings. There is to be no cheering (it only escalates), all questions will be submitted in writing (no speeches from the floor, obviously), and we should not expect to agree on everything. Instead, the planners want an honest exchange of views that remains cordial throughout. After brief welcoming comments from representatives of two of the sponsoring institutions for the conference, Denis Fortin, Dean of Andrews University Seminary, and Jon Paulien, Dean of Loma Linda University’s School of Religion—Mervyn Warren of Oakwood was delayed in leaving Huntsville—George Knight gave the first keynote address.

George Knight is well know to SDAs. Now retired from teaching at the Seminary after thirty years, he is the author of thirty books, with three more in production, and he has guided many doctoral dissertations dealing with SDA history. His presentation, entitled “Questions on Doctrine: symbol of Adventist Theological Tension,” gave a clear and helpful account of the background of the book. Among the major points he made was the fact that the book paradoxically held firm on many points of distinctive SDA beliefs, such as the heavenly sanctuary and the mark of the beast, and finessed the issue of the atonement—arguing that it included references to both Christ’s sacrificial death and his ministry in the heavenly sanctuary (not just the latter). It broke new ground in asserting the sinless nature of Christ’s humanity. Knight showed that this was a clear departure from the view that prevailed among Adventists through the years, in spite of later assertions to the contrary by church leaders. He also detailed the bitter conflict between M L Andreasen (pictured) and the church administrators responsible for QOD. It led to his forced retirement and the eventual lifting of his credentials. There was, however, a touching account of his deathbed reconciliation with the G C President and another church leader.

Knight’s presentation ended with a moving account of his own experience. “My life has been dominated,” he said, “by the events surrounding the QOD controversy.” He entered the church through the ministry of Ralph Larson, worked hard to achieve the endtime perfection which Andreasen called for, left the church for six for years, disillusioned with religion generally, and finally returned with a new vision of what Christ meant to him. He moved away from Andreasen’s theology, convinced that biblical perfection is not sinlessness, but mature Christian love.

Well, the sun is finally up—that means it’s after eight a.m. in western Michigan—and I’m looking at a good ten hours of meetings today. More later. 

On homosexuality: a Bible study

By Alexander Carpenter

As is clear to anyone who's cruised through the 130-plus comments, discussion of the proper Christian homosexual position has been pinned somewhere between missionary zeal for openness and dogged opposition.

While discussion was kicked off by a film, thus far the comments have danced around the actual scriptural support without really digging into the text.

I'm ready to tackle the text and only the text. Time for some good ol' Sola Scriptura and Holy Spirit-blessed reasoning. And I've got a serious Bible study to kick it off.

Let me introduce you to Justin Cannon. He attends the Graduate Theological Union with me and he arrived with a bit of notoriety due to his man bites dog story. Justin takes the Bible very seriously and he has a boyfriend. He runs a site for theologically conservative gay Christians called Inclusive Orthodoxy where he writes of GLBTs:

The Church needs to embrace and support this group of people, not despite scripture and tradition, but in light of scripture and tradition. The doors of the church need to be opened and human prejudices set aside, so that we can truly live according to the law that Christ taught us.

If you're ready for a serious 15-page Bible study on the actual six texts and the issue of procreative sex, here you go: The Bible, Christianity, and Homosexuality.

There is also a rule on the comments for the post. They can only be on the textual issues, so let's have some Sola Scriptura in practice and bring your thoughtful support or critique of the Biblical evidence.

QOD conference bulletin one

By Richard Rice

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

“To Rick from Grandpa Klose March 25, ’58.” That’s the inscription on the flyleaf of my copy of Questions on Doctrine. My grandfather, an Adventist missionary and minister for his entire career, always gave me books as gifts, usually ones written by Arthur Maxwell. But if a study of church doctrines seems an odd selection for an eighth grader, I must admit that I was a rather serious child and my thirteenth year proved to be the most deeply religious of my entire life. So I was glad for another book to add to my growing library.

The much anticipated conference on QOD begins tonight at Andrews University. It commemorates the publication fifty years ago of the book that was supposed to build bridges between SDAs and the larger Christian world, and would up generating bitter divisions within the church. Not everyone is looking forward to the conference. In his address to SDA world leaders at annual council a short time ago, GC President Jan Paulsen expressed his own reservations about it. He hopes that the conference will not refuel the controversies that the book ignited over the atonement, the nature of Christ, and a number of other issues.

Organized by Michael Campbell and Julius Nam, young scholars specializing in Adventist history, and sponsored by several Adventist Universities, the QOD conference features keynote addresses by George Knight, a retired Seminary professor who has authored a stack of  books on SDA history, Herbert Douglass, onetime president of Weimar College and associate editor of the "Adventist Review," and Angel Rodriquez, currently the director of the church’s Biblical Research Institute. 

The seven sessions scheduled for Thursday and Friday will be devoted to presentations and panels on the following topics—the history and impact of QOD, the relation between Adventists and Evangelicals, the theology of QOD, and “QOD and the Church.” Along with a number of SDA scholars, the slate of participants includes scholars from outside the church, Edith Blumhofer of Wheaton College and Donald Dayton, who taught most recently at Azusa Pacific University. It also includes some people who have been highly critical of church administration and theology, such as Colin Standish.

I don’t recall reading much of QOD until I found the list of Ellen White quotations in the appendices helpful in my college theology courses. And I was only vaguely aware at the time of the clouds of controversy that Questions on Doctrine stirred up. So, idea that we should have a conference to commemorate its publication came as a bit of a surprise to me. I don’t know what the mood of the conference will be—celebration, reflection, or controversy—and I’m not sure what it will accomplish. The conveners look forward to “an engaging, reflective, scholarly dialogue.” It won’t be long till we find out if they are right.

Here is a link to the QOD conference website.

Adventists on national radio in Australia

by Nathan Brown

This past weekend featured a one-hour special on Seventh-day Adventists, focusing on various public health activities, on Australia's Radio National—similar to NPR.

The four-part feature included interviews with Pastor John Gate, director of the church's Bible correspondence school in Australia, Dr Gerald Winslow of Loma Linda University, Jonathan Duffy, director of Adventist health for the South Pacific Division, and Dr Peter Landless from the General Conference health department.

The program was a direct result of the second Australian Conference on Spirituality and Health that Dr Rachael Kohn, host of the ABC Radio National program Spirit of Things attended both as a delegate and a guest speaker. The conference was held in August and was organised by Adventist Health in the South Australian Conference.

The broadcast is worth checking out. Listen online or dowload from:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2007/2059943.htm

Happy Great Disappointment Day!

By Alexander Carpenter

During her sermon at the Adventist Forum conference La Sierra University professor of religion Kendra Haloviak pointed out that October 22, 1844 was actually a day of great hope. And therefore, the 23rd was the day of great disappointment.

While some churches are built on great traditions of biblical literalism (Southern Baptists) or great spirit (Assemblies of God), Seventh-day Adventism comes from great disappointment. When one gets GOD so publicly incorrect it takes a liberal hope in human understanding and divine understandability to keep on proclaiming truth. And we have, mixing the literal and the spirit and the allegorical in present ways. Due in part to our great White hope we went from wrong to 15-million strong.   

Like the hymn says, "we have this hope burning in our hearts." And I think that this hope is embedded in our Seventh-day and Advent name -- hope in humans and God meeting in time as well as when there are no more disappointing days. 

Spectrum poll: Would you vote for a Mormon?

By Alexander Carpenter

Opinion Polls & Market Research

The director on For the Bible Tells Me So

By Alexander Carpenter

On the intersection of religion and homosexuality, For the Bible Tells Me So (2007) director Daniel Karslake, discusses his documentary.

Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality? A look at the film For The Bible Tells Me So

By Daneen Akers, Spectrum Reviews Editor

Trailer for the new documentary For The Bible Tells Me So

My first encounter with For The Bible Tells Me So, a new documentary about homosexuality and the Bible, was at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year. My husband and I had taken a group of students to the festival, and we waited in line for three hours hoping to get into a midnight screening. We got in, but just barely, sitting in the very front row of the theater, watching the film at an extreme angle. Even in the “worst” seats in the house, the film moved us all.

It was a bit of an odd paradigm. Here we were in the middle of a secular film festival, the crown jewel of an industry not exactly known for its overly kind portrayal of “religious folk,” and we were watching one of the most spiritual films any of us had ever seen. This film took religion and scripture seriously. This film didn’t want to simply toss out Christianity for its intolerance and storied past of scripturally-sanctioned abuse towards gays. This film wasn’t an angry screed. Instead it was a heartfelt and passionate plea for a new attitude, one in which gays didn’t have to deny themselves or their religion. This film proposed reconciliation, to bridge the chasm between what people often think their beloved Bible says—that gays are an “abomination”, and their children who don’t seem like abominations.

Early that morning after our students had kept us up for hours discussing the film (it was crystal clear to me how to keep our youth in the church after this wee-hours-of-the-morning conversation—address real issues honestly), I wrote a blog entry about my experience with this film for the Progressive Adventism site. The ensuing outpour of responses (from a wide variety of perspectives) made it clear to me that it’s not just college students who want to discuss this issue.  (To read that post with all 198 comments, click here)

After a second screening here in San Francisco (and a thorough read of Rev. Jack Rogers’ Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church), I’m even more convinced that this is the issue of our time. The Bible has been used repeatedly throughout history to rationalize all sorts of oppression and injustice (slavery and the subjugation of women most recently), and now it’s being used again to excuse discrimination and intolerance against gays.

This issue is looming large in our society and our church. An Adventist LGBT advocate recently pointed out that a newly voted document “Safeguarding Mission in Changing Social Environments,” moves the church even further in its stance against gays and is now extending its condemnation towards those who advocate for homosexual rights. “The Church does not accept the idea of same-sex marriages nor does it condone homosexual practices or advocacy.”

To start (or for some of you continue) this important conversation, I’ve asked three people to review the film. David R. Larson is a Seventh-day Adventist minister and professor of Christian ethics at Loma Linda University; Obed Vasquez is a professor of sociology at Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill, CA and has been a member of SDA Kinship International since 1978; and Jacqueline Hegarty is a partnered Seventh-day Adventist lesbian mom living in the San Francisco Bay Area who is also a member of SDA Kinship.

To find a screening near you (and please do), visit  http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/screening.htm.

On homosexuality: Kinship reviews For the Bible Tells Me So

By Obed Vazquez and Jacqueline Hegarty

On Sunday, October 14, 2007, a group of Kinship members from the San Francisco Bay area joined many of our straight friends at the Lumiere Theater to attend the San Francisco screening of the new 99-minute film documentary, For the Bible Tells Me So, produced and directed by first-time filmmaker, Daniel Karslake.

The film follows the journeys of five American families, each of whom discover that they have a gay or lesbian child. Two of the featured families were Gephardt family, with Chrissy Gephardt, lesbian daughter; and Episcopalian Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop, elected Bishop of New Hampshire in 2004. The other families were ordinary, Christian, “typical” American families who faced reconciling the issue of homosexuality with what they had always believed the Bible said on the subject.

Each of the five families dealt with the issue differently; yet, they had a commonality, their literalist understanding of what the Bible says about homosexuality. The families are all confronted by a big challenge—the apparent attack on their belief in the Bible as the written word of God that gives them ultimate truth. But more than a challenge, it feels like an assault that threatens the very core of their relationship with their God. For most of the families, their love for their children and knowing that their children are good, sincere, and God-fearing, propels them to seek a way of understanding this “condition.” 

The stories of these struggles stir the emotions, reach out to the heart, and resonate with the familiar. Each story is poignant, from the story of Mary Lou Wallner, a mother who has to live each day with the suicide of her daughter because of her own rejection, to the Poteats who are portrayed as loving and accepting their lesbian daughter but still resistant towards accepting her “lifestyle.”

This is the strength of the documentary, the joining of home and the altar. Home is where the young homosexual feels the pressures of the ultimate sacrifice of coming out. Will they be rejected by their parents as they acknowledge this “truth” about themselves, and will God side with their parents?  What is their God really like? The message from both home and church seems clear: we are an abomination. But are we? 

The strength of homosexuality is its ability to bring the committed, sincere, and honest Christian to face to face with the possibility that what he or she has been taught is perhaps wrong. That the Bible they cherish and rely on may not mean quite what they have always taken for granted. That the God they have come to know may not be the “right” or only version of God. And this is the other strength of the film—it validates the sincerity of these Christian families without attacking them. This film takes the Bible seriously and wants to reconcile gays and lesbians with the scripture they love. The film interviews Biblical scholars and ministers who help explain the context of the Bible’s few verses about homosexuality. Much of this scholarship is not new to us “out” LGBTI Christians, but we appreciated how compassionately it is presented throughout the film.

One of the scholars interviewed, Dr. Lawrence Keene of the Disciples of Christ, talks about how he responds to Biblical literalists who frequently assert, “This is what the Bible says” by countering,“…No, that’s what the Bible reads...”  He challenges fundamentalists to consider the context, the language, the culture, and the customs that helps us to understand the meaning of what the Bible is saying. For example, the Bible does not offer much advice for modern marriage because marriage as we know it today (between one man and one woman with both parties considered equal) simply did not exist. Likewise it does not say anything about committed homosexual relationships today—homosexuality as we know it today did not exist when the Bible was being written.

The producer has chosen not to address the parents that decide to send their children to conversion camps or reparative therapy programs. It doesn’t show the emotional and spiritual damage this has caused many gay and lesbians, denying them a path towards developing a relationship with the God of their childhood. In fact, the relationship is impossible because the God they read about condemns them, and there is no negotiation with “abomination.”

One of the film’s highlights that we found especially moving was the story of Bishop Gene Robinson. His story is at first a story we have all heard—he follows cultural tradition, marries, and has children. Then what has been denied within him begins to clash, putting pressures on his relationship with his wife, his ministry, and his values. His decision to come out and to continue in his ministry, however, can not be taken lightly; this is not the easy path. The courage to continue in the ministry is what makes this such an incredible story.

The film tells the highlights of his nomination to become bishop through the testimony of members of the nominating committee who were looking for the best spiritual leader they could find. The fact that he happened to be gay was not taken lightly but recognized as an additional quality that he was bringing to the office. Seeing his consecration at the General Convention with the accompanying pageantry, pomp and circumstance, and thunderous applause was a powerful testimony of the dedication of a gay man, a gay minister, and the faith of a congregation who accepted the impossible: that a gay man can be a spiritual leader.

Another highlight for us came towards the end of the story of the Poteat family. Here we have a couple who are obviously dedicated to their beliefs, but also dedicated to their children. Their prayer for their children is answered, but not how they expected. God has a sense of humor. Their inability to accept the “lifestyle” of their daughter was admittedly frustrating in many ways. They functioned on the “love the sinner, but hate the sin” mentality, a conflicting duality that is painful and an impossible reality.

Which brings us to the good question of what indeed is the “gay lifestyle"?  Mel White addresses this by sharing a moment he had while on Larry King Live. A caller asked what Mel and his partner did in bed. Even though Larry King hung up on the caller for being rude, White answered, “What do we do in bed? We’ve been together for 24 years—we sleep in bed.” Indeed, many of us lead very boring lives of working long hours, taking care of children, cooking, cleaning the house, and doing the laundry. We go to church, sit on boards, lead Sabbath school, and fall exhausted into our beds at the end of the day to sleep: the “gay lifestyle”?

Showing families on their journeys to reconciliation and unconditional love is powerful; it is the heart of society, and none are excluded. In a way, the Poteats can be seen as representative of many Americans (at least, we hope)—they admit to not having settled issues of sex; they admit they might need to read the Bible again; they admit to not being able to accept the “lifestyle”; and yet they still want to love their daughter. They want to see her as a child of God. There is still pain because they can’t offer her complete acceptance yet. “We’re not there yet.” But, there is hope that they will be there soon.

Obed Vazquez is a professor of sociology at Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill, California. He is a partnered Seventh-day Adventist living in the San Francisco Bay Area. He has been a member of SDA Kinship International since 1978 and serves as a regional coordinator for SDA Kinship International.

Jacqueline Hegarty is a partnered Seventh-day Adventist lesbian mom living in the San Francisco Bay Area. She is active in SDA Kinship’s Region 8 (northern California), serving as editor of the region’s electronic newsletter, Region 8 News & Views. She also serves as Public Relations Coordinator for SDA Kinship International (www.sdakinship.org).

The authors would also like to recommend an Adventist-produced video entitled, “Open Heart, Open Hand,” featuring three Adventist families and their experiences with their gay/lesbian children. It shows similar journeys, similar struggles, familiar pain, and it is our families. (More information about the video is available from Carrol Grady’s website, www.someone-to-talk-to.net.)